Human Rights Consultation Workshop – March 17 – 19, 2001

The Department of Justice of the Government of Nunavut wishes to develop a “made for Nunavut” Human Rights Act. The Department invited representatives of key organizations in Nunavut to attend an initial consultation workshop about how human rights should best be defined and protected in Nunavut. The workshop considered how human rights might be better recognized and protected under the laws of Nunavut.

Why do we Need a New Law for Human Rights in Nunavut?

When Nunavut was created on April 1, 1999, the Legislative Assembly for Nunavut had just been elected. They had no time to make new laws for the Territory. But Nunavut needed laws for its citizens. So it was decided that for the time being, Nunavut should use the old laws which were in place before Nunavut was created. The Government of Nunavut is now paying careful attention to what laws it should make especially for Nunavut.

One of the old laws which was in place in the Northwest Territories, before it was divided, was the Fair Practices Act. This act has been adopted from the Northwest Territories and has become the Nunavut Fair Practices Act.

The Nunavut Fair Practices Act is the closest thing we have to a Human Rights Act for Nunavut. The present Nunavut legislation does not establish a comprehensive code for human rights in the same way as other Canadian provinces.

.The Fair Practices Act was not made for Nunavut. It was made for the Northwest Territories years ago, and was adopted by Nunavut. That act is more like laws which were in place in the rest of Canada in the early 1960s. During the workshop, the Fair Practices Officer for Nunavut, Mr. Bill Riddell, described his difficult job, including what it is like to have the responsibility to both investigate and resolve human rights complaints.

Public Consultation

The first step in drafting a new law is a period of “consultation”. The advice given in this first consultation workshop included some basic principles that will assist everyone involved in consulting Nunavummiut about human rights. Justice Department officials at the workshop advised that consultation is particularly important, to ensure that future human rights laws will reflect Nunavut problems and values as completely as possible.

What are Human Rights?

“Rights” is a very special word in English. When we say “Human Rights” or “Constitutional Rights”, it refers to the things we most care about in our society; the values that are worth defending above all others. Government institutions, and people with power over others, must respect this kind of “rights”. They must ensure their actions do not take away the “rights” of any affected people.

Most people take their rights for granted. We often don’t think about our rights until someone tries to take them away. . We usually know right away if a human right has been taken away from us; it brings a feeling of being deeply disrespected, misunderstood and unfairly treated.

There are Many Different Kinds of Human Rights

In looking at human rights in the workshop, participants saw many aspects of human rights. Human rights describe basic human needs, like health, education and shelter. Human rights are about how we can expect to be treated by authority and about having access to programs and services for the public. They are also about how we are treated by businesses and employers and about how we treat each other. Human rights are about fairness, respect, and equality between one person and another.

The term “human rights” can mean a lot of things: some may think immediately of the right to have important needs met - a right to shelter or to food or education. International law often guarantees those rights, and requires Government to do all they can, within their means, to protect those rights. As Canadians, we often think of a right to health care or a right to vote in elections. These rights are protected by the Constitution of Canada. In Nunavut, many people think of protection of language and culture as human rights.

Human rights also include a right to equality - a right to equal dignity and participation in important areas of life the same as any other person. Human rights protection means both ensuring that there are no violations of these rights - prohibiting discrimination, for example - and a positive obligation to increase the dignity and ability to participate in society of all members of a society through awareness and public education.

Human Rights Describe How People Should be Treated

Most “human rights” describe the way people should be treated in our society: with dignity, respect and fairness. Equality rights are about making sure that every human being is treated fairly. Equality rights mean that everyone can participate in opportunities, have access to government programs and services and the same chance to have a full and productive life.

These kinds of rights are often considered in connection with authorities: like governments, the police, employers, companies. Authorities cannot take away people’s human rights without a very serious, legal reason. For example, in Canada and most democratic countries, we have a right to be free. If we are locked up, or taken away against our will, a very basic human right - the right to liberty and personal security - has been taken away. No one can take away a person’s freedom without a very good reason.

Human Rights Make us Feel Strong

Rights can also be described as ways of empowering people. You may have heard people say: "I have a right to be here." Or "You have no right to do that!" Or "I will fight for my rights." This is when we talk of rights as giving us the power or authority to do something or protect something we believe in. Carrying memories of oppressive incidents in the past, many Inuit lack this feeling of confidence and empowerment.

Describing Human Rights in Inuktitut - Makimajjutiit

A very important part of the workshop was devoted to looking for effective ways to describe human rights in the Inuktitut language, the first language of the majority of Nunavuumiut.

Elder participants emphasized that human rights must be defined so they apply to every person living in of Nunavut. Participants were reminded that the word Inuit means “human beings”, regardless of their racial origin. Human rights apply to Inulimat – all human beings - humanity. In this sense, one delegate, Connie Merkosak, said we could describe our goals in promoting human rights in Nunavut as Inuuqattigiitsiaqnik – “a way for human beings to get along with each other.”

A word which is commonly used, at present, to describe “human rights” in Inuktitut is pijunautinngit. A basic translation of this word would be: “a tool you can use to get something” or, “an ability to get something”.

After considering what human rights could mean for people living in Nunavut, workshop participants felt that any Inuktitut term developed for human rights should somehow encourage people to feel empowered and confident that everyone must be treated with fairness and respect. The participants devised what they feel was a more appropriate Inuktitut term for human rights – makimajjutiit. A basic translation of makimajjutiit is: “A tool to be able to stand for oneself”, or “a tool against being put down, or oppressed.”

