Part 1: Critical Thinking
Primary Stakeholders
Attawapiskat Community: The citizens of Attawapiskat are the chief stakeholders in this predicament as they are direct victims of the issues presented, and are thus also the primary beneficiaries of any potential affirmative action. Subject to inhumane living conditions that could potentially result in fatalities, the residents of Attawapiskat have a moral stake in the well being of their health and lifestyle - no one deserves to conform to such hazardous standards of living. In addition, under the premise of equality and the Canadian Human Rights Act, citizens of the reserve have a right to equitable treatment by the federal government of Canada. This has clearly not been the case as officials from the Department of Aboriginal Affairs have frequented the community in the past, yet have neglected to recognize the crisis until recently. Furthermore, considering that the community privately owns its land, inhabitants are legally entitled to compensation from De Beers Canada, as the Victor mine is situated on Attawapiskat land. Finally, the community of Attawapiskat has a financial stake in government and corporate (De Beers) intervention, as they desire a certain level of economic support. In terms of stakeholder claims, the community is a highly legitimate stakeholder as their desire for higher standards of living are justified by society’s expectations that people should not have to endure such hardship. In addition, as evident by Chief Theresa Spence declaring an emergency housing crisis, this is a highly urgent matter for the Attawapiskat community.
Assembly of First Nations: The aim of the Assembly of First Nations (AFN) is to advocate for and protect the rights of First Nations citizens in Canada. As a result, the AFN is a primary stakeholder in this situation as they are directly involved with and affected by these affairs. Seeing as how they deal with the federal government of Canada on behalf of the Attawapiskat community, the AFN has an interest stake in helping the community obtain sufficient government and public assistance, as that is the purpose they were intended to serve. In addition, the AFN has an interest stake in this matter as the actions/outcome could serve as a precedent for various issues being faced by other First Nations communities. The AFN is a legitimate stakeholder as they lobby on behalf of First Nations citizens. Thus, it is fair to say that they legitimately represent the views and desires of the Attawapiskat community.
Government: The federal and provincial government of Canada and Ontario respectively are also primary stakeholders as their actions, or lack thereof, can affect public perception of their abilities to govern. Due to the fact that they are expected to help resolve the issues being faced by the Attawapiskat community, the political leaders and parties in government have an interest stake as their managing of the situation could affect their chances of re-election. In addition, they also have a heavy financial stake as they have already invested money into the community and will certainly have to re-invest more in the near future. Lastly, because they represent the citizens in their jurisdiction and are held to the highest of standards, the Canadian and Ontario government have a moral stake in their values of working for the people. As a stakeholder, government officials have power as they ultimately decide how much support to offer. Also, as evident by their imposition of a third-party manager much to the dismay of the Attawapiskat community, government has the power to dictate how the community uses its funds. Note, the Department of Aboriginal Affairs as well as third-party manager Jacques Marion are included when referring to federal government.
De Beers Canada: As a result of their relationship with the Attawapiskat community, the prominent jewellery company De Beers is another key stakeholder in this case. De Beers Canada has a direct stake in the Attawapiskat affairs because of the Impact Benefit Agreement (IBA) that was constructed to compensate the community in exchange for use of its land. Seeing as how the IBA was created to ensure benefits would be shared, De Beers has a financial stake in the matter as the community is requesting for more financial support. This in turn means less profits for De Beers. Furthermore, as per the IBA, De Beers is required to share benefits and thus has a legal stake in compensating the Attawapiskat community. Moreover, considering the fact that Attawapiskat is in a remote and isolated region, De Beers has an interest stake in the health and well being of citizens as the company extracts its workforce for the Victor mine from within the community. Finally, as an extremely successful and profitable company, De Beers has a moral stake in its commitment to social responsibility and fulfilling the IBA. In terms of stakeholder claims, De Beers has power over the government and the community. De Beers has influence over the Canadian government because of the positive contributions that the Victor mine will have on the economy. According to De Beers, the Victor mine will contribute $6.7 billion (cumulative) to Canada’s GDP over its lifetime. Lastly, De Beers has power over the Attawapiskat community because it offers job opportunities in an area where the unemployment rate is near 90 percent.
Secondary Stakeholders

Media: Unlike the stakeholders mentioned above, the media is a secondary stakeholder in this situation as they have an influencing stake rather than a direct stake. They are not affected by the situation, but they can affect the situation by bringing attention to it, igniting controversy, etc. The media has an interest stake in the Attawapiskat crisis because it is newsworthy content. This also translates into a financial stake, as the goal behind obtaining newsworthy content is financial gains. With the ability to convey messages to the mass public, of all the secondary stakeholders the media has the most power as it can easily influence the opinions of a large group of people.
