Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Aboriginal Peoples
Issue 32 - Evidence - February 13, 2018
OTTAWA, Tuesday, February 13, 2018
The Standing Senate Committee on Aboriginal Peoples met this day at 9:04 a.m. to study the new relationship between Canada and First Nations, Inuit and Métis peoples.
Senator Lillian Eva Dyck (Chair) in the chair.
[English]
The Chair: Good morning. I would like to welcome all honourable senators and members of the public who are watching this meeting on the Standing Senate Committee on Aboriginal Peoples here in this room or listening via the Web.
I would like to acknowledge for the sake of reconciliation that we are meeting on the unceded lands of the Algonquin peoples. My name is Lillian Dyck. I am the chair of this committee, I'm from Saskatchewan, and I welcome everyone here.
I will now invite my fellow senators to introduce themselves.
Senator Raine: Nancy Greene Raine, British Columbia.
Senator Tannas: Scott Tannas from Alberta.
Senator Doyle: Norman Doyle, Newfoundland and Labrador.
Senator McCallum: Mary Jane McCallum from Manitoba.
Senator Christmas: Dan Christmas, Nova Scotia.
Senator Pate: Kim Pate, Ontario.
The Chair: Thank you, senators.
Today we continue our study on what a new relationship between the Government of Canada and First Nations, Inuit and Metis peoples of Canada could look like. We continue looking forward at the principles of such a new relationship.
We welcome today, from Pauktuutit Inuit Women of Canada, Tracy O’Hearn, Executive Director; and Rose Mary Cooper, Political Advisor to the Executive.
Ladies, you have the floor. Following your presentation, there will be questions from the senators. Please begin your presentation.
[Editor’s Note: The witness spoke in her native language.]
Rose Mary Cooper, Political Advisor to the Executive, Pauktuutit Inuit Women of Canada: Good morning. It is a pleasure to be invited here this morning. Pauktuutit is a national Inuit women’s organization that lobbies, promotes and advocates Inuit women of Canada. It’s a real pleasure to be here, and we look forward to having a discussion and some questions.
Tracy O’Hearn, Executive Director, Pauktuutit Inuit Women of Canada: I’d like to thank the honourable chair for inviting us here, the deputy chairs, some old acquaintances and new.
Rebecca Kudloo is the President of Pauktuutit, and she is currently at a circumpolar education summit in Nuuk, Greenland. Otherwise it would have been her pleasure to be here with you today.
As Rose Mary was saying, Pauktuutit has been around since 1984 and has more than 30 years of advocating for the equality of Inuit women generally, both within their own communities and society and within Canada as a whole. Our priorities have tended to cluster around women’s equality and very specific issues like violence against women, sexual abuse of children, a broad range of health issues, and socio-economic development, which includes infrastructure and housing. Those tend to be the areas that Pauktuutit has focused on.
In thinking about coming to speak with you today and about the renewed relationship that the Prime Minister has committed to, and the Prime Minister’s commitment to the equality of women in Canada, there are some foundational pieces in place, but more work needs to be done to implement these commitments. I will give you an example.
Often the federal government consults with five national indigenous organizations. I’m sure this committee has heard this before, but far too often, Inuit women do not have the ability to speak for themselves in these very important national dialogues, development of policies and initiatives. One thing we are looking forward to, hopefully with some help from others, is for Pauktuutit to have a seat directly at the table for this review of laws process that the federal government has committed to doing.
I think generally what it comes down to is that to create a new relationship with indigenous women, First Nations, Inuit and Metis women must be recognized in their diversity. The Arctic is unique. The geography and the social conditions are unique; the lack of infrastructure is unique. There are concerns about the opening of the Northwest Passage and the impacts on the communities.
We offer these as a few examples of the differences that must be brought to federal policy development, development of initiatives, so there is equality of outcome, not simply equality of treatment.
For the North, this is another important example of where Inuit women must be involved. There are too many hungry children in this country. I don’t want to sound negative, but Pauktuutit has not been able to be part of that debate and discussion in a meaningful way.
Ms. Cooper: I have just a supplemental on Nutrition North. We looked at your reviews on Nutrition North and the weight versus the good food. We need to be complementary that we look at country food and mainstream food. How do we nourish our children today?
There is your review of NIHB and dental care. We have also seen strong links that when you don’t have proper nutrition, it affects your health and well-being.