Human Rights and the Non-Inuit Minority in Nunavut

Human Rights laws in Nunavut will be put in place in the only part of Canada where aboriginal people, who are a minority in the rest of Canada, are in the majority. How can we create a “made for Nunavut” human rights act which takes into account that in Nunavut it is the non-native people who are in the minority? Inuit participants in the workshop emphasized that the equality of all persons is fundamental.

Participants at the workshop learned that in 1983, the Nunavut Constitutional Forum held extensive public discussions throughout Nunavut about what the Nunavut Government should look like. Members of the Nunavut Constitutional Forum believed that the non-Inuit minorities in Nunavut were entitled to assurances that their human rights would be protected and respected in Nunavut.

Therefore, in the first blueprint for the government of Nunavut in the early 1980s, one of the key recommendations was that a strong human rights act be an important part of the Nunavut Constitutional Forum’s model for Nunavut: Building Nunavut, 1983, published by the Nunavut Constitutional Forum.

Human Rights and the Nunavut Land Claims Agreement

“We will consider our obligations and the rights protected under the Nunavut Land Claims Agreement. It is important to note that by providing all Nunavummiut with human rights protections, we will not be eroding Inuit rights under the land claim agreement. The rights provided in the Agreement are constitutionally protected and fundamental to the development of Nunavut.”

Premier Paul Okalik, Minister of Justice for Nunavut, opening remarks to workshop participants, March 17, 2001

The Nunavut Land Claims Agreement - describes special rights of Inuit in Nunavut, and how they are to be protected. The rights protected in the Nunavut Land Claim Agreement cover only some of the values which are most important to Inuit: for example, their right to hunt, to have a voice in management of the land and wildlife, their right to political, social, employment and economic participation and benefits. The Nunavut Land Claims Agreement is protected by the Constitution of Canada, the highest law in the land.

During the consultation workshop, we heard about how the Nunavut Land Claims Agreement and organizations like Nunavut Tunngavik, the Nunavut Social Development Council, and other Institutions of Public Government, are set up to preserve and protect these Inuit rights.

A representative of Nunavut Tunngavik Inc., Stephen Foulds, described how rights were dealt with by the Inuit in negotiating the Nunavut Land Claims Agreement. . The Inuit negotiators wanted the Nunavut Land Claims Agreement to deal with a wide variety of Inuit rights, including economic, social and cultural rights. However, federal policy at that time, reflected the much more narrow view of the Government of Canada. The primary concern of the federal government was to have clear title to the land , and to create a new more positive investment climate for resource development. As a result, the federal government was focused on land, resources, and money payments. The federal government also insisted that the Nunavut Land Claims Agreement must include an “extinguishment” clause: to obtain the benefits promised in the Agreement Inuit to give up all rights to do with the lands and resources that were not clearly included as “Treaty Rights” in theNunavut Land Claims Agreement.

So when the Inuit were negotiating the Nunavut Land Claims Agreement, they wanted to do everything they could to recognize preserve the social, cultural, language, and human rights of Inuit. They sought every chance to recognize rights in the broader social context, rather than just those relating to only land and money. Some areas where their efforts succeeded include:

· The Nunavut Social Development Council, created to monitor, track and publicize the cultural and social well being of Inuit.

· Articles 23 and 24 of the Nunavut Land Claims Agreement, which guarantee Inuit economic and employment opportunities and benefits.

The Inuit land claims agreement tried to protect rights of Inuit in as many areas as possible - beyond land and resources - but the claim only deals with a limited range of rights. The Inuit negotiators were limited by federal land claims policy.

The Inuit negotiators realized that they would only be able to include limited measures to enhance the socio -economic status of Inuit. This was why the Inuit negotiators began to strongly insist on the establishment of Nunavut as part of the land claims settlement. It was hoped that through the Government of Nunavut, with its strong aboriginal population, the broader objectives of Inuit for protecting their rights could be realized. NTI hopes that the Government of Nunavut will advance the definition of aboriginal rights.

Mr. Foulds advised us that NTI hopes the Government of Nunavut will live up to these expectations by recognizing that important areas were not addressed, and make every effort to reflect Inuit Culture, and Inuit socio-cultural well-being in our future human rights laws.

Nunavut Tunngavik also wants to establish a creative and mutually beneficial partnership with the federal government to deal with vital issues such enhancing and preserving the Inuit language and culture, protecting the environment, and overall working on the socio economic status of Inuit.

Human Rights – the Inuit Point of View

The Context for the Development of Human Rights Legislation in Nunavut

Over thousands of years, the Inuit of Nunavut have been self reliant and successful at surviving in one of the most remote and challenging of humanity’s habitats on the planet. The Inuit developed a very unique and highly adaptive culture and a technology which was perfectly suited to their arctic environment.

One elder at the workshop described the importance of ai-yai-yai songs and drumming as one of the established methods of dealing with conflict and hardship.

Contact with non-Inuit came in waves: explorers, whalers, missionaries, merchants and government employees. Each had a significant influence on the peaceful and good-natured people they encountered, but none of these contacts had so profound an influence as the emissaries of government. The non-Inuit were often aggressive and confrontational. These tactics were intimidating to a group of people whose main characteristics include: humility, humour and a benign approach to conflict.