Special Interest Groups: After little immediate action was taken, First Nations leaders asked the United Nations to monitor Canada’s actions with regards to the Attawapiskat crisis. Since then, the UN has become a secondary stakeholder. While it doesn’t have a direct stake in the matter, it does have the ability to influence action from the Canadian government, thus making it a very powerful secondary stakeholder.
Critical Issues
The principal issue in this situation is that the Canadian government is utilizing an inappropriate ethical approach in dealing with the Attawapiskat community and First Nations in general. Based on the severe standard of living discrepancy between citizens of Attawapiskat and the average Canadian, it is apparent that the Canadian government is utilizing a utilitarianism approach to ethical decision-making. This approach to ethical theory suggests taking an action that results in the best outcome for the greater good, at the expense of a select few. In this case, First Nations citizens, specifically those in Attawapiskat, represent the select few that suffer at the benefit of the average Canadian. This inequitable approach to ethical decision-making is what ultimately led to the many critical issues that are now existent in the Attawapiskat community: minimal government support and a lack of infrastructure.

Simply by their failure to recognize issues that were prematurely evident, it is clear that the government is taking a utilitarianism approach towards the situation. In a recent interview with the Daily Press, regional MP Charlie Angus noted, “part of the problem is that inadequate housing has been normalized by decades of government neglect.” Also, in an interview with CBC, former Indian Affairs Minister Chuck Strahl was quoted as saying, “The federal department responsible for First Nations has known about the worsening living conditions at Attawapiskat for years…[It] has been a slow-moving train wreck for a long time…[It] was always a problem.” By neglecting to recognize the needs of the minority First Nations community in favour of focusing on the majority, the government provides minimal support to the citizens of Attawapiskat. This lack of government support is a critical issue because it not only contributes to the inability of Attawapiskat to develop infrastructure, but also because it establishes a wedge between the government and the Attawapiskat community. This in turn results in a lack of trust of between the two parties, as evident by the government’s insistence on auditing the band council and their decision to hire a third-party manager to fully control all spending of government funding. Furthermore, with diamond giant De Beers profiting off their land, many residents feel that the company has not lived up to its obligations as per the Impact Benefits Agreement. If however the government were to take progressive action and monitor De Beers to ensure that it conform to the stipulations of the IBA, then this would no longer be an issue. Thus, minimal government support is a critical issue because it creates further problems such as an inability to grow, feelings of animosity and distrust between the community and the government.
As a result of neglect and minimal government support, the Attawapiskat community has had limited investments in infrastructure and development initiatives, such as building schools. This is a major problem because without the necessary infrastructure in place to promote growth, citizens will never be able to take care of themselves independent of government assistance. This also raises a major ethical issue, as education in Ontario is compulsory up to the age of 18. Furthermore, the main concern with the lack of infrastructure pertains to the shortage of suitable shelters for residents. This was the main cause for concern that prompted chief Theresa Spence to declare an emergency housing crisis, as insufficient accommodations during the intense winter months would surely result in illnesses or fatalities. Finally, a lack of infrastructure in the community consequently leads to higher unemployment. An economy is heavily reliant on its infrastructure and without sufficient investments in development initiatives, there is little job creation within the community. This is a major issue as high unemployment rates render citizens dependent on financial support from the government, thus limiting the potential for the community’s economy to grow.
Recommendations
The following recommendations are aimed at resolving the fundamental issue mentioned above, that being the Canadian government taking a utilitarian approach in dealing with the Attawapiskat community. The solution to this would be to adopt a Kantian approach to ethical decision-making. This approach would benefit the First Nations as it is based on the premise of universality. That is to say, if you make the decision to lie, then that should become a universal law that is acceptable by all members of society. Thus, the first step in resolving the problems faced by Attawapiskat and other First Nations groups is to alter the government’s perspective on the unfair treatment of natives. Based on the Kantian approach, if the federal government were to continue to let the citizens of Attawapiskat live in such appalling conditions, they would be endorsing those conditions universally and accept them as norms. Since no developed government would accept such sub-par living conditions as social convention, universal law would be that no one should have to endure such a lifestyle. Once the government changes its approach in dealing with First Nations communities, it should provide more support/intervention to abide by the universal law that such living standards are unacceptable. In improving its support for the community, the government will need to increase funding efforts and work in a collaborative manner with the community to ease tensions and feelings of distrust. Increasing financial support simply consists of raising more money, whereas working in a collaborative manner would involve having a team made up of band council and government officials managing government funds, as opposed to just a government official as is now. In addition to financial support, government involvement could also include monitoring De Beer’s fulfillment of the IBA to ensure that benefits are distributed as agreed upon. Moreover, the government could work with the reserve to develop a revenue sharing plan with De Beers. This way the community will grow as the Victor mine becomes more profitable in the future.
