DIAND should reconsider Nunavik negotiations

If Nunavik’s regional government negotiations fall apart because of the Kativik School Board’s attempts to stop them in court, the government of Canada should re-think its presence at those talks.

It’s the federal government, through the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, that is representing the people of Canada at those negotiations. If the Quebec court finds that Makivik’s actions in connection with those negotiations have been illegal or unauthorized or illegitimate, then the federal government has no business being there.

In its legal briefs and in other statements, the school board raises serious questions about whether negotiations for Nunavik’s new form of government are based on democratic principles. If the court, after examining all the evidence, finds that the school board’s allegations are true, then the federal government must pull out of the process. And Ottawa should not come back to the table until Nunavik negotiators can demonstrate that they have a legal, democratic mandate to act on behalf of the people of Nunavik.

Not so long ago, the people of Nunavik appeared to be heading toward a new form of regional government within Quebec that promised at least some improvement over the quality of government they’re getting now.

Since the signing of the James Bay agreement in 1975, a patchwork of elected and appointed boards, councils and other bodies have emerged to provide public services in areas like health, education, social services and economic development in the region. An elected Nunavik assembly might, in theory, provide more accountable government, and might, in theory, provide better quality government than Nunavik residents now get from Quebec City.

So when the Nunavik Accord was signed and the Nunavik Commission set up, there were genuine reasons to be optimistic.

But since the completion of the Nunavik Commission’s “Aamiqqulata” or “Let Us Share” report in March 2001, the process has gone badly.

It’s not Makivik Corporation’s fault that only six of eight Nunavik commissioners agreed on the contents of the report.

But when one commissioner, Annie Popert, raised serious questions last year about the Inuit right of self-determination and the place of the Inuit within Canada and Quebec, her views were dismissed with arrogant and sometimes bullying condescension.

It’s not Makivik’s fault that the Nunavik Commission did not record her comments in their minutes, as she has demonstrated in evidence contained in numerous letters and documents sent to the media and to other places. But Makivik, a party to the Nunavik Accord, did nothing to correct those and other undemocratic practices.

There are legitimate responses to Popert’s questions. But there is no evidence that anyone made those responses in a respectful and statesmanlike manner. And there is little evidence that anyone, including Makivik, respected her right to disagree, or acknowledged that her concerns have at last some validity.

It’s also not Makivik’s fault that the “Let Us Share” report may contain flaws, errors or poorly considered recommendations.

But Makivik has shown little interest in the comments of those who have found such flaws — like the Kativik School Board. The report, for example, makes some recommendations about the design of Nunavik’s school system that may be unworkable — such as putting local education committees in charge of teacher training and recruitment.

Instead, Makivik has handled the process as if it were just another private business deal. With some enlightened statesmanship, Makivik could, and should have found ways of accommodating the school board’s substantial concerns. Instead, it has opted for mind-numbing stupidity. As a result, the creation of a new government in Nunavik is in danger of being delayed for a long, long time, and Makivik will have no one to blame but itself.

Makivik is on shaky ground. The organization has no direct experience or knowledge of the numerous technical details involved in designing a government. For that reason alone, it may not be a good idea for it to be acting alone on behalf of the people of Nunavik.

It’s also an aboriginal organization that is effectively negotiating a public government on behalf of all residents. That’s unprecedented. In Nunavut’s case, the federal government refused to negotiate a public government with Inuit-only organizations, and insisted that territorial MLAs be involved in the process.

For that reason alone, Ottawa should consider insisting that organizations besides Makivik, especially those with direct experience in government administration, participate directly in negotiations.

Finally, Ottawa should also consider the political principles that it brings to the table. A society that treats dissenters as if they were traitors is not ready to govern itself — and the federal government should make that view known to its negotiation partners.

JB