Documentation:Open Case Studies/FRST522/2022/Indigenous food access in Northern Canada: an enquiry into the history of land and water grabbing and food insecurity

From UBC Wiki

Abstract

This case study focuses on Indigenous food insecurity and relates it to Canada’s history of land and water grabbing. It positions Indigenous food insecurity in Northern Canada within the context of settler colonialism, looking at access and dispossession as tools used by the federal government to force assimilation The case study will provide context on the jurisdiction of Northern Canada and Indigenous Peoples in Northern Canada. It will then examine both historical and ongoing land grabbing and water grabbing in Northern Canada before connecting both to Indigenous food insecurity. The case study will also explore climate change impacts on food insecurity. It will conclude by offering suggestions to address Indigenous food insecurity in Northern Canada. The principle recommendations are to create integrated approaches that decolonize food systems in Northern Canada, recognize and include Inuit in food policies, and overall reparations.

Keywords

Indigenous Peoples, food insecurity, land grabbing, water grabbing, Canada

Introduction

This case study focuses on Indigenous food insecurity and Canada’s history of land and water grabbing. It positions Indigenous food insecurity in Northern Canada within the context of settler colonialism. The case study will provide context on the jurisdiction of Northern Canada and Indigenous Peoples in Northern Canada. Then, it will examine land grabbing and water grabbing in Northern Canada before connecting both to Indigenous food insecurity. It will conclude by offering suggestions to address Indigenous food insecurity in Northern Canada.

Positionality

It is important to state my positionality. I identify as a white settler and a woman; I was raised in places that are called ‘Canada’ and the ‘United States,’ on traditional territories of many different Indigenous groups. This paper draws on sources from western science and Indigenous communities and is based on available research. It is meant to provide a summary of ongoing issues using relevant examples but does not aim to speak on behalf of Indigenous Peoples in Northern Canada.

Background

Northern Canada

The jurisdiction of ‘Northern’ Canada is ambiguous and varies depending on who is defining it. In this case study, Northern Canada is considered to be any land in Canada above the 50th parallel. This jurisdiction includes the entirety of the three territories – Nunavut, Yukon, and Northwest Territories[1]. Inuit Nunangat is the Inuit home land that includes the Inuvialuit Settlement Region (Northwest Territories), Nunavut, Nunavik (Northern Quebec), and Nunatsiavut (Northern Labrador)[2]. Northern regions of British Columbia, Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, and Ontario are also within the jurisdiction of Northern Canada[1].

Indigenous Peoples in Northern Canada

First Nations, Métis, Inuit, and their descendants are the affected stakeholders who inhabit Northern Canada; “the term ‘First Nations’ refers to status and non-status peoples living in Canada. Métis are people of mixed First Nation and European ancestry, while the Inuit are a group of Indigenous people who originally inhabited areas within the Arctic region of Canada” [3][4]. Most of the examples used in this case study refer to Inuit, however the aim is to identify the physical and political barriers (associated with land and water grabbing) that continue to perpetuate Indigenous food insecurity across Northern Canada.

Land grabbing

Settler colonialism and land grabbing

Settler colonialism is a “form of colonialism where colonizers dispossess Indigenous peoples of their land for settlement and resource development. While colonialism and settler colonialism involve domination by an external power, only settler colonialism aims to displace Indigenous peoples with a settler society” [5][6]. Settler colonialism is a structure that continues over time and is perpetuated by different levels of the Canadian government through arrangements and land agreements. Land grabbing, or large scale acquisition of land by government or private stakeholders, sometimes under false pretenses, perpetuates food and water insecurity. Dispossession is a key component of settler colonialism, as it allows settler colonial States to expand through land grabbing. Wilson et al. explains the expansion of settler colonial States uses “mechanisms that include policy and law, ideology, and discourses about identity”[7].

Following dispossession, in order to maintain settler colonialism, the State forces assimilation by restricting access to culturally significant foods or practices for Indigenous Peoples, forced relocation, or, as the next section examines, removing children and threatening to remove resources necessary for survival. The “very nature of settler society and free-market capitalism strives to undermine the vital relationships Indigenous Peoples have with the land in order to steal the land and facilitate Indigenous Peoples’ incorporation in the European-Canadian body politic” [8][9]. Both land and water grabbing were affected by appropriating Indigenous territory, including the appropriation of offshore resources, in Canada.

History of land grabbing in Northern Canada

Through land grabbing, violence against Indigenous Peoples has been actualized in numerous ways in Northern Canada. Settler colonialism in Canada is the original land grab against Indigenous Peoples, this section will explore the residential school system, relocation of Qikiqtani Inuit, and the killing of qimmiit (sled dogs) since they directly connect to ongoing land grabbing around food insecurity.

Relocation of Qikiqtani Inuit

The Qikiqtani Inuit are found in the Arctic Circle, in Nunavut, Canada[10]. They were forced to relocate to the Qikiqtani (referred to as Baniff by the government) region after 1950[10]. The interested stakeholders – government agencies – responsible for Inuit relocation were primarily Indian and Northern Affairs Canada and the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP).

Before 1950, many of the Inuit families lived in small groups (less than thirty people) and were seasonally ‘nomadic.’ Inuit moved between different communities by dog team or boat (depending on the season) in order to hunt wildlife for food, clothing and shelter[10]. After 1950, the Government of Canada created thirteen year-round settlements in the Qikiqtani region, in order to assert the settler (European-Canadian) system of living and education to force assimilation[10]. The decisions of Inuit for moving varied. Inuit have expressed that they moved voluntarily, to avoid being separated from their children or family members, or because they felt coerced by government authorities[10]. Unfortunately, “settlement life [in the Qikiqtani region] imposed a new form of poverty, and the lack of access to the land hindered their ability to obtain the country food that nourished their bodies and souls”[11]. After 1950, the Canadian government told relocated Inuit parents that if they did not send their children to Canadian schools (including residential schools), the government would restrict or revoke family allowances[10].