Traditionally for Inuit, a man and a woman have had very significant roles, and sometimes they were interchangeable. They were nomadic, following the flora and fauna, but now we’re in communities — communities that come with residential schools and all the effects around that.
It’s a changing dynamic, evolving over time, and the social and health conditions continue to be a challenge for our Inuit communities.
Housing: There is such a need for infrastructure in the North.
When you look at all the social and health conditions, and if you looked at it in the Inuit context, because government tends to be very siloed and focused on health and justice, but for Inuit, it’s a holistic circle. Everything relates, whether it’s the justice system, the health system or the social system. How do these policies and legislation have an effect on the communities?
We really need to look at it through an indigenous lens. If we looked at policy or legislation, how would we look at things differently? That is something we have to revisit periodically, not in a governance structure, but in a traditional way of viewing the world versus a governance approach.
Ms. O’Hearn: In thinking about a renewed relationship going forward, it must be more of a relationship between equals. I can speak for Pauktuutit: This organization struggles with a lack of capacity, and the communities have even less capacity. To build a relationship would be to build the strength of people, of course, and of communities and organizations to be able to engage, to give free, prior and informed consent on many significant questions that will come.
We had an annual general meeting in January, and we had an opportunity to do a workshop and seek input on Canada’s Arctic framework policy. We had women from across Inuit Nunangat. There are 53 communities across Inuit Nunangat, and many Inuit live outside of that area. The delegates were so happy to have an opportunity to put forward their views on what constitutes a strong Arctic. What constitutes a strong Arctic is strong people and strong communities. We just received a draft report this morning that we will be giving to Indigenous and Northern Affairs Canada.
Something else that is very important is that there has to be an equal ability to engage in these discussions.
We didn’t come with a prepared text today. These are the fundamental issues we face on a regular basis in trying to have conversations like these with senators and people with a voice and who are decision-makers, so that the voice of Inuit women is integrated as part of the national dialogue and that Inuit women are fully part of the social fabric of this country.
The Chair: Thank you. Would you like us to proceed to questions now?
Ms. O’Hearn: Please.
Senator Tannas: Thank you for being here. I have a couple of contextual questions to start with.
How many Inuit women are there in Canada?
Ms. O’Hearn: There would be approximately 30,000. I believe the last total population figure I saw was 66,000.
Senator Tannas: And do you know what percentage of them live in the North as opposed to the South?
Ms. O’Hearn: Approximately 75 per cent.
Senator Tannas: Who live in the North?
Ms. O’Hearn: Yes.
Senator Tannas: Your organization is member driven. Do people actually take out a membership and participate in the affairs of the association?
Ms. O’Hearn: No, Pauktuutit is a little unique. The bylaws read that every Inuk woman is automatically a member of Pauktuutit. It is very inclusive. There is a way by which someone could remove herself, but I’ve never known that to happen in 30 years. Also, there is no membership fee.
Senator Tannas: I noticed there was agreement made with your president and with the minister recently for $1 million of funding to promote awareness and engagement on social media. Is that the entire budget of the organization, or was that just for that campaign? Also, is that annual?
Ms. O’Hearn: That’s a very good question, senator. That funding was a result of a memorandum of understanding that we signed with Indigenous and Northern Affairs Canada last June, and that agreement was a long time coming. It formalizes the commitment of both parties to work together. It sets out a schedule of regular meetings between the minister and the president — senior officials. We are to develop a work plan based on mutual priorities. We’ve yet to get to that development of the work plan.
This additional core funding was very welcome. It will help pay a portion of the rent. It will give Pauktuutit more staff and more capacity to come to important discussions like this.
At the present time, it is for the coming fiscal year only, and Pauktuutit relies on annual proposal-based projects. This additional core funding is going to be tremendously helpful. My objective this coming fiscal year is to try to lock that in as ongoing core funding.
Senator Tannas: I’m sorry for all those mundane questions, but I just want to understand.
What would be the total operating budget and funding for your organization now without the $1 million?
Ms. O’Hearn: Last fiscal year, I believe it was just under $2 million.
Senator Tannas: Does that funding come exclusively from the federal government?
Ms. O’Hearn: Not exclusively.
Senator Tannas: You have other groups?
