LORDS OF THE ARCTIC: WARDS OF THE STATE

A Postscript

Colin Irwin

I have been asked to respond in this postscript to the reviews of my report made by the Tungavik Federation of Nunavut and the Government of the Northwest Territories (GNWT). The two commentaries published here are very different. The GNWT takes a very negative view of my report, in the belief that current policies are adequate and essentially sound, whereas the Tungavik Federation of Nunavut takes a positive approach to my report, as they do not believe current policies, programs, and the political status quo can give shape to their vision of the future. In an effort to end on a positive note, I will begin by commenting on the negative GNWT review.

 First, I am surprised that the GNWT does not believe that my major conclusions with respect to the Inuit (high population growth, high unemployment, low levels of education, the decline of traditional language and culture, dependence on welfare, and increased social breakdown) are based on scientific research. These conclusions are drawn from, and confirmed by, the very thorough research of other social scientists, which I refer to at length, including research conducted by the GNWT. Attempting to deny the reality of these findings is, m my view, a very dangerous rejection of the most fundamental responsibilities of government, as problems cannot be solved until they are recognized.

 Although the GNWT review of my report lists many accomplishments of the N.W.T. education system, the fact remains that white residents born in the Northwest Territories are consistently better educated than their native counterparts; for example, only 10 of the 60 graduates of the Eastern Arctic Teacher Education Program have a bachelor's degree, whereas most white teachers I interviewed had at least two bachelor's degrees. The number of white students from the Northwest Territories enrolled in post-secondary education is far greater than the number of Inuit students. Although the number of Inuit enrolled in these programs is on the increase, the GNWT review says nothing about the number of Inuit who actually complete courses or about the standards of these courses. It should be noted that the standard of education among N.W.T. Inuit in the grade school system declined rapidly between 1974 and 1979, according to tests carried out by the government. Knowledge of native languages and vocabularies, of native culture and history, and of hunting and traditional crafts is also on the decline. The GNWT Department of Education can create as many new pilot programs, task forces, teaching and learning centres, and advisory committees as it wishes, but unless these activities and expenditures produce real increases in standards of formal education and traditional knowledge they are meaningless and worthless. It is my contention that the GNWT does not rigorously monitor educational standards precisely because these programs often fail. The rapid decrease in the level of education reported in the late 1970s does not give me a great deal of hope for a better future.

The GNWT suggests that I do not acknowledge positive developments in any area. This is grossly inaccurate. On the first page of my report I draw attention to the lowered death rate which, in turn, accounts for high population growth. The GNWT further states that my solutions "have been, or are being, tried" in the N.W.T. Why, then, are Inuit hunters out on the land not assisted, as they need to be, by a hunter income support program? Why are Inuit who do not wish to hunt not allowed to enrich their lives, and the lives of their people, through community service?

 Why are all those Inuit who wish to improve themselves through education not given the resources they require to do so? Why are so many Inuit on welfare? Why are so many Inuit wards of the state? No, the solution of self-help I propose has not been tried in the Northwest Territories. When the proportion of the population receiving social assistance can be as low as 10 to 20 per cent in Yellowknife, yet as high as 70 to 80 per cent in Nunavut, it is an insult to the Inuit on welfare to suggest that my solution has been tried.

 The GNWT looks to the oil reserves of the Baffin as a source of future economic expansion. This promise and expectation may be as empty as the long-abandoned Polar Gas Pipeline. The GNWT points to the success of the Inuit Broadcasting Corporation. This was an Inuit initiative, not a GNWT initiative. The GNWT also points out that "the TFN claim will build a foundation for economic development in the eastern Arctic which incorporates elements of traditional economies and the modern wage economy." Why hasn't the GNWT done this over the past 20 years, and why are they relying on TFN to do it now? If the GNWT cannot develop appropriate cultural and economic policies, and must rely on outside Inuit agencies to do it for them, then surely both time and money could be saved by transferring their budget directly to Inuit agencies, bypassing what would appear to be a redundant Yellowknife bureaucracy.

 When I read the Tungavik Federation of Nunavut response to my report I am left with a sense of hope. I have nothing to add to their review except to say that I agree with it. The review speaks for itself. The GNWT plan for the future of Canada's Inuit is to build more infrastructure over the coming years at an additional cost to the Canadian taxpayer of between $1 billion and $2 billion per year. In some "trickledown" way, like crumbs falling from a table, this may bring benefits to the Inuit, but it is a plan without vision, as stale as the crumbs it generates. It is simply a continuation and expansion of past policies which have made Inuit wards of the state. The Inuit have an alternative plan, as they must, if they and their descendants are to survive as a viable society. The Inuit invite Canadians to join with them, as full partners, in an act of creative nation building in the Canadian Arctic. For both sound economic and moral reasons, this invitation should be warmly and graciously accepted by the government and people of Canada.

 I wish to thank the Tungavik Federation of Nunavut, the Canadian Arctic Resources Committee, and the Editor of Northern Perspectives for publishing a summary of my report and inviting commentary from some of the principal parties. So long as the debate over the future of Canada's Inuit can be sustained in this way there remains hope that new policies will be developed adequate to the challenge at hand.