June 14th, 2011

Community Capability and Development in Nunavik

A Project funded by the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council

ISSUE BRIEF: GOVERNANCE

A Focus on Regional Governance: A Summary of Project Findings on Social Change and Challenge in Nunavik

McGill University School of Social Work

Nicole Ives, PhD Vandna Sinha, PhD Wendy Thomson, PhD Robert Levy Powell, PhD

Dominique Leman, MSW, Research Assistant Anna Goren, BA, Project Assistant

This study interviewed 52 respondents from 5 Nunavik Communities--Inukjuak, Ivujivik, Kangiqsujuaq Kuujjuaq, and Puvirnituq--between 2008 and 2010

Members of this project are grateful for the support and encouragement of our Advisory Committee of Inuit and non-Inuit leaders across Nunavik.

For further information, please contact Dr. Nicole Ives at [email protected]

CCDiN Issue Brief: Governance

Introduction and Context

The Inuit population of Nunavik has experienced extraordinary social upheaval and transformation during the last century. The social systems in the region have shifted from being grounded entirely in traditional knowledge and informal networks of extended family/community to one in which there has been increasing presence of government and in which Indigenous understandings of family, education, justice and community compete with interpretations imported from the south (Chabot, 2003).

Traditionally, the Inuit of Nunavik were a semi-nomadic people with a subsistence-based economy. The Inuit communal ethos was woven into all aspects of daily life; hunters provided for the community, dwellings were commonly shared with extended family members, and elders provided counseling and healing to those whom they identified as needing it, rather than waiting for the troubled or sick to seek help as is typical in the modern social services system (Pauktuutit, 2006). In the 1940s and 1950s, the end of the fur trade, which had been responsible for the developments of settlements in the region starting in the 1800s, left the region of Nunavik economically and socially dependent on the outside world, and was marked by considerable trauma. When governments stepped in to provide assistance to the population, Nunavimmiut settled into villages to better access these services, such as formal schools, hospitals, and centre local de services communautaires (local community service centre; CLSC). However, as a consequence, their semi-nomadic life-style and subsistence- based economy was no longer viable. As a result, most Inuit were forced to depend on the government for their survival. (Duhaime, 2008). Permanent settlements over time also separated Inuit from their traditional means of subsistence, eroding a sense of traditional land-based culture and group belongingness while imposing a new definition of community and familial roles (McShane et al., 2009). The development of the residential boarding schools further divided Inuit families, a dramatic example of parent-child isolation, family dismemberment and trauma, and cultural erosion (Stairs, 1992). Thus, a single generation who shared in these traumatic events was faced with the task of raising a new generation in a completely new and unfamiliar environment.

The late 1970s brought on key changes in Nunavik’s structural history. In 1975, the signing of the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement marked a paradigm shift with an official land claims settlement and the establishment of formal bodies to head different areas of social and political life. This agreement marked a significant event in the long struggle for Inuit autonomy; the legal, economic, social, and political parameters

2

CCDiN Issue Brief: Governance

continue today. In addition to providing a monetary settlement, it created a new structure for regional administrative governance (Rodon & Grey, 2009; Wilson, 2008). It provided Nunavimmiut some measure of control through their operation of three independent regional administrative bodies: the Kativik Regional Government, the Kativik School Board, and the Nunavik Regional Board of Health and Social Services. While the agreements allowed for economic development and other formal endeavors, it also sparked a displacement of traditional roles of family onto services provided by the Kativik Regional Government, Nunavik Regional Board of Health and Social Services, and Kativik School Board. In Nunavik’s economy today, government activity represents 50% of Nunavik’s GDP (Duhaime, 2008).

Methodology

Building on knowledge and contacts developed through prior work, the research team invited Inuit and non- Inuit members of key social and political institutions in Nunavik, including the Makivik Corporation, the Kativik Regional Government, and the Kativik School Board, to join an advisory committee for the project. This committee played an integral role in advising the research team on project development, providing general cultural and political guidance, as well as identifying key informants selected from local community leaders and policy makers.

Researchers conducted 52 semi-structured interviews in 5 communities across Nunavik: Inukjuak, Ivujivik, Kangiqsujuaq, Kuujjuaq, and Puvirnituq. Interviews explored perceptions of communal strengths and challenges, availability of social programs and resources, and regional governance development in Nunavik. Questions solicited the respondent’s perception of three primary domains: major social problems in his/her community, communal capacity and assets for addressing social problems, and his/her knowledge of and experience with existing social welfare policies. In addition to collecting first person perspectives, interviews were used as a forum for “member-checking”; asking community members about data and emerging interpretations in order to confirm or discount information and ideas (Lincoln & Guba, 1985). Respondents were first identified by the advisory committee and community liaisons in each community, and were also asked to assist with the snowball sampling process by identifying additional potential interviewees.

