An Inuit Response

Tungavik Federation of Nunavut

It is not often that a report about Inuit is featured on the front page of the Globe and Mail. Nevertheless, an in-depth interview with Colin Irwin on his Lords of the Arctic: Wards of the State report greeted thousands of Torontonians one morning last September as many were pouring their coffee, putting out the cat, or preparing for the vehicular rigours of the Don Valley Parkway. Perhaps, it was the catchy title or the stark and depressing social and cultural reality for Inuit predicted in the report that prompted its inclusion in Canada's "national" newspaper. Whatever the reason, the report brought to a large southern audience a compelling message and plea. For this reason alone, we commend Dr Irwin but wonder, in passing, why we have been unable to command the same attention in the southern press. After all, many of the points made by Dr Irwin have been raised before by Inuit leaders.

 Colin Irwin paints a very gloomy picture of Inuit society and culture in the 21st century, based on current demographic, educational, and economic trends. He may very well be right. His predictions should be sobering to all those well-meaning politicians and civil servants who, in the last 20 years or so, have constructed in the North Canada's most enveloping social welfare system The malaise facing Inuit today, which promises to get worse tomorrow, cannot be eradicated by existing social policies and programs. Additional teachers, social workers, doctors, and public administrators, although welcome, will not forestall the future that Dr Irwin fears. Yet the future, our future, is not predestined.

Inuit have a well-deserved reputation for adapting to environmental and economic change. We will continue to adapt to changing circumstances, but this does not mean we are prepared to adopt all southern ways, mores, and values, and to cut ourselves off from our culture and our land. Instead, we want to design a society and economy that enables us to participate effectively in the old ways based on the land and its bounty, as well as in the new ways based on space-age technology and world-wide communication. We want and need a mixed economy and society reflecting the best of the old and the new.

 To design this mixed economy and society we must have a formal educational system through which we can acquire the skills needed to function effectively in Canadian society, as well as the land-based skills of our forefathers. Dr Irwin suggests that younger Inuit, in particular, are being shortchanged by the formal educational system, and that fewer and fewer Inuit are acquiring the land-based skills needed for hunting, fishing, and trapping. We are very disturbed by Dr Irwin's characterization of the failings of the formal educational system in Nunavut. If he is correct, the diplomas and certificates being awarded to our children are worth very little, for the standard of education in Nunavut is far below that publicly available in, say, Toronto or Montreal. If so, this is unacceptable. In response, we suggest that a public inquiry be conducted to examine the state of formal education in Nunavut, to document fully its strengths and weaknesses, and to recommend how it can be improved to better serve the needs of Inuit.

However, the achievement of the future desired by Inuit will require more than inquiries and creative tinkering with existing public policies and programs. To head off the future that Dr Irwin predicts and to design the future that Inuit want is not possible through existing constitutional, political, and institutional arrangements, which treat us, to use Dr Irwin's resonant phrase, as "wards of the state". Only fundamental change-a reordering of the political relationship between government and Inuit-will provide us with the authority and the tools to tackle our own problems. The basis upon which solutions can be found to the profound social and economic problems gripping Inuit ever tighter lies in new political arrangements through which we can design and control our own destiny and, in so doing, abandon the cloying paternalism that now governs the relationship between Inuit and government.

 We have a vision of our future, and, in articulating that vision, we refuse to adopt purely administrative solutions to our social, economic, and cultural problems. Tinkering with public administration in Nunavut is insufficient. We have said this in constitutional conferences, land claim negotiations, and other forums for years, yet the federal and territorial governments, which exert extraordinary control over Inuit, are not helping us put in place a new political base. This lack of vision by Ottawa and Yellowknife underlies the depressing situation so graphically described by Colin Irwin.

 The Inuit Agenda

 Inuit seek a new and comprehensive social contract with Canada that will effectively and permanently integrate us and Nunavut into the Canadian body politic. This social contract will have to deal with diverse issues, such as language rights, education, the administration of justice, and ownership and management of land and resources, including the offshore. Inuit are using two vehicles to design this social contract: constitutional and political development discussions to divide the Northwest Territories and create a new political entity in the North-Nunavut-and negotiation of a comprehensive land claim.

The Inuit agenda is, of necessity, very broad. Yet government-in particular, the federal government-does not wish to deal with all of the items on our agenda. Instead of welcoming the opportunity to negotiate a broad social contract with Inuit, the federal government has, in the last couple of years, largely washed its hands of constitutional development in the Northwest Territories and has adopted a land claims policy that permits negotiation of only those issues dealing with land and natural resource ownership and management, and cash compensation for past unauthorized use of Inuit land by government. The remaining items on the Inuit agenda, it suggests, are matters of "public government" and, as such, should be addressed in constitutional development discussions rather than the more "limited" forum of land claim negotiations.

