September 21, 1979

Nunatsiaq News comments on the 1979 Nunavut proposal. In 1979, editor Monica Connolly expressed enthusiastic support for ITC's "Political Development in Nunavut" proposal.

Idea for Nunavut territory a sound one

MONICA CONNOLLY
Nunatsiaq News

For years people in the Eastern Arctic have been advocating the splitting of the Territories. The idea has been received with widespread support here, but has bogged down in details: would splitting make it harder to become a province? Should we become a province? Where should the boundary be? For one reason or another the idea seemed to arouse enthusiasm (support, but not enthusiasm) — it was just too vague, too far in the future.

Now ITC has come out with a single proposal which should be able to get enthusiastic support, and if lucky, action. They suggest splitting the Territories with the Eastern and Central regions becoming a new Territory which would be scheduled for provincehood in 12-15 years. The Western Arctic would be left out for now — they have an agreement-in-principle on land claims which includes some political changes, but they [the Inuvialuit] could opt in later if they chose.

While the paper does suggest that forms of local government would have to be studied and perhaps modified after separation, and goes into detailed suggestions for a system of land use planning (a matter very important to a traditional hunting society), the basic thrust of the proposal is dead simple: division, followed by development to provincial status.

No new type of political unit is proposed; there is ample leeway within existing Canadian experience to develop a system suitable to the people of the new Territory/Province. The first stage would be to create a separate territory; in five to seven years some provincial powers would be granted; in 12 to 15 years we would be a full province.

Two alternative forms of political development are examined and discarded. Regional government within a province formed from the existing NWT would not have enough power; too much would depend on the government in Yellowknife, physically removed from the Eastern Territories and out of touch with it. The powers of a regional government might be subject to unilateral modification by Yellowknife, or might be so powerful (at the other extreme) as to leave the central government "emasculated."

Also "the Inuit of Nunavut would be reluctant to compromise claims to private ownership to virtually all the land surface of Nunavut if ownership of public lands would ultimately devolve to a provincial government that derived its outlook and objectives from Yellowknife."

We especially support this position: we believe the Inuit have a right to own any land they have occupied or used in the last century (and we believe a hunting society uses whatever land their game uses, whether or not they actually hunt on it). But the federal government is not likely to grant that much ownership; the next best compromise is provincial status where jurisdiction over the land is vested in that segment of the Canadian populace that lives there. We residents of the Territories are second class citizens in that respect.

Home rule is also ruled out, as it would involve powers which "extend considerably beyond those enjoyed by the provincial governments outside of the context of Canadian federalism." This would arouse opposition from the existing provinces and be seen by most Canadians as a threat to Canada's geo-political integrity. Furthermore, home rule is incompatible with the desire of the people of Nunavut to work out their political future within Canada.

The paper discusses possible ways to work out finances and advances arguments against the idea that there are too few people here for a province.

There is very little, in fact, in the whole proposal which could not be supported by northerners and Southerners, native and non-native alike.

For the most part, the proposal is both theoretically and practically non-ethnic; that is, non-Inuit residents of Nunavut would enjoy the same political rights as Inuit. Where there are exceptions, they are details not integrally tied to the main concept of a separate Territory growing to provincial status.

The most glaring example of discrimination is a 10-year residency requirement before voting rights are acquired. While theoretically non-racist, the effect of this would be to disenfranchise many more non-Inuit than Inuit. (Ironically, a few Inuit orginally from Northern Quebec or Labrador might be excluded too.)

It is understandable that Inuit would want to keep political control in the hands of residents, not transients. For the most of the new Territory, long-term residents will continue to be the majority for a long time, but in Frobisher Bay, transients already constitute a large segment of the population, and no doubt the authors of the paper fear that a major oil or mineral development could result in a small community being swamped by construction or mine workers.

A 10-year requirement can only breed resentment in other parts of Canada and result in retaliatory measures against former residents of the new Territory/Province.

The authors of the paper describe two types of population: the transient residents who work in the North for several months or a few years; and the permanent residents who are born in the North or who are fully committed to making a life in the North.

We suggest there is a third group: people who regard the North as they would any other part of Canada; they aren't definitely returning south, but they are not inextricably bound to the North by circumstances such as large investments or marriage to a person who couldn't live in the south. Their commitment to the North is the same as it would be to a town in Ontario. Such people are not transients in the usual sense of the word and they make good citizens.

Present hiring and housing policies in the North encourage transients. A new Nunavut government could solve its transient problem by attacking its causes. We suggest a five-year residency requirement which could gradually decrease over a period of five or 10 years to two or one year; such an interval would allow time for Inuit to be trained for many positions , and allow the Nunavut government to implement other measures to discourage a steady flow of transients. Whatever requirement is finally decided on, we don't feel that anyone who has the right to vote should be deprived of it.

The other points we disagree with are connected to land claims, apparently. Originally the Inuit wanted to negotiate constitutional recognition, political development and ownership of the land together; the government wants them separated.

The paper proposes that Nunavut would be established as part of an "agreement" and the first Commissioner would have to be acceptable to "representative Inuit organizations." We do not believe political development in any part of Canada should be negotiated with any one racial group, especially in the NWT, where any split would affect large numbers of Dene and non-native Canadian citizens.

However the difference is subtle. As long as Nunavut is established it shouldn't matter whether it's by "agreement;" the Commissioner should be approved by community councils which represent all residents, not by Inuit organizations.

We do support the right of the Inuit people to be recognized in the Constitution of Canada on the same basis as the English and French cultures. And while we do not support the right of the Inuit to negotiate political development, we agree that they should not sign a land settlement until they are satisfied on political matters.

Other than the points mentioned above, the proposal promotes equal human rights for all and "respect of Inuit and non-Inuit for their respective languages, cultures and lifestyles."

What we have to do now is to all get behind the basic idea of a split Territory and provincehood. The new Territorial Council should be able to pass a resolution to that effect, and should do so at its first sitting. It would be useful if each community council could do the same, and forward its resolution to Jake Epp and Joe Clark.