Physical land dispossession is just one form of land grabbing and settler colonial violence, the Inuit were relocated to lands that were unable to support their traditional food practices year round. Land grabbing is also based on ‘land transfer’ under false pretenses. The Government of Canada strategically added another restriction to Inuit parents in the form of reduced allowances once they arrived in the Qikiqtani relocation region, which further restricted Inuit traditional practices and forced the abandonment of Indigenous learning practices for western learning.

Residential school system

The purpose of the residential school system was to force assimilation to European-Canadian culture of Indigenous children by forcibly separating the children from their homes and placing them in boarding schools where they could not acknowledge their culture or speak their languages[12]. It was a way for the federal government, with Christian churches, to hold power over entire Indigenous communities. The residential school system operated between 1883 and 1996[12].

The land grabbing-related atrocities in the residential school system included the forced relocation of Indigenous communities to reserves; “colonial policies helped wipe out food sources and confined [Indigenous Peoples] to poorly located reserves”[13]. The Canadian federal government is aware of the impact relocation has had on Indigenous foodways, culture, and land access.

The Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC) was created by the federal government to reconcile the atrocities committed against Indigenous Peoples through call to actions[12]. However, many Indigenous Peoples have expressed that the measures being taken by the TRC towards reconciliation are not enough to counteract the atrocities perpetrated by the government and the church against Indigenous communities, especially Indigenous children forced to attend the schools.

Killing of qimmiit (sled dogs)

Some Inuit were relocated to the Qikiqtani settlement region starting in 1950; their cultural practices were limited in physical locality and through forced western schooling of children (in residential schools). Inuit were geographically limited via their primary transportation method – sled dogs. Between 1950 and 1975, the RCMP and other government authorities forced Inuit assimilation by killing qimmiit (sled dogs).

Sled dog teams were an “‘integral part of Inuit culture and hunting traditions''[11]. Settlement life threatened the lives of the qimmiit in numerous ways and the population in the Qikiqtani region dramatically declined between 1957 and 1975[10]. Qimmiit died of disease, were shot by hunters, abandoned by owners who could not hunt or care for them, abandoned when Inuit were (forcibly and without notice) sent away for medical attention (related to infectious diseases), and gradually replaced by snowmobiles[10]. “Hundreds [and perhaps thousands] of qimmiit were shot by RCMP and other authorities … because Qallunaat [people who are not Inuit] were afraid of loose dogs or feared they could spread disease”[11]. The killing of the qimmiit was a targeted act by government authorities to assert control and force assimilation of Inuit, as dogs belonging to the RCMP, Inuit special constables, and Hudson Bay employees were not shot[10].

In response to losing their means of transportation and hunting, Inuit families became dependent on “nutritionally-deficient store-bought food”[11]. Many Inuit also believe the killing of the qimmiit was intentional by the government – as a policy to force the Inuit to remain on the permanent settlements[10]. The Qikiqtani Inuit Association analyzed the RCMP and Inuit Sled Dogs Report (2006), which confirmed the qimmiit killings by the RCMP and other authorities, however they noted that there were no reparations offered in response to the report[10].

Current land grabbing in Northern Canada

The consequences of historical land grabbing committed against Indigenous Peoples in Northern Canada are still affecting Indigenous Peoples. Some land claims, including the Labrador Inuit Land Claim Agreement (2005) and the Nunavik Inuit Land Claim (2007) have given legal rights to Inuit groups[14][15].

However, ongoing injustices continue to be expressed through food insecurity and the location of Indigenous settlements in Northern Canada. Food insecurity will be explored further in the section “Indigenous food insecurity in Northern Canada.” The forced relocation of Indigenous communities to permanent settlements has cascading effects that are still being experienced. Climate change is intensifying the negative impacts of land grabbing and forced relocation – increased permafrost thaw, thinning ice, shorter seasons, adverse weather events, and interactions with wildlife (like polar bears) have been reported by numerous Indigenous communities[3].

Water grabbing

Water security is the “availability of sufficient water of potable quality to support livelihoods, human health, community development, desirable cultural practices, and ecosystem services” [16][17]. Water insecurity results from “threats to water access, has negative implications for health, notably health risks associated with the consumption of contaminated water [used for drinking, hygiene, or preparing food]”[17]. Water insecurity also affects mental health. Water grabbing, or large scale acquisition of water, sometimes under false pretenses, perpetuates water insecurity. Access to reliable, safe drinking water is considered a basic human right and an environmental determinant of health[18]. While water grabbing on Indigenous lands is a complex issue itself, the scope of this case study will only focus on water grabbing and water (in)security as it pertains to food security rather than situating it within the larger narrative of water security in Canada.

Indigenous relationship with water

Indigenous Peoples' relationship with water can be described in many different ways depending on the Indigenous community. Indigenous water governance is based on Indigenous Knowledge (IK). Indigenous water governance understands water as a living entity that has relational responsibilities[5]. Indigenous Peoples in Canada assert the inherent rights to water through water declarations, policies, and Indigenous law[5]. The International Covenant on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights establishes the right to water; it is a binding, international treaty that Canada ratified in 1976[2]. Additionally, First Nations (and other Indigenous groups) have an enforceable, constitutional right to water, as identified in Section 7 and Section 15 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (1982) and Section 36 of Canada’s Constitution Act (1982)[19].