Yet those portions of the Inuit agenda that the federal government sees as outside the purview of land claim negotiations are crucial to the social contract Inuit seek to make with Canada and to the ability of Inuit to deal with the social, cultural, and economic problems outlined by Colin Irwin. Moreover, without the active involvement of the federal government, which, after all, is the constitutional guardian of the North, discussions among northern groups on dividing the Northwest Territories have virtually halted.

 In April 1982, a territory-wide plebiscite demonstrated overwhelming support in the eastern Arctic for division of the Northwest Territories and mixed opinions on this issue in the western Arctic. The legislative assembly of the Northwest Territories subsequently established the Constitutional Alliance to define a division boundary and to develop proposals for new territorial constitutions. In response to the plebiscite, the federal government announced its support for the concept of division. Prime Minister Trudeau, himself a constitutional specialist, recommended the concept of Nunavut to native peoples across Canada when he opened the constitutional conference in March 1984. As Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development David Crombie understood the Inuit vision and, in 1985, told the legislative assembly that the federal government fully supported the need for new government institutions in the North to reflect the social and cultural values of aboriginal peoples.

Inuit expectations reached a high point early in 1987 when the Constitutional Alliance produced the Boundary and Constitutional Agreement for the Implementation of Division of the Northwest Territories. This agreement identified October 1991 as the target date for division. Since then, however, the Dene and Métis have refused to ratify a previously agreed to boundary separating their land claim area from that of the Inuit. As this same line is to be used to divide the Northwest Territories, the whole constitutional development and division process has mired. Consensus on this issue of principle among ethnically and racially different groups in the Northwest Territories has, not surprisingly, proved very difficult to obtain. Faced with this, the federal government has done very little, notwithstanding its pro-division policy.

 The former Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, Bill McKnight, maintained a rigid aloofness from the northern constitutional development and division debate. Through his lack of action he would have had Canadians believe that northern constitutional development is of little more than local northern interest. Inuit, on the other hand, maintain that division and the forthcoming social contract with Canada are truly significant examples of nation building.

 Without the active participation of the federal government, northern constitutional development and division discussions could very well remain barren. Besides, it is pure fiction for Ottawa to maintain that it has little or no interest in such matters. By abstaining from these discussions, Ottawa is abrogating its responsibility and is effectively supporting the political status quo that has contributed to the social, cultural, and economic problems now facing Inuit. Of course, this lack of progress on the division issue raises the questions of how and whether the many outstanding items on the Inuit agenda will be addressed.

 The danger in all of this, from the Inuit perspective, is that, as we move forward to settle the comprehensive land claim (an overall agreement-in-principle is expected in spring 1989), division of the Northwest Territories will be left behind, perhaps only for a few years, or perhaps forever, and, with it, much of the Inuit agenda will languish. In light of this, Inuit look now to the federal government to state clearly that division of the Northwest Territories serves the national interest in the North, and to provide Inuit with a firm guarantee that Nunavut will be created on or by a given date. Until this promise is given, it is an open question whether Inuit will ratify any prospective land claim deal, no matter how generous government feels it to be. In the absence of such a guarantee, Inuit will continue to chafe more and more at the agenda limitations imposed upon us by the federal government's land claims policy, for we are, in effect, being told to abandon a major part of our agenda and, with it, the possibility of negotiating a comprehensive social contract with Canada. This would surely speed to reality Dr Irwin's prediction for the future.

 We know that our culture is eroding, that spousal assault and drug and alcohol abuse are increasing, that the suicide rate among young Inuit is a tragedy of national importance. Furthermore, we know that the traditional sources of authority in Inuit society-our elders-have been severely challenged in the last 30 to 40 years by various organs of the state, by the churches, and by industry. In response, we want the Nunavut government and our land claim settlement to reverse these trends as much as possible. We recognize the broad limitations of the federal government's land claims policy but suggest that this policy, with some vision and good will on the part of the federal and territorial governments, could help us deal with some of the problems raised by Dr Irwin, even as we continue to press for division of the Northwest Territories.

 As ever, we know that land holds the key to our future. If, through the land claim settlement, we can help Inuit afford to stay on the land, we will ensure that Inuit remain a land-based culture. In sum, we need the land claim settlement to establish a comprehensive, government-sponsored and -supported program to assist hunters and trappers carry out their livelihood.