In this climate of intimidation, rapid change and economic development, many Inuit experienced horrific violations of their most basic human rights. One participant at the workshop described how she witnessed her father’s human rights being violated, as a child of nine years old:

“I was nine years old. I’d been taken from our camp outside Pangnirtung to go to school. I stayed in a boarding home in town. After two years, my parents moved to Pangnirtung. It was fall. They left their qaumaq (sod house) and all their belongings behind. My Dad came and said ‘All my dogs are slaughtered. What am I going to do?’ Tears were streaming down his face. I feel for my father. He could do nothing. He had no choice. He had to go so Social Assistance. We were given skidoos. He never mentioned it again. Last fall.., at the age of 81, he was hospitalized…confused, delirious. He saw the doctors and nurses as threatening. ‘I was defeated by the government before.’ he said. ‘I’m going to be defeated again. My life is going to be taken away again.’ He yanked the intravenous out of his arms. ‘I don’t want anyone to touch me. We have Nunavut now.’

Later, when he became more lucid, my father said that he felt he has no other choice than to go with what the government says. He began to co-operate. Back then, when Inuit were trampled on, they knew they were defeated. They chose not to fight…they kept quiet….if the missionaries hadn’t arrived, the pain would have been greater. Missionaries gave comfort…and taught the Inuit that they have the power to forgive. That’s what elders have now. I am very grateful to be part of a group that is dealing with this historic pain. Inuit are not looking for compensation, but an apology. This was very traumatic. It seemed like the world stopped.”

Rebecca Kanayuk, Pangnirtung.

These feelings of inferiority can be reflected in many subtle ways. Some Inuit refuse to talk to professionals. They feel that the professional person knows “everything”. They would rather talk to someone else who is less well qualified. Even though job advertisements often state that knowledge and skills gained from experience will be considered, for those who lack the formal qualifications, many Inuit feel that they are inferior and simply do not apply for those jobs.

Sometimes, Inuit do not complain about human rights violations because they are fatalistic. Even tragedies are accepted as God’s will. One participant told about his child being killed in a dentist’s chair. Too much anaesthetic was given and the child died. He said he did not sue the dentist because he felt the situation was beyond his control and because it was God’s will. This is reflected in the commonplace Inuktitut expression – “ajurnaummat – it can’t be helped.”

I am going to tell you my story, which I believe relates to this topic of human rights… Shortly after Elijah and I were married, we were sent to Ottawa to work with the federal government’s Department of Indian and Northern Affairs in 1960. I was 20 years old.

We left behind, in Pond Inlet, Inuit residents that were independent, proud and who took care of one another, and of everyone. They took proper care of the children and made sure that they were properly equipped and knowledgeable for the future challenges that lay ahead in their lives.

Children were born in the community, with traditional midwifery being practiced. As we know today, the women are sent out to outside hospitals to have babies. The community took care of themselves and individuals were independent – they did not wait to be helped. That is how we left our community.

We spent 10 years in Ottawa and returned to Pond Inlet in 1970. I was unprepared and shocked at what we returned to. It was like the community and its residents had transformed. Hardly anybody was practicing the traditional ways of survival: hunting, taking care of oneself or one another.

We were even shocked to learn that even many of the men had stopped hunting altogether. The people were desperately long for Inuit traditional foods.

We had left Pond Inlet when I was 20 years old. I had not practised the art of making traditional skin and fur clothing for the whole time I was in Ottawa. It took me almost exactly one year to relearn my skills in making traditional clothing. I recall that Elijah and I were the only ones in the whole community that had and were wearing the warm skin and fur clothing that we had grown up with.

The way I saw it, the people were not like the true Inuit of the north. It was at a standstill. Something very important had been lost.

I had to work very hard in teaching and brining these skills back to the community. I knew that my people had it in them to get these important survival skills back. I could not give up on it. And they learned.

The community had become dependant on government for handouts, rations and welfare. The strong, self-reliant people were changed. Perhaps they did not realize it. But after having been gone for 10 years, it was very evident. It was sad.

It has taken us many years and we are still working hard as a community to bring back our values and traditions, as Inuit. We almost lost many things without realizing it.”

Rachel Erkloo.

Another delegate said: “I see every day that people (in the north) are willing to give up rights which other people die for.”

Sometimes, human rights violations were the result of teachings of missionaries. Anglicans and Catholics were told not to associate. Drum dancing was described as the work of Satan. Women were told by missionaries that men were the head of the family.

Stories abound of young people being sent far away to residential school, sometimes against the wishes of their parents, or women being sent away, against their wishes, to deliver a child. Sexual abuse and exploitation were commonplace.

The results of these contacts has been devastating. An overwhelmed and fearful Inuit population, impressed with the new technology of the visitors to their land, began to believe that they were inferior. They were told that the white men were their bosses, and that they were a superior race. These feelings are lingering today.

“Like a thief in the night, our culture is being stolen. How can we revive our culture? We have tried to assimilate…to wash our hands, brush our teeth…”

Ammie Kipsigak, Hall Beach

As a result of these feelings of inadequacy or inferiority, an expression came into use which is still heard today: “Inutuinaugama – I am only an Inuk!” Or “Inutuinanilugama – I am just a pitiful Inuk!”

One participant expressed the view that we often don’t hear about it when Inuit are put down. We don’t know about this, because many Inuit do not complain. The workshop explored this reaction – seeing it as typically non-confrontational Inuit response to conflict, and also a revealing example of how much damage individuals sustain, when human rights are not respected.