A literature review by Latchmore et al. (2018)[18] found that overarching Indigenous views of water includes water as life, water for life and the relationship between water and gender. Indigenous Knowledge surrounding water is passed on by Elders through traditional knowledge pathways, including Creation Stories; “the pollution, overuse, and lack of a holistic appreciation of water in western society diametrically opposes the relationship between Indigenous people and water, thereby having a significant impact upon Indigenous rights and ways of life”[20]. Indigenous communities understand water to be more than just a commodity. Water governance in Canada has underlying neoliberalism, which increases the vulnerability of small communities to exploitation[16].

Gender plays a large role in Indigenous water practices. Indigenous women are significant in water resource protection and are primary holders of water knowledge in some Indigenous communities[18]. Colonization has tried to create a disconnect between women and water stewardship by implementing patriarchal hierarchies in communities. Gender in Black Tickle, Labrador is a significant determinant of water insecurity, especially for ‘women’-headed households[16]. Water insecurity maintains women’s dis-empowerment, and perpetuates the marginalization of Indigenous people in the settler Canadian state[21]. Water collection is primarily a ‘male’ task in Black Tickle, but community members reported strong emotions (primarily anxiety, fear, and guilt) surrounding water retrieval due to the physical demands, fatigue, and safety concerns of polar bears and adverse weather conditions[16].

Settler colonialism and water grabbing

Indigenous water insecurity in Canada is a product of settler colonialism. It is connected to historical and ongoing dispossession through treaties and legacies of capitalistic resource development; it is a source of “regulatory and jurisdictional injustices''[22].

One-third of First Nations peoples (living on reserves) are affected by high-risk water systems, i.e., they do not have access to clean, safe drinking water[5]. This crisis has been named the ‘First Nation water crisis.’ The Canadian government launched the First Nation Water Management Strategy (FNWMS) (2003), with a $600 million CAD budget, which is currently trying to be repealed by Indigenous communities[5]. Only two-thirds of FNWMS funding had been received by First Nation communities by 2021[5]. The federal government also passed the Safe Drinking Water for First Nations Act (SDWFNA) in order to create enforceable water regulations on reserves. But at the time of article, it is in the process of being repealed by the Assembly of First Nations due to lack of consultation, policy ambiguity, and conflicts with treaty rights[5].

Unlike the Indigenous relationship with water, water under settler colonialism is a commodity. Regulatory and jurisdictional injustices (both political and economic) perpetrated by settler colonialism have created water insecurity[5]. This concept is referred to as ‘modern water’ and describes “frameworks that view water as a solely material substance or commodity.. and ultimately available for unsustainable human use”[7]. Indigenous water governance threatens the legitimacy of settler States since it contradicts State governance.

Land grabbing overlaps with water grabbing. Through treaties and resource development legacies water sources have been contaminated and river flows have changed[5]. However, the issue is larger than that. Settler occupation is a form of contamination, termed ‘contamination through occupation’[23]. Canada’s jurisdictional separation has left Indigenous communities vulnerable to neglect; “drinking water in Canada is under provincial/territorial jurisdiction, while First Nation communities are under federal jurisdiction”[24]. This lack of access translates to lack of consultation and participation of Indigenous communities. Indigenous Peoples often have to use State and non-State strategies to advocate for water sovereignty. Bill S-11 (2010), which was not passed but aimed to create safe drinking water for Indigenous communities, was rejected by the Chief of Ontario because it didn’t consult or collaborate with Indigenous Peoples on the issue[19]. It ultimately contradicted other Indigenous policies and treaties[19]. In Bill S-11, FNWMS, and SDWFNA, water insecurity is framed as a technical problem rather than a political problem, therefore keeping the power around water governance in the hands of the government.

Similarly, Indigenous water insecurity research is situated within western science, focusing on the “material dimension” of water insecurity and therefore cannot accurately examine how water-society relations influence water insecurity[25].

Forms of water grabbing in Northern Canada

Drinking water advisories and ocean grabbing are forms of water grabbing in Northern Canada. Both can be related to dispossession and forced relocation to areas with poor or non-existent water availability, access, and climate change.

Drinking water advisories

Three different types of drinking water advisories exist in Canada: boil water advisories (BWA), do not consume advisories, and do not use advisories[26]. These advisories alert communities of ‘potentially’ unsafe drinking water and are issued by Indigenous communities or by the government[26]. Drinking water advisories are classified as either short-term or long-term; short-term advisories automatically become long-term after being in effect for one year[26]. The frequency and duration of drinking water advisories acts as a community indicator of water infrastructure and drinking water quality[2]. It is difficult to address drinking water access since the government does not provide adequate funding and has yet to put a regulatory framework in place to ensure safe drinking water in Indigenous communities[19].

The Government of Canada has recently prioritized ending BWAs on First Nation reserves by investing in First Nations water infrastructure, but federal policies and investments do not include Inuit communities[27]. Drinking water advisories are only issued below the 60th parallel for public systems on reserves[26]. Therefore, Inuit communities, Indigenous communities off-reserves, and those without public water systems are excluded in the assessment by the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development[19]. This exclusion targets numerous high risk communities since they have no water systems.

Ocean grabbing

Settler colonialism is apparent in ocean water access and fishing access for Indigenous communities in Northern Canada. State sovereignty is exerted over exclusive economic zones (EEZs) in Northern Canada; EEZs popularized the privatization of fishery-access regimes, commodifying access rights[15]. The Canadian government facilitated the privatization and commodification of fishing access rights and ocean grabbing. Ocean grabbing is the “dispossession or appropriation of use, control, or access to ocean space or resources from prior resource users, rights holders, or inhabitants”[28].

With the privatization of fishing access and the principle of resource access, the government inevitably creates regimes of exclusion. Canada’s Fisheries Act is a regime of exclusion that contributes to land and water grabbing of food sources. The Fisheries Act “supported the growth of non-Indigenous fisheries and displaced Indigenous Peoples’ fishing practices through state-controlled fisheries management… [making it] difficult for Indigenous Peoples’ to maintain their connection to both subsistence and commercial fisheries because of persistent conflict through litigation, legal challenges, and continued oversight and oppression”[29].