The most imperative step in rebuilding the Attawapiskat community is establishing the basis of a future infrastructure. Financial support provided by the government and other organizations should go immediately into reducing the housing gap as the consequences of failing to solve this issue can result in casualties. According to chief Theresa Spence, estimated costs to establish enough homes in the community are $75 million. If this amount is exceeded, the excess capital should be initially used to develop schools in the area. In addition, because schools are only as good as the teachers who teach there, the Canadian government should create an incentive package for qualified teachers in other cities to attract them to the Attawapiskat area. This strategy is also consistent with the fact that there is currently a surplus of qualified teachers in the Ontario labour market.
Lastly, an extreme but potentially useful long-term solution would be to limit the size of a family. Not only is insufficient infrastructure development an issue, but the population of the Attawapiskat community is also growing at a much faster rate than infrastructure development.
Part 2: Business and Society 1. The two basic ways to view business and its role in society are 1) a business should maximize profits for its shareholders and 2) a business is more than about maximizing profits for shareholders, it also has a responsibility to all the stakeholders in society. The first format, championed by Milton Friedman, argues that a corporate executive has a direct responsibility to the owners of the business to conduct operations in accordance with their desires, which is often to maximize profit. Friedman argues that in his/her role as an employee of the owners, the executive is acting as an agent on behalf of the owners. He states that if an employee wishes to perform social responsibility, he should do so as a principal, not while acting as an agent. The main argument for this view of a business and its role in society is that the executive would be spending someone else’s money and breaching his role as an agent, and that the owners of the business could perform social responsibility as a principal if they wished to do so. On the complete other end of the spectrum, the second format, championed by Charles Handy, argues that the purpose of a business is to make profit so it can do something more or better, in which the “something” is the true justification for the business’ existence. To illustrate this argument, Handy uses an eloquent metaphor, “We need to eat to live…but if we lived mainly to eat…we would become gross.” (Handy 5) This translates to the idea that a business needs to make a profit to exist, but if it’s sole purpose is to make a profit, then it is complacent for it can do more. Handy’s ultimate message is that a business has a responsibility to all stakeholders in society and should therefore be an “active agent of progress.” 2. Businesses are constantly changing. Similar to human evolution and the theory of survival of the fittest, businesses need to constantly adapt to what society wants and expects in order for them to remain relevant. Today’s society expects businesses to be socially and environmentally responsible; what was once considered a competitive advantage, corporate social responsibility is now considered the norm. As society’s expectations grow, we are seeing a paradigm shift from shareholder to stakeholder management, as businesses start to consider all the parties that are affected by their decisions, not just shareholders. Those companies that are slow to adapt are often scrutinized by the public or coerced into changing their ways as a result of government regulation. Examples of this include the Occupy Wall Street movement and the introduction of legislations aimed at regulating financial practices after the recent meltdown. Lastly, as Charles Handy identifies in What’s A Business For? “The terms of business have changed. Ownership has been replaced by investment, and a company’s assets are increasingly found in its people, not in its buildings and machinery.” (Handy 5) Ultimately, I think businesses are becoming more conscious of their duties to society and the consequences that occur for not meeting these duties. 3. A code of ethics is indeed valuable for an organization because it serves as a guideline for how to behave in an ethically challenged situation. Having a code of ethics in place eliminates ambiguity in decision-making that could otherwise result in poor decisions being made and bad PR. For example, if a student witnesses two students from different groups working on an assignment together, in the absence of a code of ethics it is unclear as to whether that is considered cheating or not. In addition, a code of ethics can be reassuring to shareholders and potential investors that the company is socially responsible and will be absent of any offensive conduct that might otherwise have a negative impact on the value of the firm. The major problem with having a code of ethics however is that it is rendered useless if it is not enforced properly. A code of ethics is pretty much as good as the punishment for violating it. If the code is not enforced properly or not made aware to the organization’s employees, then it will do little to help the organization.