Workshop participants explained that these are current issues for many people. One elder said” “People my age feel inferior.” Another said: “Inuit are seen as dogs…as useless, low human beings. This is slowly changing, but…” This attitude may be one reason why non-Inuit are often elected to public office

One workshop participant quoted from an article written by a non-Inuk Grade XII student, at Inuksuk High School, in 1987:

“During my years of living with the Inuit, I have seen many exchange students come from the south, and I have noticed many of their attitudes towards the Inuit; they look down on them. I am not sure why, but southerners tend to think of the Inuit as too different; they don’t consider the Inuit to be human beings. Most southerners who come here do not realize that it is the environment not the people, which is responsible for differences between themselves and the Inuit. The Inuit are my friends; we have a feeling for each other that is almost like being brothers and sisters. The Inuit and all northerners are the same as southerners. We are all human beings.” (emphasis mine)

Tom Watt, Grade XII, Voices From the Eastern Arctic, published by Outcrop, 1987, Edited by Jane Ann Shapiro.

A younger participant said that although young Inuit have not experienced the same degree of trauma as their elders, some young people are aware of the struggles of their forebearers. She described how she had been told about her father’s courageous act in removing her brother from school, where he was taken against his will. She said this inspired her to remove her baby from a hospital when she was unsatisfied with how her child was being treated.

Some participants expressed the concern that some young Inuit have different values, and that sometimes these values do not reflect traditional Inuit culture. Sometimes young people can insist on their rights in ways that can go against the rights of their elders, such as being verbally abusive. One younger participant said that young Inuit have never experienced such trauma as their parents. As a result, they take their rights for granted.

Participants at the workshop emphasized that the history of human rights abuses in Nunavut: whether it be relocation of communities, removal of Inuit from their families for education or health reasons, , disregarding parental authority, destruction of dog teams, or sexual or other exploitations, must be considered as the context for introducing human rights legislation in Nunavut today.

Although participants at the workshop described a tremendous need for healing and forgiveness as a way of dealing with the past, they said that Inuit Qaujimajatuqangit does not allow Inuit to be vindictive in dealing with a situation like this. Therefore, it was recommended that the process of developing human rights legislation is not the way to redress those past wrongs and pain.

“Inuit are getting behind because of their feelings of inferiority. How can we make positive changes? We need to assist one another. Inuit are angry, but they don’t become aggressive, confrontational.”

Jonah Kelly, Iqaluit, Maliganik Qimirrujiit

“Rights are in our heads, in our beliefs…but they were driven away in the past.

The pain is still with us today. We can structure for the future. … There is anger and pain…but we have to move forward…working with non-Inuit. Don’t start a war. God has given us the power to forgive. …We need to use this power. People stay angry if there has been no forgiveness.”

Peter Kanayuk, Pangnirtung

Nonetheless, some delegates suggested that when a process is designed for future consultation with the public on human rights legislation, it should be kept in mind that public meetings and consultations may be a good place for people to discuss their pain, but not in a vengeful manner. Several delegates mentioned the healing aspects of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, which was set up in South Africa following the apartheid era. One participant said that the power to forgive is the first step in the power to change. It was suggested that for Nunavut, the familiar adage should be “Forgive and Remember” as well as “Forgive and Forget.”

“It is very hard to talk about Human Rights without being emotional and it is because Human Rights was born from great pain…pain that was felt in people’s hearts. … During the Second World War, there were terrible atrocities done to people because of their religion, because of their race and who they were; many people felt so bad about this they wanted to take steps and do something to try and ensure that would never happen again. People got together from different parts of the world to draft the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Some of the key words are about the inherent dignity of all members of the human family. …all people have values in and of themselves just for being who they are. No other.

The foundation of the Un and justice and peace in the world is to live free of fear. That is a very large mission statement that I think we want for our children and ourselves.

At the time the Declaration was written there were many horrible things happening in other parts of the world but we don’t have to look far to see some of those things. And I know people here have experienced some of those things.

The Declaration was made in 1947. At that time, there were laws about selling land or property to people that were Jewish or African. Some were required to quite their jobs in the paid work force when they married or had children. If you were disabled, that meant you lost your job and your family was destitute.

Some of the rights that are protected under the Human Rights Declaration include discrimination on the grounds of race, colour, sex, language, religion, political thought, national or social origin and property rights.”

Pat Lindsey

In developing human rights legislation for Nunavut, it is necessary to understand what has gone past. These are the exact things that must be prevented from ever happening again. The vulnerability and posttraumatic stress of the Inuit, many of whom are still recovering from gross human rights violations in their recent history, must be taken into account in designing the human rights system for Nunavut. Some delegates also, expressed the view that when human rights legislation for Nunavut is drafted, it will be important to find some way of acknowledging human rights violations in the past, perhaps through the preamble to the legislation.

“Use the pain to help understand how rights should be protected.”

Bill Riddell, Fair Practices Officer for Nunavut.

The other reason to understand and talk about human rights abuses of the past, said Inuit elders at the workshop, is to ensure that these kinds of horrific human rights abuses can never happen again.

“I’m so happy to see these kinds of positive changes evolving since we got Nunavut.”

Barnabas Pijuaq, Baker Lake, Maliganik Qimirrujiit

Inuit and Human Rights – a Viewpoint from Nunavik

Human Rights?