Inuit in the Nunatsiavut region are disadvantaged to fair access to fishing due to competition with other communities and commercial fishing companies. Adjacency rights have attempted to be implemented to increase access to those living near a resource, as “people living in close proximity to resources ought to have priority in accessing and benefiting from those resources”[30].

Inuit harvesting includes char, salmon, seals, and cod[14]. Commercial fisheries focus on char, scallops, crab, shrimp, and turbot[14]. One of the three offshore shrimp licenses in the Labrador region was issued to the Labrador Inuit Association and has proven to be sustainable for Inuit in the region[31]. In Nunatsiavut, “renewable marine resources have proven continually vulnerable to over-fishing, often causing dire social and economic consequences … by 2017, 34% of stocks fished were being harvested at unsustainable levels—a substantial increase from 10% per year in 1974” [32]. Ocean access needs to be re-framed to include small-scale fisheries, as ocean grabbing can dispossess one marginalized group while benefiting another[15].

History of water grabbing in Northern Canada

Historical water grabbing in Northern Canada is associated with water access. As mentioned previously, the First Nation Water Crisis can be attributed to settler colonialism and the fragmented decentralization of water management. The Canadian Constitution Act gives the government “different scales and kinds of authority over water… while provincial governments are largely responsible for freshwater and delegate drinking water to municipalities, the federal government has a responsibility for drinking water on First Nation reserves”[33]. Indigenous displacement through relocation to permanent settlements facilitates water insecurity.

The Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami realizes the historic “shift from living in seasonal camps to permanent settlements during the last century has changed the way we access and use drinking water”[34]. For the Black Tickle Inuit population, the community was relocated by the Newfoundland government to the Island of Ponds in the 1960s[35]. The island consists of igneous rock and subarctic tundra and has no potable water sources[16]. The population still struggles with potable water and fishing access. The island was a seasonal summer fishing station for Southern Inuit but became a permanent settlement, and “since [the] forced sedentarization, the community has utilized the fishery for employment and economic activity”[36]. The community has encountered issues surrounding ocean grabbing and fishery competition. Additionally, potable water availability is inconsistent. Due to the lack of piped water sources on the island, the community relies on Potable Water Dispensing Units (PWDUs) but delivery of these units is unreliable due to transportation challenges[16]. As a result, community members have attempted to cope with the challenges by limiting water consumption and storing water[16].  

Settler colonialism through ocean grabbing can be connected to historic fishery access. The privatization of the fishing industry displaced Indigenous fishing areas and resulted in historical and ongoing inequities in the fishing sector due to legal conflicts between Indigenous fishers and the State[14]. Over-fishing by fishermen from outside the region led to the collapse of cod fisheries (both commercial and subsistence) off the coast of Northern Labrador in the Atlantic Ocean; this led to the 1992 cod moratorium[14]. Nunatsiavut Inuit “used mixed livelihood strategies to adapt to... changes in fisheries stocks and markets, [but,] it was evident through [data] that these changes all resulted in major implications for Inuit well-being”[37]. The collapse of the cod stock, and prioritization of non-Indigenous fisheries, has also fostered strong feelings of inequity by Indigenous communities.

Ongoing water grabbing in Northern Canada

Water grabbing surrounding drinking water remains to be an ongoing issue. Safe drinking water requires a multi-barrier approach in order to address the water system at the water source, the treatment system, and the distribution system[18]. There are few multi-barrier approaches in place in Indigenous communities[18].

Currently, Indigenous Services Canada is working to lift long-term drinking water advisories below the 60th parallel. As of December 14, 2022, there are thirty-one ongoing long-term drinking water advisories in twenty-seven Indigenous communities below the 60th parallel[26]. For Inuit communities, forty-eight of fifty-one communities have access to running tap water delivered through trucked water and/or piped distribution[2]. The three remaining Inuit communities (Makkovik, Rigolet, and Postville) must get their own water from PWDUs[2]. Inuit are disproportionately affected by drinking water advisories, according to Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami; “between January 2015 and October 1, 2020, the combined total duration of time Inuit communities spent under BWAs was 9,367 days, or 26 years… 298 BWAs were issued in 29 communities throughout Inuit Nunangat. Four BWAs were issued that lasted longer than 12 months, and 15 BWAs were issued that lasted longer than three months”[38]. No policies specifically address Inuit communities.

With climate change, retrieving water from PWDUs is also a source of fear in Inuit communities like Black Tickle due to increased frequency of dangerous wildlife encounters and adverse weather conditions[16]. Climate change has also decreased “the availability of freshwater in Inuit Nunangat as year-after-year temperatures rise, permafrost melts, and precipitation and evaporation patterns change”[39]. Federal government agencies, like Health Canada, are not fully implementing their required duties, like annual inspections; due to lack of personnel and limited funding, many Indigenous communities are also unable to maintain upkeep[18]. The COVID-19 pandemic has affected water security, highlighting noticeable “vulnerability to water insecurity in many Inuit communities and the public health risks associated with poor water infrastructure”[40].