 Hunter Income Support: A TFN Proposal

Hunting, fishing, and trapping by Inuit is not undertaken for recreation; it is the basis of our economy. Gone are the days when we followed, in nomadic fashion, the wildlife upon which we still depend. Now, we live in small, isolated communities and use snowmobiles, rifles, and other modern technologies for hunting. The animals we kill provide us with highly nutritious food which is shared with other Inuit who cannot, or do not, go hunting. Inuit harvesters in Nunavut produce approximately $40 million worth of country food per year, which averages between $10 000 and $15 000 worth of country food annually per harvester. What is more, these figures include neither the value of other wildlife products used domestically or marketed by individual harvesters, nor the revenues generated by sport and commercial operations.

However, figures tell only part of the story. Our society and culture, as well as our economy, are based on harvesting wildlife from the land. Hunting, fishing, and trapping represent the most important source of our psychological well-being as individuals and of our collective identity and world-view as Inuit. Through our life on and with the land, we maintain our cultural continuity at the same time that our society copes with and adapts to change brought about by external influences. It is through wildlife harvesting that we pass on to the young the behaviour and values of our culture. It is when we are divorced from the land that all manner of social problems result.

 Hunting, fishing, and trapping are increasingly expensive. It costs many thousands of dollars to fully equip hunters with the needed paraphernalia of snowmobiles, canoes, rifles, tents, gasoline, etc. Unfortunately, wage employment, particularly in the smaller communities of Nunavut, is rare, for non-renewable resource development is limited in the Arctic, and jobs with government agencies are few. This means there is little cash available in the communities with which to buy the equipment needed by hunters. Moreover, just as the costs of hunting have been increasing, the cash returns on wildlife products have been declining dramatically due to the world-wide lobbying efforts of the anti-fur and anti-harvest movement. There is, then, a financial crisis among Inuit wildlife harvesters.

To an increasing extent, it is only those relatively few Inuit with full- or part-time employment who can afford to purchase hunting equipment and maintain the hunting life-style and economy. Without wage employment or hunting, many Inuit are forced to rely on social assistance payments from government to make ends meet. In 198485, more than 50 per cent of the total population of Nunavut received social assistance at some time during the year, and, in some communities, the proportion was more than 90 per cent of the community population. Ironically, four-fifths of social assistance payments went to the purchase of store-bought food. In sum, wildlife harvesting is a viable economic system, but lack of cash is causing a breakdown in this system, bringing social, culture, and economic deterioration over which Inuit have little control.

 To counter the erosion of the Inuit culture and economy, and to bolster our relationship with the land, TFN recently proposed the establishment of a hunter income support program, to be operated through the land claim settlement. Our proposal is for a form of income supplement that will guarantee a minimum level of cash to Inuit wildlife harvesters, enabling them to purchase equipment and to remain on the land obtaining food for themselves and their families. We estimate that such a program could cost between $10 million and $15 million per year, but it would also save government millions of dollars per year in lower health care costs and reduced social assistance payments.

 Social assistance is not well suited to serve the minimum cash-flow needs of the harvesting economy; it is designed primarily to permit consumption of foodstuffs brought in from outside rather than to sustain the production of food from local resources. Moreover, social assistance tends to erode, not buttress, cultural values bound up in the subsistence harvesting economy.

 Our proposed program is not some pie-in-the-sky hope. Hunter income support programs have been used by Cree and Inuit in northern Quebec with considerable success. These programs were put in place through the 1975 James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement, and are paid for by the Government of Quebec. They have helped hundreds of aboriginal peoples stay on the land.

 The federal government has refused to address our proposed hunter income support program, saying new programs cannot be established through land claim settlements. Instead, Inuit have been urged to discuss this issue with the territorial government, which has expressed an interest in developing a territory-wide hunter income support policy and program. We are scheduled to discuss our proposal with the territorial government early in 1989 but are leery about divorcing it from the prospective land claim settlement, for a hunter income support program put in place through policy or general legislation can be altered or abandoned by government without reference to us. This would not be possible if the program were established through the land claim settlement. In any event, we feel very strongly that a hunter income support program should be part of the forthcoming social contract between Inuit and Canada, and we urge both the federal and territorial governments to adopt our proposal.

 Toward Nunavut

In the last few months the Dene and Métis of the Northwest Territories and the Council for Yukon Indians have signed overall agreements-in-principle with the federal government. We hope to do likewise in the spring of 1989. Although we want to finish negotiating our land claim and to begin implementing the settlement provisions, we intend to do so only if the Inuit agenda-the whole Inuit agenda-is satisfactorily addressed. A new federal government has been installed in Ottawa. This government and, in particular, its minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, have an opportunity to deal effectively with the Inuit agenda and to help us reverse the deterioration of Inuit society and culture that Colin Irwin predicts and we fear. This opportunity will not come again.

The Tungavik Federation of Nunavut is the organization representing Inuit of the eastern Arctic in land claim negotiations.