“Recently, we’ve heard of different gatherings in the Arctic convened to discuss the subject of human rights. Great institutions devoted to the promotion of human rights exist in many countries, with awesome-sounding Charters for their protection. It’s a wonder that human rights are in any way broken or disregarded. But, it happens all too often. Violations of them also come from some unlikely places, such as from governments.

There is no readily available term for “human rights” in Inuktitut. The word iliarjuk describes a neglected or ill-treated person, usually an orphan, whose human rights could most certainly use some protection. Human rights could be said to be formal anti-iliarjuk measures. Another definition of it can be “a set of rules whose purpose is to prevent sub-servience and ill treatment of all who breathe by others, based on differences in their human characteristics.”

Our people’s main pre-occupation until so recently was the pursuit of the right to eat, and not starve. Given this, it’s hard to conceptualize a more luxurious, expanded version of regarding human rights. But we can recount points of contact between Inuit and Qallunaat in history as references:

On July 29^th, 1611, a battle took place between Inuit and some members of the crew of the Discovery, an English ship, at Qikiqtasiq (Digges Island in English) just offshore from Ivujivik. During the skirmish, the human rights of five people were terminated when they were killed. The Inuit killed four Qallunaat, and the Qallunaat killed one Inuk.

About a month earlier, the crew of this ship had condemned the human rights of their captain, Henry Hudson, by setting him adrift with his young son and a few loyal men in a small open boat with no provisions. This one episode of history would have been a busy time for human rights activists to sort out whose human rights were violated!

Fifty-nine years later, in 1670, King Charles II of England created Rupertsland out of a vast geographical area of what is now Canada by simply issuing a proclamation. Mostly believing these to be vast, empty lands, Kings could do this sort of thing without regard for anybody who may have lived in such lands! Any human beings suspected of occupying these “wastelands” were also quite regarded as uncivilized “savages” not worthy of any consultation.

The human rights of Inuit were being profoundly affected long before we became aware of them. Looking at these points in history, we can, in each case ask, “Were Inuit human rights enhanced, violated, or utterly disregarded?”

The legacy of colonial rule from England and France can most be defined by a superiority complex, which has afflicted its practitioners. Kings and Queens sitting on their thrones across the ocean bandied about the rights of Inuit and their lands with absolute abandon. As a matter of routine, they could change citizenship statuses from one jurisdiction to another without a thought as to even informing their “savage” subjects about the matter.

I have identified a Syndrome which defines this condition. It is SARBS, the Superior Air – Redder Blood Syndrome. It holds that immigrants from England and France breathed air somehow superior to that breathed by lesser beings. Their blood was somehow redder than those of our ancestors whose lands they coloured the Northwest Territories in 1870. SARBS was responsible for terminating our future in Nunavut in 1912.

In 1936, two governments with a touch of this syndrome dumped a court case to a Supreme Court suffering advanced stages of it. The result was the Inuit of Nunavik being declared Indians for purposes of legal definition by the 1939 decision of that court, In Re: Eskimo. As if we weren’t wretched enough, we didn’t even attain the tax-exempt status of our fellow Indians in that deal!

The federal government, highly infected with SARBS in 1953 and 1955, initiated the High Arctic Relocation Experiment. Here, in order to enhance the human rights of the Inuit they shipped to the High Arctic, they disregarded and violated these said human rights! This Syndrome can severely twist the rational logic of its sufferer, causing him to do bad to do good, and vice versa.

A new strain of SARBS reared its head in 1975 at the signing of the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement. The Inuit and Cree signed this upon a SARBS-induced condition of “surrender and extinguishment” of their aboriginal rights, in return for certain benefits. Descendents of the immigrants who had assumed “boss-hood” of our lands had designed a legal superiority for themselves, which they simply forced upon original inhabitants of the land.

Consider the original French settlers landing with Samuel de Champlain in Quebec in 1608. In unfamiliar surroundings, only eight of twenty-four colonists survived the first winter in the new land. The survivors of that first winter must not have looked to be in any shape to be superior to anybody who happened to live nearby.

It is one of the wonders of history that some of their descendents, now separatists in Quebec, are the ones most afflicted with terminal cases of SARBS!”

Zebedee Nungak, human rights activist, former Co-Chair, Inuit Committee on National Issues, former President of Makivik Corporation.

Inuit Qaujimajatuqangit and Human Rights

“Special attention will be given to Inuit Qaujimajatuqangit so that we can incorporate these principles into our human rights protections. Consideration of traditional customs, values and norms is a necessary part of the process of developing Nunavut’s Human Rights Act.”

Premier Paul Okalik, Premier and Minister of Justice, Government of Nunavut, in opening remarks to the workshop, March 17, 2001

The Government of Nunavut has pledged to respect and promote Inuit traditional knowledge and values – Inuit Qaujimajatuqangit. Nunavut is the homeland of the Inuit. So how can the Inuit traditional knowledge be reflected and respected in a “made for Nunavut” Human Rights Act?

In discussing Inuit Qaujimajatuqangit and human rights, the participants stated their belief that Inuit Qaujimajatuqangit could become the foundation of the Nunavut Human Rights Act. However, this legislation would have to be developed especially for Nunavut, because Inuit Qaujimajatuqangit Inuit Qaujimajatuqangit can sometimes conflict with the values and processes of some existing human rights legislation.