Uneven power relations shape water insecurity and perpetuate resource access inequity. Misinterpretation of oral histories and IK by the government and western science has understandably decreased Indigenous Elders’ willingness to share experiences and knowledge of water[18]. Prior to the 1992 cod moratorium, the Newfoundland provincial government did not recognize Inuit and no land claims existed[14]. In 2005, the Labrador Inuit Land Claim Agreement was signed to add a policy-based level of self-determination in fisheries and increase advocacy of local rights holders through exertion of terraqueous territoriality (“a claim to a right to a geographical area” that combines land-sea distinctions) [14][41]. Territorialization (“a claim to the authority to determine who controls resources and claim to control resources”) was also exerted in the Nunavik Inuit Land Claim Agreement (2007)[41]. Resource access inequity is also perpetuated for shrimp licenses by the ‘last in first out’ principle where “in the case of a resource decline, access is withdrawn in reverse order from the date of initial access”[42]. This principle was supposed to improve access for later entrants who are more likely to be dispossessed (like Inuit of Nunatsiavut directly adjacent to significant fishing areas), but continues to perpetuate unfair licensing allocations[15].

For fisheries, there is concern about warming ocean temperatures due to climate change and high exploitation rates of shrimp and crab, the two most valuable fisheries in Nunatsiavut[14]. Climate change will increase pressure on species and shift species ranges; additionally, melting ice will open the Arctic Ocean and make adjacent Indigenous communities vulnerable to ocean grabbing.

Suggestions

Suggestions for addressing resource access inequity include adopting ‘blue justice,’ tracking and monitoring the holistic well-being impacts of fishing on Inuit health, creating fisheries reconciliation strategies, and decolonization water governance systems while adopting Indigenous alternatives to address the underlying causes of water insecurity [43][5]. Repealing and replacing the SDWFNA with co-developed legislation is a necessary step in supporting Indigenous self determination[5]. Similarly, legally recognizing the human right to water in Canada is a step towards realizing access to safe drinking water[19]. Reparations should be paid to affected Indigenous communities for breaches by the government to the Constitution Act or the Charter of Rights and Freedoms[19]. Engaging both IK and western science will offer a multi-disciplinary approach that prioritizes community-based research partnerships and re-frames the elements of water security beyond those defined in western science[18].

Indigenous food insecurity in Northern Canada

Both land and water grabbing are closely tied to food systems. Food insecurity is one of the most visible settler colonial violences perpetrated against Indigenous Peoples in Northern Canada. Food insecurity is “when people don’t always have physical and economic access to sufficient, safe, and nutritious food that meets dietary needs” [44][45]. Those who are food insecure have a higher likelihood of feeling unhealthy, being prone to infection, having chronic health problems, and experiencing social and psychological challenges[44]. The right to “adequate food and to be free from hunger is a fundamental human right” [46][47][48]. Indigenous communities experience the highest rates of food insecurity in Canada, exacerbated by all components of food insecurity. The COVID-19 pandemic and resource depletion have significantly affected Indigenous Peoples access to all food types[49].

Indigenous food insecurity and access

Indigenous Peoples in Northern Canada rely on traditional (country) foods and market foods for consumption. Country foods or traditional foods are harvested foods. In Inuit Nunangat, people “hunt, fish, or trap and almost half gather wild plants or berries”[50]. Country food proteins can include caribou, seal, Arctic char, beluga whales, walrus, and polar bears. Hunting is considered a “defining element of Inuit culture”[11]. Market foods are foods purchased from grocery stores. The commercial sector cannot meet the (cultural and food) needs of Inuit without country foods.

There are four pillars of food insecurity that affect Indigenous Peoples: availability, access, utilization, and stability[3]. Food availability includes both traditional and market foods and refers to the “production and supply of food and [the continuous] presence of same and nutritious food”[51]. Food access is influenced by economic disadvantages and poverty, food prices, access to transportation and equipment costs, distance to the grocery store, government restrictions, and many other factors[3]. Utilization looks at “cultural considerations and food safety, storage, and cooking skills”[51]; it includes loss of traditional knowledge and skills, limited knowledge of market foods, quality of market foods, food safety, and preferences and cultural acceptability[3]. Stability of food security evaluates food availability, access, and utilization over time and can be stressed by economic crises, climate change, natural disasters, and pandemics[3].

The main drivers of food insecurity among Indigenous Peoples in Northern Canada – especially Inuit – are poverty, high living costs, climate change and contamination, and diminished Inuit self-determination[46]. Household food insecurity in Northern Canada is driven by material deprivation through lack of available economic resources and high food prices[52]. Indigenous food insecurity can be tied to commodification of land and water in settler colonial states.

The Inuit Nunangat food system relies on both harvested and market foods; the three main streams in the food system include country food harvesting, commercial harvesting, and store-bought foods[46]. Additionally, the environment and geography influence the “availability, quality, storage, and distribution of [market] foods that, with the exception of two communities, must all be transported by air year-round or by sea during the short shipping season”[50].

Nunavut has consistently had the highest rates of food insecurity in all of Canada (reaching 46.8% in 2014)[52]. Indigenous communities in Nunavut report that food insecurity is intensified due to no roads connecting the 25 communities to each other, over half the household are food insecure, and “food prices in Nunavut are, on average, 2.2 times as expensive as anywhere else in Canada” [53][54]. In Nunavut, the mean food prices is “approximately $18 CAD per kilogram, significantly higher than the average per kilogram prices of $10.45 in Ottawa”[55].

Historical food access in Northern Canada

Prior to colonization, Indigenous foodways in Canada relied solely on country foods. In the Inuit Nunangat food system, “analyses of the monetary value of harvested foods in Nunavut suggest that country food harvesting enables tens of millions of dollars in household savings when comparing harvested protein to store-bought sources of protein”[50].

Unfortunately, different government agencies have attempted to limit Indigenous food practices. Food has been used as a technology of power in Canada by the Northwest Mounted Police, Department of Indian Affairs, residential school system, and Indian Health Services[8]. In tandem with the qimmiit killings, the relocation of Inuit by the government led to starvation and many deaths because it destroyed access to land-based foods due to unfamiliar lands[10].

