If you are an adept of Jon Stewart’s Daily Show, you probably saw Aasif Mandvi’s bit on the Quebec town of Asbestos. Rightfully so, the comedian/journalist ridicules Asbestos desire to sell Asbestos to India, even if a scientific consensus exists about its great danger for human health. It made me think about another aspect of this issue, apart from moral consideration of selling a dangerous product to an emerging country I mean. Why would people of Asbestos accept to compromise that much with their conscience? Especially when they have themselves experienced asbestos consequences on health. Does it reflect desperation of a community totally dependent on one single economic activity? Asbestos is not alone facing a situation where it’s main, if not only, economic activity is declining or simply vanishing. What should we do for these communities? Should our governments invest to diversify their economies? Help people move? Or just let market forces take care of it?
It is not as simple as it seems. Most of these communities have been established to provide labor force for natural resources extraction. Being inevitably temporary, mining is especially prone to create these difficulties. Each case is different, but some towns have been home of two, sometimes three generations of miners. When the mine closes down, people lose their jobs, their houses and their community as a whole. Many are force to leave, while they cannot sell their home. Who would buy a house in Murdochville, Asbestos or Schefferville? On the other hand, most jobs in mining are very well paid and workers know from the get go that their mine will close at some point. Maybe they should have a plan for when that day comes.
In my opinion, our governments face three choices. First, they can wash their hand and stay out of it. Without sufficient economic activities, communities should be let alone to die out, people abandon their house and go somewhere to find a job. This does not imply any direct cost; however it might result in some social distress and political discontent. Second, our governments could invest to encourage new economic activities. This avenue might not be an easy one, since many communities are geographically isolated and lack an educated labor force. Quebec provincial government has tried to save Murdochville, situated in the Gaspésie region, after it’s mine closed in 2002. Murdochville received the SAAQ (Société d’Assurance Automobile du Québec, a parapublic organization) call center in 2004, in addition to subsidies for installing windmill and for touristic projects. Similarly, people could receive help to relocate somewhere else. Again, this might seem unfair to others. After having earn good salaries, knowing that it would stop sometime, these citizens would get extra help that is not available for most people losing their jobs.
The third option involves long term planning and political courage, so it might not be the most probable avenue. Mining companies pay very little taxes for exploiting our resources. For example, Quebec receives between 0.5% and 1.5% in royalties (after numerous deductions), other provinces do a little better though (Quebec provincial government has announced it will modify the mining code). We are not talking about small entrepreneurial companies, most are huge transnational companies making enormous profits out of public resources. Therefore, we should tax more mining (in general, as a principle) and create funds, paid both by companies and workers, to be ready for the post-mining era. Some communities already do this, but I suggest that provincial governments take the initiative and ensure that companies take responsibility for their labor force and their communities.
I am now aware of how other provinces handle the issue, maybe some do a better job at planning the aftermath for communities dependent on one activity, however it remains an issue in Quebec. When prices are high and resources available, some regions live very well, as it is the case for Abitibi right now. When prices are low or resources exhausted, many communities face unemployment and distress. In my view, these communities exemplified at the micro level dilemmas we face as societies at a macro level and possible consequences of “laissez-faire” ideology can have on our communities if we do not take charge.