One of the basic challenges to establishing an effective human rights regime in Nunavut was explained by Simon Awa. According to Inuit tradition, he stated, Inuit are not allowed to appeal, not allowed to tell on anyone. It is not acceptable to inform on people who are acting badly. “Inuit tradition,” he said, “is that out of respect, we don’t like hurting other people.” Therefore, the process of complaining, in itself, could be contrary to Inuit Qaujimajatuqangit. It will therefore be desirable to make the process of dealing with human rights issues as informal as possible.

Public Awareness and Education

Also, public awareness must be built into the legislation and be a crucial part of the implementation plan. One Inuk delegate noted that since Inuit have felt degraded, inferior and downgraded, perhaps it is time for Inuit to become more assertive, he suggested. Another participant said that too many Inuit have been shortchanging themselves in their abilities. Inuit should be showing their abilities more, he stated. “Inuit must be better informed on their rights so they can be more proactive,” another delegate stated.

“Human rights means having respect for people no matter who they are. Education is a big part of this. This needs to be knowledge from the heart – it’s not about words.”

Susan Hardy, Iqaluit

Another participant, Joan Mercredi, noted that along with rights come responsibilities. Too often, she observed, legislation does not deal with responsibilities which go along with rights. Defining rights also means defining responsibilities. This must be borne in mind in drafting legislation.

Participants at the workshop stated that Inuit Qaujimajatuqangit aims at achieving community harmony. In order for this value to be properly reflected in new human rights legislation, every encouragement must be in place to encourage the resolution of issues by mediation or other alternate dispute resolution processes. “The purpose of the new act should be to teach forgiveness,” on delegate said. “Don’t focus on the obligations.”

Delegates noted that the term “human rights” is a very new concept in the north and not familiar to elders. However, human rights were respected in traditional Inuit society, because the Inuit viewed all human life as equal. This is also compatible with respected teachings of the Bible that God created all people equal.

It was noted that if human rights are going to be discussed in public, we must consider very carefully how these issues fit with Inuit traditions. Sometimes it is a question of new ways clashing with the old ways. One delegate explained that when she had her first child, she was told by elders that she shouldn’t travel – that her priority should be to care for the child – but at the same time her work required her to travel to have income to care for the child.

Delegates were told that since Nunavut is committed to upholding and abiding by the rights and freedoms set out in the Canadian Charter of Rights, same sex relationships will have to be recognized and protected in the new legislation. It was noted that this concept is unfamiliar to Inuit elders, who placed great value on mating with the opposite sex to produce children. Delegates at the workshop did not say that same sex rights would be opposed by Inuit elders. However, they said that it will be a challenge to gain the understanding of elders. It will be a challenge to create an awareness of the need to protect such new human rights in Nunavut.

Inuit Qaujimajatuqangit and Systemic Discrimination

In discussions of human rights and Inuit Qaujimajatuqangit, it was noted that because many Inuit are vulnerable to discrimination due to feelings of inferiority, intimidation and an unwillingness to confront oppression, many instances of human rights violations for Inuit flow, not from single instances of discrimination, but from social systems which have been allowed to build up with many features, big and small, which combine to discriminate every effectively, but subtly, against certain minorities.

This so-called systemic discrimination is more difficult to see, but is just as devastating to those who experience it. Sometimes the discrimination is not even intended, but the way an organization operates makes it beyond reach of those who are different. For example, the Chair of the Nunavut Council for Disabilities was invited to attend the Human Rights Consultation workshop. Even though he would have been made very welcome at the workshop, he decided it was not possible for him to attend, due to the conference organizers having inadvertently chosen a location without wheelchair access.

Another example which was cited at the workshop was the way most jobs are structured. It is taken for granted that most jobs in Nunavut are organized along a southern Canadian model which is very familiar in the wage economy. Workers are expected to work specified hours for five out of seven days. For a hunter, though, climate and seasons define the best times to hunt. The design of most jobs this way is an effective barrier to those for whom hunting is a vital part of their cultural identity.

Once a right is recognized in legislation, employers or other persons in authority in society, may have what is called a “duty to accommodate” so people are not put in the unfair position of choosing between culture and work, while others who fit the Monday-Friday schedule have no need to do so.

Delegates talked about how important extended families are in Inuit Qaujimajatuqangit. Sometimes workplace practices and policies go against important Inuit cultural values. For example, although many Nunavut workplaces have policies in place to allow special leave for employees who have suffered the death of a “next of kin”, many of those policies do not take into account that to provide a comparable benefit for Inuit, “next of kin” should have a very broad definition, considering the large extended families and naming practices of the Inuit. Similarly, although some workplaces allow a parent leave from work to look after a sick child, it must be recognized that Inuit Qaujimajatuqangit requires that a person be similarly given leave to care for a sick parent or elderly relative, when required.

Human Rights in Canada, Provinces, Yukon, Internationally… What Can We Learn?

“By creating a new Human Rights Act, we as Nunavummiut, are in a unique position to develop a human rights scheme that is reflective of our values, culture, geography and everyday life. It does not have to be exactly like human rights legislation elsewhere. We may want to include things that are unique to Nunavut. …you may begin to think about how the Human Rights process should be designed in order to be most effective for people here in Nunavut”.

Premier Paul Okalik, Minister of Justice for Nunavut, opening remarks to the Human Rights Consultation Workshop, March 17, 2001, Iqaluit

The first domestic law came from Saskatchewan, in 1947. All provinces have human rights laws and all territories have Human Rights laws. Basically, they cover relationships between people and public areas such as education, employment, rental accommodation, and public services. Human Rights legislation also aims at preventing discrimination from happening.

