Rural Dialogue
La Ronge, Saskatchewan

Meeting Particulars

La Ronge, Saskatchewan - ENGLISH
June 16, 1998
5:30 p.m. to 8:30 p.m.

Questions

1. A) Rural residents are concerned about the future of their communities.
What are the key strengths of your community as you look to the future?

1. B) What are the biggest challenges that you, your family and your community face as you look to the future?

2. A) What is preventing you and your community from overcoming these challenges? What is holding you back?

2. B) What needs to be done?

3. A) What organizations, levels of government or others should be involved in working to overcoming these challenges?

3. B)How should they be involved?

4. What role do you see specifically for the federal government in working with you to overcome these challenges?

5. How can federal programs and services better support your community's needs (e.g., are there changes needed in the design, delivery, awareness or accessibility)?

6. What is the best way for the Federal Government to continue to hear the views of rural people on an ongoing basis (e.g., meetings, surveys, polls, newsletters, advisory groups, the Internet, etc.)?

Findings

1. Rural residents are concerned about the future of their communities.
1. a)What are the key strengths of your community as you look to the future?

It should be noted that La Ronge is the service centre for Northern Saskatchewan and therefore has many advantages over the other areas. While La Ronge is undergoing substantial growth and improvement, this is not the case for the other areas. The following list of strengths is a composite for all areas represented at the meeting. Some areas would only have a few of the strengths.

• tourism
• diversity, people from many industries
• vibrant
• people from all over
• high level of trained people, people many skills
• strong government
  • better represented
  • service centre for North
• innovative people (in spite of government)
• pride of communities
• people help each other
• high desire to stay
• water source (lakes, rivers)
• high in natural resources
• high potential and opportunities
• rich history
• community college in Melfort
• farming: can be a positive or negative (Melfort, suicides)
• quality of life (potential)
  • solitude
  • less traffic, etc.
• recreational activities for children
• safety
  • can walk to work
  • neighbourhood feeling
• tax benefits
• provides wealth to urban areas (urban areas benefit from the North)

• remoteness, every place is about 2 hours away from anything
• health care
• education
• information resources
  • La Ronge is well equipped, but this is not the case in other areas
• getting information is difficult
• postal delivery
• television
• Internet
• phone
• affordability of communication
• economic development
• housing, sewers, water (infrastructure in general)
• employment
• social development
• population growth
  • causing challenges
  • type of growth
• northern Saskatchewan vs. southern Saskatchewan—different problems/issues:
  • age
  • wealth
  • education
  • access to health care
  • remoteness (lack of mobility)
  • ownership
  • economic condition
  • costs of construction
  • cost of living
  • service availability
  • material availability
• maintaining services with less support, government downloading no local transportation; yet communities are spread out infrastructure /governing of municipalities:
  • inconsistent
  • not in synch
  • different rules
• lack of tax base
  • government housing
  • can't get loans
• planning not looking ahead
  • schools and airports—don't plan based on population growth awareness of the North
• few votes
• keeping money in the North
• some areas (Melfort) miss or don't get programs
• deal with social problems restricted by federal and government involvement
• have solution but can't implement
• education inequity between rural and urban
  • living costs
  • assistance

• cheap food policy for agricultural products
• money
• costs are higher than in South
• economy
• failure to recognize differences in costs of living when setting up programs
• big business squeezing small ones
• lack of awareness of consequences of spending outside the community
• limitations of programs
  • analyze but don't follow-up
  • can't hire proper level of professionals
• grants must be "watched"
• limited access to information, communication and education
• by-laws being overridden by other levels, programs are restricted
• no jurisdiction in federal community Metis not recognized as a group for which any level of government has responsibility, don't have access to/miss out on programs (e.g. social development) esp. that target high-risk groups, that "hit bull's eye but miss the outer rings", from Melfort which is neither North, nor urban)
• racism/sexism/ "locationalism"
• denial
• ignorance of those making rules—out of touch
• where is the power?

• provide affordable access, training tools to computer (Internet)
• address social issues such as housing unemployment, welfare
• help develop businesses at local level
• train people, provide skills (e.g., to build houses)
• look at jobs not present (i.e., inspectors, carpenters, plumbers)
• decisions at local level on programs
• access to funding at local level
• Federal government has no control over many issues
• jurisdictions not clear
• direct relationship between local and Federal government
• local/provincial/federal should be at same table
• keep jobs in the North
• address commodity prices
• assisting teen parents (appropriate programs, education/child care)

• local: set out initiatives, point the way
  • then others get involved (federal, provincial/Aboriginal, Metis governments)
• no red tape
• no bureaucracy
• non-governmental agencies
  • to direct
• must be able/willing to deal with initiatives

• need a non-government agency to tell people where to go next to make things happen
• should help to get all the relevant parties around the table

• level the playing field with other regions (i.e., urban and southern Saskatchewan)
• work with interested groups (community planners, people with ideas) not what they think
• "redistribution" of wealth
• shift to "local initiatives fund"
• less grants, more loans
• maintain transportation systems (rail/road/air)
• communication of initiatives (i.e., information officers in each community at least "access")
• communications policy CRTC
• sharing successes across Canada
• don't grow, get better
• downsize parliament when you downsize services
• be responsible for infrastructure (housing, road, sewer/water)
• special infrastructure for rural circumstances/situation
• factor in regional differences
• address rural regions equally
• economic/community development
  • infrastructure (i.e., natural gas in the North)
• infrastructure should be seen as an "investment in people"
• bigger not better—should do (build) yourself
• renewable resources managed along entire "chain"
  sport vs. commercial fishing forestry treat as renewable value-added along whole chain should be captured locally

• address subgroups better
• loans—long term, lower interest
• recognize cost differentials (i.e., cost of sewer systems in remote areas)
• consider location (i.e., CBC)
• consultative process is important
• prevention should be emphasized
• incentives to get specialists to rural
• protect what rural already have—don't create other inequities
• adaptability of programs to local "needs"
• still need some stability so planning can be done
• government should cooperate on programs (Metis, Aboriginal, Federal, Provincial, local), based on respect/harmony
• different jurisdictions get together to address their common issues
• better communication, when the government has program, it should be widely publicized

• better planning/communication
• meetings like the Rural dialogue
• advisory committees
• letters to MP
• regular forum—consistency is important
• want to see results—follow though/up
• feed back
• continuity
• consistency is very important
• want to see results
• legislative changes
• don't want to just see a report, but rather people's comments on the report should be put up on the Internet.

All Rural Dialogue session reports on this Canadian Rural Partnership (CRP) web site are included for information purposes only. The views expressed in the Rural Dialogue session reports have not been edited and are those of one or many rural Canadians who attended the Rural Dialogue sessions.

The views expressed in the Rural Dialogue session reports do not necessarily represent the views of Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada or any other department or agency of the Government of Canada. Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada does not make any warranties, expressed or implied, as to the content and/or use of the Rural Dialogue session reports.

Date Modified: 2000 11 10

Important Notices and Disclaimers