People of Nunavik want hope, not negativity

The recent editorial in Nunatsiaq describes the people of Nunavik in extraordinarily negative terms.

According to the editorial, we are afraid of “loss of cultural identity.” We are afraid that “a new Nunavik government answering directly to Quebec City would likely produce yet more dysfunction and bad government.” We are afraid of “the outside world.”. Our concern for Inuit identity is “morbid.” Our greatest fear is “fear of (ourselves.)”

The editor stitches all this together in a kind of universal condemnation of our collective values and behavior: “residents of Nunavik are destined to get more of what now defines their region: fear, negativity and increasingly isolated backwardness”.

I had hoped that this kind of destructive paternalistic stereotyping was a thing of the past.

Plebiscites have been routinely held in Canada on a variety of public issues, both big and small, for a very long time. They have touched on big political decisions — military conscription during World War II, Quebec sovereignty, the Charlottetown Accord. And they often touch on relatively small things — for example, whether to allow alcohol to be sold in communities.

The important thing is that they are one of the tools we use in our democracy, and others use in democracies outside Canada, to gauge what the public prefers on a specific public policy choice. The fact that plebiscites result in negative votes does not mean that their societies suffer from some kind of deep rooted collective psychological problems, or that their political futures have entered into some free-flight twilight zones.
The advocates of the rejected proposal failed to persuade two-thirds of Nunavik voters, and all 14 Nunavik and Nunavik urban communities, that the proposal would deliver major improvements over the status quo, or avoid risks associated with Nunavik becoming further entrenched in the municipal level of government under a powerful provincial government. The short amount of time allowed for public debate and consideration of the proposal contributed to this failure. Perhaps, if the proponents were open to revising what they tabled to the people, instead of something “written in stone” there would have been a different outcome.

Inuit voted ‘No’ out of hope, not fear, hope that the people of Nunavik are strong enough and creative enough and determined enough to come up with a model of government that will offer Nunavik Inuit something more compelling than fairly standard municipal status.

A model that would position Nunavik Inuit to claim a fairer share of the natural resource wealth of the region, and the decision making associated with those resources.

A model that offered appropriate financial guarantees for improved infrastructure and social services. There could have been more explicit recognition, as well as, protection of the Inuktitut language and culture.

Furthermore, features that would underscore the importance and legitimacy, of maintaining the strong Inuit majority in Nunavik.

The rejection of the proposal does not mean an end to political debate within Nunavik. Rather, it should mark a new beginning. We need a full, vigorous and open-minded discussion about the long term constitutional and political choices Nunavik Inuit and other Nunavik residents have within Canada for the governance of Nunavik.

The intensity, public-spiritedness and courtesy of that discussion, with a range of real options on the table, will be a true mark of our political maturity and resilience.

Jobie Epoo
Inukjuak

Email your letters to editor@nunatsiaq.com.

Nunatsiaq News welcomes letters to the editor. But we are under no obligation to publish any given letter at any given time.

In our print edition, we usually print letters on a first-come, first-served, space-available basis. In our online edition, we usually print letters as soon as we are able to prepare them for publication.

We edit all letters for length, grammar, punctuation, spelling, taste and libel. You may withhold your name by request, but we must know who you are before we publish your letter.