Nunavik Commission suppressing Inuit rights, angry Inuk member charges

IQALUIT — In a damning indictment issued this week, an Inuk member of Quebec’s Nunavik Commission, Annie Popert, is accusing the self-government advisory body of ignoring Inuit concerns and engaging in undemocratic practices to stifle debate about the right of Quebec Inuit to self-determination.

Popert, along with representatives named by the Makivik Corporation and the federal and Quebec governments, has been a member of the Nunavik Commission since November of 1999. That was when the Quebec government set up the eight-member commission under the terms of an agreement called the “Nunavik Accord.”

The commission’s job is to make recommendations on the design, operation and implementation of a new government in Nunavik.

The commission’s final report is now done, but it won’t be released until early in April, at the Makivik Corporation’s annual general meeting.

But Popert says the commission’s work has been seriously impaired by a failure to consider the implications of the Quebec government’s sovereignty project and a failure to recognize an Inuit right to self-determination.

She even goes so far as to accuse the Quebec government of imposing pre-conditions on any new Nunavik government that threaten the Inuit right to self-determination if Quebec were to secede from Canada.

Deceiving the Inuit?

In a Feb. 24 letter to commission co-chairs Andre Binette and Harry Tulugak, Popert cited an infamous decree issued by the Quebec cabinet in October of 1999, in which the Parti Québecois government granted its assent to the creation of the Nunavik Commission.

In that decree, the PQ government said any new government in Nunavik must respect the “territorial integrity of Québec” and the “effectivity” of the Québec government.

“I feel that commissioners are choosing to deceive Inuit, when we intentionally fail to reveal that the establishment of a government of Nunavik is subject to certain pre-conditions that may be highly objectionable to them,” Popert says.

“Territorial integrity” is a code word for the notion that a sovereign Quebec may not be partitioned after the province leaves Canada.

On the other hand, Inuit inside and outside of Nunavik have always asserted that Quebec Inuit alone have the right to determine their political future if Quebec were to secede.

Even though the Quebec government raises the “territorial integrity” issue in its marching orders to the commission, Popert says other commissioners refused to discuss it, claiming that it was outside of their mandate.

“If the Québec government directly tied these notions to future self-government in Nunavik, I cannot see how it can possibly be said that these questions… are outside of the commission’s mandate,” Popert said in her Feb. 24 letter.

Suppression of opinion

Popert also says she made numerous attempts to raise these and other Inuit rights issues in her work as a commissioner.

But she says other commissioners and the Quebec government thwarted her at every turn. She said they refused to include her comments in the commission’s minutes and refused to incorporate her comments in their final report.

“I feel that the commission has continuously violated the spirit and intent of the political accord. It has failed to operate in a reasonable and honourable manner that is expected of any commission. By preventing democratic discussion and free exchange of ideas, the commission has failed to meet the most minimal standards of legitimate operation,” Popert says.

She even accuses an unnamed Quebec cabinet minister of attempting to silence her attempts to offer dissenting opinions.

She said the minister contacted Makivik Corporation President Pita Aatami, who then called Popert to relay the PQ government’s concerns about her views.

“For the record, it is important for us to determine which commissioner(s) breached our internal rules of confidentiality and which Quebec minister was involved. In particular, I would like to know which commissioner told the Quebec minister that I might block the production of a final report.”

Popert said she is shocked that the Quebec government would attempt to use the Makivik Corporation to interfere with the work of the commission.

No self-determination?

Another issue that the commission has suppressed, Popert says, is the effect of Bill 99, a law that Quebec’s National Assembly adopted last December in response to the federal government’s Clarity Act.

Bill 99, bitterly opposed by all Quebec aboriginal leaders, states that only the “Quebec people” enjoy a right to self-determination.

Bill 99 says “aboriginal nations” are part of the “Quebec people” for the purposes of self-determination, whether or not they agree with this status.

“Bill 99 could profoundly undermine the ability of Inuit to determine their future and that of Nunavik — especially if Québec attempts to secede from Canada,” Popert says. “In terms of remaining in Canada, the right of Inuit and other aboriginal peoples to hold their own referendums may be gravely affected.”

Despite this, she said other commissioners have refused to discuss the issue.

“I feel that many commissioners are determined to omit from the final report any political issue that the Quebec government might not approve,” Popert charges. “Therefore, I feel it is irresponsible for the commission to refuse to address these critical issues in its final report.”

Duty to speak out

Popert says the commission has failed to consider the overlapping rights of neighbouring aboriginal peoples, including the James Bay Cree, the Naskapi, and the Innu.

She also said the commission has failed to consider any safeguards for Inuit rights within a new Nunavik government.

Despite her numerous concerns, Popert says she will serve out the remainder of her term on the Nunavik Commission.

She says however, that she considers it her duty to speak out now about the weaknesses in the commission’s report.

“If I would not speak out, I believe that the co-chairs and perhaps other commissioners would continue to suppress the fundamental issues that should have been fully addressed,” Popert says.