The Canadian Wildlife Service implemented (and continues to enforce) hunting laws that strictly defined “types, numbers, and times of year that animals could be hunted without the benefit of Inuit knowledge or reliable information about Arctic game populations''[11]. Inaccurate estimates limited the hunting season and did not consider traditional dietary requirements. Limited licenses, licensing fees, and limits on selling food negatively impact Indigenous food sovereignty. These government policies and regulations forced the Inuit decide between starving or illegally hunting[10]. Only areas with Inuit-Crown land claim agreements allow for ‘approved’ hunting activities and give Inuit “the right to sustainably manage [their] natural resources and [their] food supply”[50]

There is a historical use of rationing to enforce compliance and assimilation, including to “‘convince’ parents to send their children to residential schools”[56]. The residential school system had negative impacts on Indigenous foodways. Residential schools forced assimilation of Indigenous children through poor diets with no access to traditional foods and altering country foods until they were unrecognizable; “when traditional foods were prepared, the school cooks made them in ways that were unfamiliar and unappetizing”[57].

Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami assert that ocean grabbing negatively impacted and continues to impact Inuit; “between 1988 and 2017, nearly 3.5 million tonnes of seafood – mainly shrimp, halibut, and Arctic char – were exported from Inuit Nunangat, adding approximately $600 million per year to the Canadian economy[58]. These factors led to Indigenous communities depending on market foods.

Previous food programs

The two food programs meant to support market food procurement prior to the current food program, Nutrition North Canada, are Family Allowances and the Food Mail Program[8]. They both do not consider country foods. The Food Mail Program further perpetuated settler colonial foodways as it did not allow traditional foods to be shipped within Northern Canada[8]. The cost of the Northern Food Basket in Northern Canada was between eighty to 200 percent higher than in southern Canada[8].

Current food access in Northern Canada

Nutrition North Canada

Nutrition North Canada (NNC) is the newest food program. Prior to the launch of NNC in 2011, food insecurity in Nunavut was between 33.1% and 40%; during the launch year (2011), household food insecurity was between 39.4% and 45.7%; after the full implementation of the program, households reported food insecurity between 46 to 55.6% [52]. NNC is a market-driven program that operates at a retail level, with subsidies paid to retailers and then retail food costs adjusted according to the subsidy[8]. The switch to a market-driven approach was to motivate program costs by “relying on market competition to reduce prices”[59]. But, the two retailers in Northern Canada created a duopoly (monopoly in some areas) in eligible communities, inherently influencing the prices. Either the Arctic Cooperative and/or the North West Company are found in sixteen of the twenty-five Nunavut communities [60].

There are three levels of food and non-food products eligible for subsidies through NNC: high, medium, and low subsidy[61]. The subsidies are determined based on food or item type[61]. The goal of the program was to make perishable, nutritious foods affordable and accessible to communities that do not have year-round rail, road, or marine access[61]. Unfortunately, the only items that receive the highest subsidy are frozen vegetables and fruits, fresh milk, infant formula, infant cereals, and other infant foods[61]. The categories with only medium and low subsidies are grain products, meat and alternatives, and non-food products (like diapers and toilet paper)[61]. The subsidy rates vary depending on the community and the associated transportation and operating costs, so smaller communities have lower subsidy rates[53]. According to Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami, “NNC does not subsidize local food production in any significant way”[62]. Additionally, bottle water is removed from the approved list, even though 107 Northern Indigenous communities are under BWAs[8].

Barriers to accessing affordable food include poverty, high prices of hunting equipment and gas, and far distances for many communities to the nearest grocery store. For some communities, the nearest grocery store was roughly an hour away, and community members reported the “time and financial capital needed to travel to the store, let alone the cost of food, was a concern” (Spring et al., 2018, p.122)[63]. Some communities have convenience stores with food available but it is generally expensive and of low nutritional value[3]. The impacts of food insecurity or economic development from NNC are “largely unknown because of limited transparency and the absence of rigorous evaluation”[62].

Climate change

Climate change is negatively affecting all four pillars of food security. It is changing “migration patterns and local availability of food (availability); [limiting] direct access to country foods (access); [declining] species health (utilization); [disrupting] inter-generational transfer of knowledge (utilization); and [affecting] the long-term stability of the food systems (stability)”[64]. It also impacts both country and market food availability and access.

Climate change impacts Inuit ability to access (and availability of) traditional food species through warmer temperatures (reducing sea ice thickness and ice formation) leading to a shorter hunting season, unpredictable weather patterns that limit travel on ice, and coastal erosion, permafrost thaw, and snow cover changes [65][63]. Permafrost thaw has led to land subsidence, conversion of forests to muskeg, and changes in water resource availability[66]. Drought conditions are impacting food sources and health of waterways[63]. Caribou, fish, and seal were most common responses of traditional ‘country’ foods that were less abundant in the past 12 months[63]. But, this information is based on data from 2007-2008, so abundance has likely declined further in the last fourteen years.

Suggestions

Different Indigenous communities are currently developing adaptations to climate change and food insecurity. Direct cash infusions from the government are highly recommended to support Indigenous communities[46]. Rosol et al. (2016) identified youth-Edler mentor programs around IK, changing the timing or mode of hunting, increased use of community freezers (to increase accessibility of country foods), inter-community food sharing networks, and substituting declining wildlife species with new or alternative ones as adaptations in Indigenous communities in Northern Canada[65]. Youth-elder mentor programs will address the disruption of the inter-generational transfer of knowledge, even though Elders have expressed that climate change is evolving faster than IK and skills can explain[3]. Species substitution is a viable option to maintain traditional foods in Inuit diets without harvested foods with store-bought protein. Additionally, it is important to further subsidize market foods, since they are still expensive with all subsidies applied. “Affordable perishable market foods will … [ensure] food security … [but they will not] replace superior nutrients that country foods provide in addition to … the continuity of Inuit culture”[67].