3

CCDiN Issue Brief: Governance

Respondents were asked 11 open ended questions which focused on perceptions of communal strengths and social problems in Nunavik. Four questions, specifically focused on regional governance in Nunavik, probed respondents’ perceptions of the ways in which the future government could address social issues, best serve the people of Nunavik and tailor social policies to Inuit culture and realities. Respondents’ exposure to regional governance varied widely; while some had little knowledge and understanding of regional governance, others were personally involved in its planning and implementation.

Detailed Findings

In general, respondents were hopeful that regional governance would allow for Nunavimmiut to have more control over the programs and policies that partially govern life in the region in order to better address their needs and their culture. Respondents were particularly positive about the potential for a new government to act as a mechanism for Nunavimmiut to “help themselves,” rather than relying on or being subject to decisions from the South. Indeed, most respondents felt that a regional government in the North had the potential to better adjust policies and programs in order to attend to the specific reality and needs of the Inuit, than the current governance structure in place with its three independently financed and managed governing bodies (KRG, KSB and NRBHSS). Furthermore, some respondents were confident that local leaders had a good understanding of what the issues were and what seemed to work best for Nunavimmiut:

(…) I’m not really worried, at all about the ability of Nunavimmiut to take their place with democratic institutions. They do very well. What works up here, it’s not private, for-profit motive, eh? What works are co-ops, non-profit corporations…K.R.G., Makivik, you know. These are all managed through a type of consensus. And, I think that’s very good (Kuujjuaq).

However, respondents also recognized the complexity of and challenges to effective regional government and some saw a danger in moving towards regional government too quickly. Indeed, one of the frequent concerns mentioned by respondents was the perception that it was too soon to implement a regional government in the North, mainly because most Inuit lacked advanced formal education and did not have enough experience in governing themselves on local levels. Because of this, some respondents wondered how regional governance would come to be implemented effectively. More specifically, the lack of Inuit people in positions of

4

CCDiN Issue Brief: Governance

leadership, working in “high level politics or district jobs”, or working as professionals, seemed to represent a big barrier to regional government in the mind of many respondents, concerned that the region would still need to rely on help “from outside” and be run by “white people” for a long time to come. One respondent stated: “We don’t even have Inuit doctors or lawyers. We have very few Inuit nurses, and that’s Nunavik wide!” (Kuujjuaq). As indicated by a respondent who noted, “I think people should start working together, because they seem to be always trying to work against each other” (Kuujjuaq), another barrier to effective governance seemed to be the perceived lack of collaboration and cohesion between different groups of people. Therefore, keeping the status quo for the time being seemed, for some respondents, as better than contemplating change: “It is not perfect now, but there are people with decades of experience” (Kuujjuaq). Speaking along those lines, another respondent wondered if regional government would succeed in efficiently addressing social issues and problems: “I don’t know if we’re ready. (…) What makes you think it’s going to get better when we are governing our own self?” (Kuujjuaq)

In addition, respondents pointed to the complexity of integrating traditional Inuit culture into a modern system of governance. By having Inuit people in power, respondents hoped that traditional culture and lifestyle would have a better chance of being preserved in the future. One respondent from Kuujjuaq summarized this sentiment by stating that …they (the people in the Nunavik government) have to know where we come from first of all, and what our values are, and how we live. It’s not the same…like, everybody’s different. There’s all different kinds of cultures, and you know, you just have to look inside and make sure before I pay to the government, that it’s according to our cultural values, our traditional values.

Indeed, many respondents mentioned not always feeling understood and respected by the people in power in the South, especially regarding the importance of traditions and subsistence living in Inuit communities.

However, even if the region was ready to govern itself effectively, respondents also wondered if regional governance in the North could ever be “self” governance, because of Nunavik’s position under Quebec and Federal control and power. Echoing other respondents, one person from Inukjuak voiced what he thought to be a common question among the people:

5

CCDiN Issue Brief: Governance

Is it just another government, or another organization that government needs to control our lives? We just don’t know. So yes, there are positive things that people are expecting, but on the other hand, the first question most people are asking is: is this real self government? (Inukjuak)

Yet, while some people seemed concerned about what the end-result of this process towards regional governance would be and so adopting a cautious attitude of “wait and see”, others had disengaged from the discussion and no longer seemed involved and interested in this process. As one respondent noted:

What I find is that a lot of people in Nunavik who have good opinions and who could participate in the debate have just stopped participating in the debate. Therefore the only ones who are participating are the ones who are interested in it passing. And it’s going to pass by attrition because no one will really bother. And this happens to many things in Nunavik. That’s the way it is. When you look at villages like Ivujivik and Kangirsuk, there are people who have great opinions there who are not speaking. And when I ask them why they don’t speak, similarly they say that they just don’t participate (Kuujjuaq).