The Canadian constitution also has Human Rights included in it…such as freedom of religion, equality rights.

Canada prides itself as a multi-cultural society which means that people can be proud of and promote their culture within Canada, including people with different religions and languages. Language is deeply entrenched in people’s cultures. It is important to note that not many of the provincial and territorial Human Rights acts currently protect language rights. Federally, there is an Official Languages Act and the courts say that is a human right.

Since the 1960s, every jurisdiction in Canada, except the NWT and Nunavut, has adopted a Human Rights Act to provide comprehensive human rights protection for its people. It is now Nunavut’s turn to create legislation that incorporates our unique culture and values as well as the broader democratic principles found in human rights legislation across Canada.

Formal, Complex, Lengthy Processes

Workshop participants were given an overview of human rights laws which exist in every province, territory and for Canada, including the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. They learned that the procedure for dealing with human rights issues in southern Canada is in many ways inappropriate for Nunavut. The processes are usually complex. There are many steps. The first one is usually submitting a complaint in writing. Then there is an investigation. At this stage, attempts can be made to solve the problem. If not resolved, the complaint will then be referred to a different group of people for a hearing.

This becomes complex. Lawyers are usually needed. The hearing is usually very public and formal…that can be intimidating for the complainant. The hearing is usually adversarial, meaning a stressful environment for considering the complaint, and possible negative feelings afterwards. All these steps mean that it often takes a long time for complaints to be dealt with.

Most human rights regimes in Canada have a component which is devoted to public education. In most places, though, responding to complaints takes precedence over education and awareness programs.

Delegates agreed that in Nunavut we can learn a lot about what NOT to do in looking at other Canadian models for protecting human rights in Nunavut.

The Nunavut Fair Practices Act – its Scope, Limits, Effectiveness.

The Fair Practices Officer for Nunavut, Mr. Bill Riddell, talked about the limits of the Nunavut Fair Practices Act. He explained that many people cannot understand how the person that they complain to – the Fair Practices Officer, is not their advocate. This is difficult to explain to the complainant, but it is also difficult to explain to the respondent, who is feeling pressure from the investigation. If the investigation stage reveals that the complainant has another remedy, Mr. Riddell usually feels compelled to assist the individual to access that other option, although that is beyond his mandate as set out in the act.

After investigating, the Fair Practices Officer can try to resolve the complaint. This can be done by “shuttling” between one party and the other, Mr. Riddell said, or by arranging face to face mediation. If mediation succeeds, it can fix the particular problem, but it cannot order the organization to eliminate the conditions which caused the discrimination. The settlement process cannot go beyond a particular situation to make a broader ruling. This can mean that discrimination can recur.

If the complaint cannot be resolved, then the Fair Practices Officer becomes the judge, with the power to make a ruling. By this time, the parties are usually quite confused about the Fair Practices Officer’s proper role. Once it goes to a hearing, in Nunavut, the complainant is by then usually facing a lawyer, acting for the respondent, typically a government department or a private corporation. Currently, it is questionable whether legal aid services are available to assist a complainant under the Fair Practices Act.

The major problem with the Fair Practices Act, however, in addition to its limited application, seems to be the many different roles of the Fair Practices Officer. Members of the public who have had dealings with this office are very confused about dealing with someone who seems to be their friend and advocate, is the investigator, has a mandate to try mediation, wherever possible, and then becomes the arbitrator if mediation fails

There are other practical limits on the effectiveness of this office. The Fair Practices Officer only works part time. Also, there are ambiguities in the Fair Practices Act.. The act prohibits discrimination based on place of origin in one section, and then prohibits discrimination based on where someone lives in another section. The Act is not very clear. Mr. Riddell says it is difficult to deal with some complaints, such as sexual harassment, which seem to be outside the legislation. The way complaints are handled, generally, is very complex and time consuming.

After reviewing the limits of the Fair Practices Act, workshop participants agreed that the challenge to develop a human rights act for Nunavut, is to avoid setting up time consuming and complex systems to protect human rights

What Should be the Key Goals of Nunavut’s Human Rights Legislation?

Make it less Intimidating for People to Complain About Human Rights Violations

Feelings of inferiority can prevent people from accessing human rights protection at all. For example, the first step in most complaints is to file a complaint in writing. For many Inuit, this is a significant stipulation. One elder at the human rights workshop described how, as a young man working for the federal government in Ottawa, he argued for an hour with his supervisor about why he refused to sign his annual performance evaluation, for fear of being seen to be bragging. Even though this form was required to be signed in order to implement a pay increment, the taboo against praising oneself was so strong that our informant refused to sign the forms. He tried to explain to his supervisor that he wouldn’t sign the document, because “…I am an Inuk.” He said that he had been taught that praising one’s own accomplishments – even in the form of a resume – is like bragging. During that same period, he was told, by another co-worker: “You are not good enough to fill my job.”

The Official Languages Commissioner for Nunavut, Ms. Eva Arreak, explained that her office deals with this sensitivity, on the part of many Inuit, by receiving oral complaints and concerns about the Official Languages Act. Then the complaint or concern is described and noted in the files (in writing).

Most participants were in favour of having some appropriate capacity in each community to receive and look into complaints or refer them to somewhere else. The process must be welcoming and accessible for unilingual Inuit.