The Inuit Nunangat Food Security Strategy (INFSS), put forward by the Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami, identifies drivers of food insecurity in Inuit Nunangat and set out calls to action that are necessary to address food insecurity by strengthening “Inuit control over the governance of our food system through national policies, programs, and initiatives that provide direct supports for the local and regional Inuit-driven initiatives that are can make a difference”[68]. These calls to action will help Inuit achieve self-determination, food security, and food sovereignty by creating a sustainable food system in Inuit Nunangat.

Land and water grabbing and food insecurity: implications and the future

Dispossession of land and water access and Indigenous food ways is a method of forced assimilation by the settler colonial government. There is a need for an integrated approach that decolonizes food systems and empowers (affected stakeholders’) Indigenous self determination through co-management of traditional food sources or by reinstating cultural practices that have been lost through settler colonialism and assimilation. Reconciliation as proposed by the Truth and Reconciliation Commission (2015) only exists within the boundaries of settler colonialism, it does not allow Indigenous Peoples self determination.

There is a need to recognize and include Inuit in food and water insecurity policies and procedures. In the future, subsidies for NNC are not sufficient, especially for those who cannot afford to collect or acquire country foods. Additionally, poverty and locality will only become more connected in Northern Canada, therefore having high prices, even if they are ‘cheaper’ due to subsidies, are still unreasonable and perpetual unjust decisions around economic prioritization. Climate change will continue to exacerbate food insecurity, and combined with inflation, will pose a major barrier to food access.

