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