One group recommended that appropriate individuals or organizations could be identified in each community, building on existing resources which are already in place. It is generally easier for people to deal with their peers, with people they know. Another group of participants described the role of such a contact persons as a “helper”. For each community, a list of people and community organizations (elders, youth, justice committees, etc.) who could deal with human rights issues, will mean that an individual can likely find someone in their community who can be trusted with confidential information about human rights issues.

It is essential that community groups and individuals must be given training and support, so that they will know how to deal with human rights issues, including actively referring the individual to another agency if it is more appropriately directed there. The helper or helping group then becomes a filter. Help may be needed outside the human rights system – e.g. collective bargaining, Labour Standards; or the helper may determine that, where both parties want to resolve the issue, a referral should be made to a local Alternate Dispute Resolution process: mediators or elders.

Create a Positive Climate for Human Rights in Nunavut Through Strong Public Education and Awareness

Since the process of alleging a human rights violation is intimidating for many Inuit, delegates agreed that the ideal situation would be to create an environment in Nunavut which ensures that discrimination never happens. We need to find ways to ensure that all workplaces are free from sexual harassment, and from any other form of discrimination.

A new Human Rights Act for Nunavut must therefore have a strong educational approach. We must focus on what is right and understandable, rather than on what is wrong. Human rights violations involve feelings. We must make all people in Nunavut feel that they are all of equal rights and abilities.

Many delegates advised that the key in education was to begin at a very young age and involve parents as well. The focus should include the Nunavut Land Claims Agreement as well as the Charter of Rights. The process of public consultation into a new Human Rights Act for Nunavut must be educational as well.

In discussing this educational approach to human rights, delegates acknowledged that human rights is important because of our painful past. However, “…we are more concerned about establishing a positive environment, creating a climate where this can’t happen again. Human rights legislation must be expressed positively…this is necessary to deal with the climate of oppression and intimidation still lingering today”, said one delegate. “It is not just about investigating wrongs. It is about improving society in Nunavut.”

What Human Rights Should be Protected in Nunavut?

Rights are words to help to explain the most important things about how we want to live and be treated in our communities, and by our governments. Rights set out the way we would like everyone to be treated and respected in our society. Rights represent the highest ideals and values in our society.

Nunavut is very different from a province in southern Canada. In considering how we should define and protect human rights in Nunavut, we should ask ourselves what are the most important values to us in Nunavut. What are the protections every human being in Nunavut should have? What are the things we most value in our lives in Nunavut, in our interaction with people?

Inuit at the workshop spoke of how Inuit have been affected by human rights violations in many ways. The human rights regime for Nunavut must therefore be sensitive to this history.

Workshop participants felt that in Nunavut, human rights need to be broadly defined. Human rights in Nunavut were defined by some participants in the workshop as flowing from what people saw, heard and felt.

Human rights legislation in Nunavut must also take into account the many subtle, institutional forms of discrimination. In other parts of Canada, 80 per cent of human rights complaints are related to work. This is the primary emphasis of the Nunavut Fair Practices Act. But it must be understood that for many Inuit, their exposure to the white race has been very intimidating. Many Inuit, even elders, believed that non-Inuit are a superior race. They described white people as: “Our bosses.”

It is very important, then, that new human rights legislation for Nunavut, must recognize that many instances of discrimination are not just single, isolated events, but also something which is built into our social system. This systemic discrimination arises when discriminatory attitudes pervade all aspects of a situation, such as a workplace or other institution. Human rights legislation in Nunavut therefore must expressly define and include systemic discrimination. There must also be clear protection, under the new legislation, for employment equity programs, which represent ways of trying to deal with historic systemic discrimination.

The Nunavut Human Rights Act must also reflect the “duty to accommodate” which has been developed by courts considering cases of discrimination. The “duty to accommodate” recognizes that there are often circumstances which result in people being discriminated against because of conditions around them. The lack of child care facilities in a community or inflexible hours of an employer will have a big impact on a woman’s right to work.

The “duty to accommodate” must include the traditional lifestyle. Unnecessarily rigid hours of work may be very prejudicial to hunters who must plan their hunting activities around such variables as weather, seasons and tides. Many employers in Nunavut have the ability to be more creative in determining days off and permitting paid or unpaid leave from work.

One group of participants recommended that the legislation should recognize that there may be different types of discrimination in Nunavut. There may be groups of people suffering discrimination in Nunavut who have not been considered in other places: people in poverty, homeless people, people from small communities.

Conclusion

Delegates to the Human Rights Consultation Workshop sponsored by the Department of Justice, Government of Nunavut, expressed enthusiasm about the intention of the Government of Nunavut to begin consultations towards a “made for Nunavut” Human Rights Act.

The delegates also expressed a strong commitment to careful consideration of Inuit Qaujimajatuqangit in the design and implementation of a new human rights regime for Nunavut, especially in defining human rights and systemic discrimination.

The workshop also formulated recommendations towards community involvement in an initial complaint and making the process timely and welcoming to Nunavummiut.

Delegates also expressed delight at the government’s emphasis on public consultation in the process of creating a new Human Rights Act for Nunavut, noting that seeking grass roots input to develop legislation which reflects the uniqueness of Nunavut is what they had expected to result from the creation of Nunavut.

“I am proud to be involved with the human rights consultation process. This is the reality of the Nunavut dream!”

Peter Kanayuk, Pangnirtung.

Amagoalik and Associates

Box 2020, Iqaluit, NU, X0A 0H0

Tel 867 979 1012 email dennis@nunanet.com, gooa@nunanet.com, innirvik@nunanet.com