References

  1. ↑ 1.0 1.1 Natural Resources Canada. (2017). The North. Natural Resources Canada. Retrieved from https://www.nrcan.gc.ca/earth-sciences/geography/atlas-canada/explore-our-maps/reference-maps/international-map-descriptions/the-francophonie/the-north/16886
  2. ↑ 2.0 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4 Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami. (2020). Access to drinking water in Inuit Nunangat. https://www.itk.ca/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/ITK_Water_English_07.pdf
  3. ↑ 3.0 3.1 3.2 3.3 3.4 3.5 3.6 3.7 Shafiee, M., Keshavarz, P., Lane, G., Pahwa, P., Szafron, M., Jennings, D., & Vatanparast, H. (2022). Food security status of Indigenous Peoples in Canada according to the 4 pillars of food security: A scoping review. Advances in Nutrition. https://doi.org/10.1093/advances/nmac081
  4. ↑ (Shafiee et al., 2022, p.1)
  5. ↑ 5.00 5.01 5.02 5.03 5.04 5.05 5.06 5.07 5.08 5.09 5.10 Wilson, N. J., Montoya, T., Arseneault, R., & Curley, A. (2021). Governing water insecurity: Navigating indigenous water rights and regulatory politics in settler colonial states. Water International, 46(6), 783–801. https://doi.org/10.1080/02508060.2021.1928972
  6. ↑ (Wilson et al., 2021, p.796)
  7. ↑ 7.0 7.1 (Wilson et al., 2021, p.785)
  8. ↑ 8.0 8.1 8.2 8.3 8.4 8.5 8.6 Burnett, K., Hay, T., & Chambers, L. (2016). Settler colonialism, Indigenous Peoples and food: Federal Indian policies and nutrition programs in the Canadian north since 1945. Journal of Colonialism and Colonial History, 17(2). https://doi.org/10.1353/cch.2016.0030
  9. ↑ (Burnett et al., 2016, para.4)
  10. ↑ 10.00 10.01 10.02 10.03 10.04 10.05 10.06 10.07 10.08 10.09 10.10 10.11 10.12 Qikiqtani Inuit Association. (2022). (rep.). Key findings. Qikiqtani Truth Commission. https://www.qtcommission.ca/en/key-findings
  11. ↑ 11.0 11.1 11.2 11.3 11.4 11.5 (Qikiqtani Inuit Association, 2022, n.p.)
  12. ↑ 12.0 12.1 12.2 Truth and Reconciliation Commission. (2015). Honouring the truth, reconciling the future: Summary of the final report of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada. https://ehprnh2mwo3.exactdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/Executive_Summary_English_Web.pdf
  13. ↑ (Truth and Reconciliation Commission, 2015, p.99)
  14. ↑ 14.0 14.1 14.2 14.3 14.4 14.5 14.6 14.7 Snook, J., Cunsolo, A., Ford, J., Furgal, C., Jones-Bitton, A., & Harper, S. (2022). “Just because you have a land claim, that doesn’t mean everything’s going to fall in place”: An Inuit social struggle for fishery access and well-being. Marine Policy, 140, 105071. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2022.105071
  15. ↑ 15.0 15.1 15.2 15.3 Foley, P., & Mather, C. (2018). Ocean grabbing, terraqueous territoriality and social development. Territory, Politics, Governance, 7(3), 297–315. https://doi.org/10.1080/21622671.2018.1442245
  16. ↑ 16.0 16.1 16.2 16.3 16.4 16.5 16.6 16.7 Hanrahan, M., & Mercer, N. (2018). Gender and water insecurity in a subarctic Indigenous community. The Canadian Geographer / Le Géographe Canadien, 63(2), 211–224. https://doi.org/10.1111/cag.12508
  17. ↑ 17.0 17.1 (Hanrahan & Mercer, 2018, p.212)
  18. ↑ 18.0 18.1 18.2 18.3 18.4 18.5 18.6 18.7 Latchmore, T., Schuster-Wallace, C. J., Longboat, D. R., Dickson-Anderson, S. E., & Majury, A. (2018). Critical elements for local Indigenous water security in Canada: A narrative review. Journal of Water and Health, 16(6), 893–903. https://doi.org/10.2166/wh.2018.107
  19. ↑ 19.0 19.1 19.2 19.3 19.4 19.5 19.6 Boyd, D. R. (2011). No taps, no toilets: First Nations and the constitutional right to water in Canada. McGill Law Journal, 57(1), 81–134. https://doi.org/10.7202/1006419ar
  20. ↑ (Latchmore et al., 2018, p.895)
  21. ↑ (Hanrahan & Mercer, 2018, p.221)
  22. ↑ (Wilson et al., 2021, p.793)
  23. ↑ (Wilson et al., 2021, p.794)
  24. ↑ (Latchmore et al., 2018, p.893)
  25. ↑ (Wilson et al., 2021, p.784)
  26. ↑ 26.0 26.1 26.2 26.3 26.4 Indigenous Services Canada. (2022). Ending long-term drinking water advisories. Government of Canada. https://www.sac-isc.gc.ca/eng/1506514143353/153331 7130660.
  27. ↑ (Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami, 2020, p.10)
  28. ↑ (Snook et al., 2022, p.7)
  29. ↑ (Snook et al., 2022, p.2)
  30. ↑ (Foley & Mather, 2018, p.299)
  31. ↑ (Snook et al., 2022, p.6)
  32. ↑ (Snook et al., 2022, p.1)
  33. ↑ (Wilson et al., 2021, p.788)
  34. ↑ (Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami, 2020, p.2)
  35. ↑ (Hanrahan & Mercer, 2018, p.213)
  36. ↑ (Hanrahan & Mercer, 2018, p.214)
  37. ↑ (Snook et al. 2022, p.4)
  38. ↑ (Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami, 2020, p.9)
  39. ↑ (Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami, 2020, p.13)
  40. ↑ (Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami, 2020, p.1)
  41. ↑ 41.0 41.1 (Foley & Mather, 2018, p.299)
  42. ↑ (Foley & Mather, 2019, p.307)
  43. ↑ (Snook et al., 2022, p.8)
  44. ↑ 44.0 44.1 Lambden, J., Receveur, O., Marshall, J., & Kuhnlein, H. (2006). Traditional and market food access in Arctic Canada is affected by economic factors. International Journal of Circumpolar Health, 65(4), 331–340. https://doi.org/10.3402/ijch.v65i4.18117
  45. ↑ (Lambden et al., 2006, p.332)
  46. ↑ 46.0 46.1 46.2 46.3 Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami. (2021). Inuit Nunangat food security strategy. https://www.itk.ca/wp-content/uploads/2021/07/ITK_Food-Security-Strategy-Report_English_PDF-Version.pdf
  47. ↑ (Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami, 2021, p.6)
  48. ↑ OHCHR. (2022). Special rapporteur on the right to food. Retrieved from https://www.ohchr.org/en/special-procedures/sr-food
  49. ↑ (OHCHR, 2022)
  50. ↑ 50.0 50.1 50.2 50.3 (Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami, 2021, p.7)
  51. ↑ 51.0 51.1 (Shafiee et al., 2022, p.2)
  52. ↑ 52.0 52.1 52.2 St-Germain, A.-A. F., Galloway, T., & Tarasuk, V. (2019). Food insecurity in Nunavut following the introduction of Nutrition North Canada. Canadian Medical Association Journal, 191(20). https://doi.org/10.1503/cmaj.181617
  53. ↑ 53.0 53.1 Naylor, J., Deaton, B. J., & Ker, A. (2020). Assessing the effect of food retail subsidies on the price of food in remote Indigenous communities in Canada. Food Policy, 93, 101889. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodpol.2020.101889
  54. ↑ (Naylor et al., 2020, p.1)
  55. ↑ (Naylor et al., 2020, p.4)
  56. ↑ (Burnett et al., 2016, para.9)
  57. ↑ (Truth and Reconciliation Commission, 2015, p.88)
  58. ↑ (Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami, 2021, p.10)
  59. ↑ (St-Germain et al., 2019, E556)
  60. ↑ (Naylor et al., 2020, p.2)
  61. ↑ 61.0 61.1 61.2 61.3 61.4 Nutrition North Canada. (2020). Eligible food and non-food items. Government of Canada. https://www.nutritionnorthcanada.gc.ca/eng/1415548276694 /1415548329309#tpc3.
  62. ↑ 62.0 62.1 (Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami, 2021, p.15)
  63. ↑ 63.0 63.1 63.2 63.3 Spring, A., Carter, B., & Blay-Palmer, A. (2018). Climate change, community capitals, and food security: Building a more sustainable food system in a northern Canadian boreal community. Canadian Food Studies / La Revue Canadienne Des Études Sur L'alimentation, 5(2), 111–141. https://doi.org/10.15353/cfs-rcea.v5i2.199
  64. ↑ (Shafiee et al., 2022, p.15)
  65. ↑ 65.0 65.1 Rosol, R., Powell-Hellyer, S., & Chan, H. M. (2016). Impacts of decline harvest of country food on nutrient intake among Inuit in Arctic Canada: Impact of climate change and possible adaptation plan. International Journal of Circumpolar Health, 75(1), 31127. https://doi.org/10.3402/ijch.v75.31127
  66. ↑ (Spring et al., 2018, p.124)
  67. ↑ (Rosol et al., 2016, p.7)
  68. ↑ (Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami, 2021, p.2)
Theme: Indigenous food security
Country: Canada
Province/Prefecture: Northern Canada

This conservation resource was created by Evelyn A.
It is shared under a CC-BY 4.0.
Retrieved from "https://wiki.ubc.ca/index.php?title=Documentation:Open_Case_Studies/FRST522/2022/Indigenous_food_access_in_Northern_Canada:_an_enquiry_into_the_history_of_land_and_water_grabbing_and_food_insecurity&oldid=748543"