It seemed therefore that one important aspect of bringing about regional governance in Nunavik was to gain Nunavimmiut’s trust and confidence in the process. One way to do that, according to respondents, was to continue to hear and address the people’s questions and concerns about the process of regional governance and its implications for the future of Nunavik. This following comment by a respondent in Puvirnituq exemplified how complex the process of regional government is, and how difficult it can be for people to believe in it and understand what it will mean to them, without seeing immediate results in their day-to-day lives:

You know, we’re not used to, especially the older generation, like my parents…these (negotiations on self-government in Nunavik) are all foreign to them. And also for us, we have some understanding but still also confused, to a certain extent, you know, but I gotta give credit to the Inuit people, they are survivors. And they are looking at, or trying to understand how they are gonna go about becoming productive people (Puvirnituq).

Finally, an element which seemed to come up in most of the interviews was the perception that for the region to improve socially and economically, it needed to have more control over its natural resources, so that the profits

6

CCDiN Issue Brief: Governance

remained in the region. According to some of the respondents, regional government might be an effective way of making sure that the region develops better economically and socially.

Conclusion

The population of Nunavik has experienced, in the A Profile of CCDIN Respondents last few decades, numerous economic and social Respondents by Community of Residence changes which have significantly altered their lifestyle. However, despite these changes, respondents Ivujivik, mentioned being confident that Inuit people are 7 ‘survivors’ and want to protect their life-style, Kangiqsujuaq, Kuujjuaq, 8 22 language and culture. For this reason, they hoped that Puvirnituq, 6 leaders of a new government in the region would find Inukjuak, 9 ways to adapt current programs and policies, which are often modeled on Southern ones, to better respect and integrate Inuit culture and realities. In fact, most Respondents by Community of Residence respondents offered constructive thoughts, ideas and Police, Industry, 2 Retired 2 & Other, suggestions about what they thought the future 4 Municipal & Regional government of Nunavik should prioritize. These have Government, Economic 11 Development, formed the basis of our discussion during the 4 Community Community Forums in Kuujjuaq (Fall 2010) and in Organizations, Health & Social 4 Services, Puvirnituq (Winter 2011), during which the findings 11 Education, of this research project were shared with members of 14 the community. • 35 respondents were women, 17 were men. • 16 respondents were between the ages of 20 and 35, 16 aged 36-50, 18 aged 51-65, two respondents were older than 65 years.

7

CCDiN Issue Brief: Governance

References

Chabot, M. (2003). Economic changes, household strategies, and social relations of contemporary Nunavik Inuit. Scott Polar Research Institute, University of Cambridge. http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayFulltext?type=1&fid=139502&jid=POL&volumeId=39&issue Id=01&aid=139501 Duhaime, G. (2008). Socio-economic profile: Nunavik. Nunivaat Arctic Statistics. Retrieved on September 24th, 2010 from http://www.nunivaat.org/TableViewer.aspx?U=http://www.chaireconditionautochtone.fss.ulaval.ca/extran et/doc/159.pdf Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications. McShane, K., Hastings, P. D., Smylie, J. K., Prince, C., & Tungasuvvingat Inuit Family Resource Center. (2009). Examining evidence for autonomy and relatedness in urban Inuit parenting. Culture & Psychology, Pp. 411-431. http://cap.sagepub.com/cgi/reprint/15/4/411. Pauktuutit Inuit Women of Canada (2006). National Inuit strategy for abuse prevention. Retrieved on October 10, 2010 from http://www.pauktuutit.ca/pdf/publications/abuse/InuitStrategy_e.pdf Rodon, T., & Grey, M. (2009). The long and winding road to self-government: The Nunavik and Nunatsiavut experiences. In F. Abele, T.J. Couchene, F.L. Seidle, & F. St-Hilaire (Eds.), The Art of the State IV: Northern Exposure; Peoples, Powers and Prospects in Canada’s North (pp.317-343). Montreal, QC: Institute for Research on Public Policy. Stairs, A. (1992). Self-image, world-image: Speculations on identity from experiences with Inuit. Ethos, 20, 116-126. Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/640453 Wilson, G.N. (2008). Nested federalism in Arctic Quebec: A comparative perspective. Canadian Journal of Political Science 41 (1), 71-92.

8