Remoteness and proximity

In the leadup to this fall’s federal election, the Federation of Canadian Municipalities (FCM) has just released a statement calling on all political parties to commit to greater support for rural communities.

The FCM comes across as pretty friendly toward the Trudeau Liberals, giving them credit for promised spending on improved internet connectivity and rural infrastructure. But the group takes on a sterner tone when demanding that the government adopt a “rural lens,” which it defines as “more widely adapting federal policies and programs to rural realities, and better recognizing rural expertise in federal decision-making.” Specific issues mentioned include climate-change mitigation and adaptation; affordable housing; and following through on those broadband investments to make sure connectivity is significantly improved.

“Rural communities are essential to Canada’s economy and quality of life,” says FCM President Bill Karsten. “From resources to manufacturing to tourism, their industries drive nearly a third of our national economy, and local leaders are making the most of existing tools to build better lives. But delivering the quality of life people deserve will require modernized tools that better recognize rural realities, expertise, and potential.”

Karsten should know. He’s a councillor in a rural jurisdiction known as Halifax (HRM). He represents District 3 (Dartmouth South–Eastern Passage) in a sprawling regional municipality that includes a great many commercial farms and gravel roads, thousands of residents who have their own wells and septic tanks, and tracts of woodland as remote as in any other part of Nova Scotia.

“From geography to climate to demographics, rural communities face unique challenges that can’t be solved with cookie-cutter approaches,” reads his official statement. “Local leaders are experts in assessing those needs and delivering solutions that work.”

If this federal-municipal cooperation is fully realized, rural communities will need to have a clear vision of how they want to develop over time, individually and collectively. Nova Scotia is growing; there are now almost a million of us, making this the second most densely populated province in Canada, with 17 people per square kilometre. Number one is P.E.I., with 25 per square kilometre – which means there’s scarcely 10 acres per Islander, should they decide to divide it up evenly among the seething hordes.

It occurred to me that these population-packed Maritime provinces are like the Netherlands of Canada – until I looked up the figures, and discovered that the Netherlands, which is smaller than Nova Scotia, has a population of 17 million, giving it a density of 488 people per square kilometre. So we’re not quite there yet.

Although these provinces have a considerable concentration of population in urban areas, they also have a widely dispersed population; there are no expansive tracts of near-wilderness, as there are in other provinces. Nova Scotia has some empty patches, but even when you think you’re driving through the middle of nowhere, you’re likely to happen upon a little cluster of houses.

This is a bit of a nightmare for those charged with delivering public services – and also for those seeking to profit by the reckless exploitation of natural resources in remote areas. Much of the environmental damage we have done is attributable to the colonial notion that land and water are abundant and therefore partially expendable. Rural communities are becoming less tolerant of this, especially when so few benefits accrue to them.

REZONING

This summer, the planning committee for the Municipality of the District of West Hants rejected a rezoning application that would have allowed Halliburton to assemble explosives near Walton, N.S. – where the oil and gas giant already has an explosives storage facility on Dresser Minerals Road. (The name harkens back to Dresser Industries, a Dallas company that profited immensely from the local barite mine during the ’50s and ’60s – helping to build the Bush family fortune – before merging with Halliburton in 1998.)

A recent CBC News report quotes Abraham Zebian, warden of the municipality, as saying he became more concerned when he learned that the site is in close proximity to at least one residence: “The application was positively recommended to us based on it being in a remote area that’s not densely populated – but a resident is a resident is a resident, regardless of where you are located, whether it’s densely or not. Nobody is valued over anybody else.”

Councillor Rob Zwicker, who cast a dissenting vote in favour of rezoning, said he was confident the appropriate safety precautions would be taken, and he was disappointed in the outcome. “I would very much like to support industry wherever possible, provided it’s safe and prudent,” he told the CBC’s Frances Willick. “I just hope this isn’t sending a signal that West Hants isn’t open for business, because nothing could be further from the truth.”

Councillor Rupert Jannasch – who represents District 1, where the site is located – voted against rezoning, saying there were too many unanswered questions about the type and scale of industrial activities Halliburton would be conducting. He said residents had been expressing concern about the safety of the explosives, and about whether this development would be a precursor to hydraulic fracking in the area.

Development proponents will surely scold these people for their not-in-my-backyard stance. But it may have something to do with this company’s past activities, including its part in BP’s 2010 Deepwater Horizon blowout, which resulted in a humdinger of an oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico. Some residents of West Hants may feel that the explosives ought to be stored and assembled somewhere closer to Dick Cheney’s backyard.

HOMEMAKING

So if they are not rolling out the welcome mat to foreign resource-extraction companies, where does that leave rural communities? We should be wary of mega-projects or grand schemes to attract investment. Take care of the basics first. That means food and agriculture, along with forms of ecological forest management that are acceptable and beneficial to local residents. And as Karen Foster points out in her opinion piece on pg. 18 (“Which way to the pool?”), small things that improve the quality of life in small communities can make a big difference, both in retaining a vibrant population and in attracting visitors.

If we can attract immigrants to rural areas, that would also be good. This summer, Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada announced a pilot project that will allow temporary foreign workers to become permanent residents. As many as 2,750 applicants, plus family members, will be accepted in each of the next three years. The catch is, this offer is only open to full-time, non-seasonal employees in certain sectors: butchers, food processors, and year-round workers in greenhouse or mushroom operations or in livestock production. So the seasonal foreign workers who toil in our fields are out of luck. That’s something that warrants further attention. Last year, Nova Scotia welcomed a record-breaking 5,970 new permanent residents, and the province is on track to surpass that number in 2019, but more could be done to settle at least some of them in the countryside. (If you suspect that these ambitious people are “taking our jobs,” please talk to a therapist, or virtually any economist.)

Then there’s housing – which is our focus in this issue of RD. We look forward to learning more about the “CB Pods” project introduced in Jack Scrine’s story on pg. 36 (“Large ambitions for tiny homes”). Though perhaps not everyone’s cup of tea, they meet the criteria of affordability – and rapid deployment, if you can find the necessary construction workers. That’s a fundamental paradox for rural enterprises. If you build it, will they come?

Living in a very small home would be much more tolerable where there are good public facilities nearby – not necessarily a pool, but perhaps a community hall with a decent kitchen. If multiple small homes were clustered on one property, there would be opportunities to share garden space, tools, energy, and vehicles. Although the traditional single-family homestead holds a powerful appeal, it’s not the only way to go. Arguably, we should minimize the amount of woodland or agricultural acreage we carve up for new house lots. The “co-housing” movement seems to offer potential quality-of-life benefits, as well as reduced environmental impact. If you have some experience with this, please write to tell us about it.

In all these things, sustainability is an underlying concern. And it appears to be the case that environmental issues will play an important part in Canada’s 2019 election – perhaps more so than ever before. As is evident from Angus Smith’s piece on pg. 28 (“Country Green”), the Green Party is hoping to capitalize on this. Please note that this article, like every other article ever published in Rural Delivery, represents the perspective of the writer, and not an endorsement or a political stance on the part of the magazine. Our only recommendation is that, on voting day, you put aside matters that make you feel personally aggrieved, and allow your pencil-clutching hand to be guided by civility and fairness, human decency and intelligence. These are things we want more of, right? DL