Ms. O’Hearn: We have some health research partnerships, and we have some private-sector funding for health. We are trying to diversify Pauktuutit’s revenue, but Pauktuutit is in a unique position because of Inuit women’s constitutional rights and the federal government wanting to work with Inuit women.
Senator Tannas: Where are you two based? Are you here in Ottawa or are you up North?
Ms. O’Hearn: We’re here in Ottawa.
The Chair: I think you just said that Inuit women have a unique position with regard to their constitutional rights. I think I heard you correctly. Could you elaborate on that?
Ms. O’Hearn: It’s simply that Inuit are recognized as an indigenous people of Canada — one of the Aboriginal peoples of Canada — with certain rights that go along with that.
At Pauktuutit, we were very happy to hear the Prime Minister’s commitment in 2015 to women’s equality in Canada, so we certainly take the Prime Minister at his word that he intends the equality of Inuit women as well. There are some distances to go before Inuit women have a say in the same quality of life and outcomes as other women in Canada.
Senator Doyle: Good morning, and thank you for being here.
I was just going over some of our notes. It says some of your main activities or projects are violence and abuse prevention, social and economic development, and health policy and projects.
What have you found over the years as you have studied domestic violence? What have you found to be the underlying causes of the domestic violence that your organization deals with and where it stems from? Does any of it stem from some of the aspects of the Inuit’s earlier interaction with the government of so-called mainstream Canada?
Is substance abuse still a major factor? We’ve heard over the years that substance abuse might be a major factor.
Is the problem worse among the middle-aged or the older generations, or is it still a part of the problem of the younger generation as well?
Could you comment on what is the chief cause of domestic violence in those areas?
It might be a tough one. I know it’s not easy.
Ms. Cooper: It’s a big one, but when we look at what Inuit have gone through historically, whether it was relocation or settlement in the communities to residential schools, these have compounding effects and intergenerational effects. It’s not a quick fix when we’re dealing with former residential school students. It affects the next generation. Those are the underlying effects of addiction.
In order to address addiction, we need to provide healing. Part of the major objective for our president, Rebecca Kudloo at our last board AGM was to put in a resolution to re-establish the healing foundation because there was momentum going on there.
It’s one thing to create programs and services, but part of the challenge is that when you look at the workforce in the Arctic, there is a high turnover and there are big demands. If you can’t retain for a period, you don’t have a holistic approach on a healing path. You need to invest in Inuit being part of the workforce. Training and development are key essentials for Inuit to play a significant role in these areas.
Pauktuutit has provided tool kits for front-line workers to provide some education on Inuit culture and on how to prepare and how to work with Inuit communities. We work in partnership with territorial governments and with the regional Status of Women entities. So we have arms out there that are always being plugged in at the community level.
I hope that answers your question.
Senator Doyle: So you would say that developing women’s entrepreneurship gives them a greater sense of independence and self-reliance, and it translates down into the community in due course.
Ms. O’Hearn: I’d also like to add, senator, that there are very practical things like the lack of housing. Lack of housing is a significant problem, particularly with regard to women’s safety.
Of the 53 Inuit communities across Inuit Nunangat, approximately 15 have a safe shelter for women. So more than 70 per cent of remote, isolated Inuit communities do not have safe shelters, and these communities are fly-in/fly out only. A woman’s safety and, at times, her life can be dependent on a social worker evacuating her out of her community.
Housing is really at the bottom of a lot of the problems people are experiencing. We also hear a lot about elder abuse, because it may be an elder or a grandparent whose name is on the lease, and their children, grandchildren and sometimes great-grandchildren have nowhere to go. The home becomes crowded, and elders are very vulnerable, unfortunately, to being exploited.
We often talk about peeling an onion. There is a great big onion, but there are some basic infrastructure needs.
As Rose Mary said, there is unresolved trauma related to the highest rates of violence in the country and the highest suicide rates in the country. When you think about a child who experiences any number of traumatic events during their childhood, there really is a need for specialized interventions.
Senator Doyle: Are Inuit urbanizing as quickly as other indigenous peoples, or are Inuit more tied socially and economically to their local lands and the oceans? We hear that many indigenous groups are urbanizing much more quickly. Do you find that among Inuit?
Ms. O’Hearn: There are some practical reasons people come south, such as for education because there is no university in the Arctic. There is an Arctic college. A lot of people come for school. A lot of people come for health care. Parents may have children with special needs that cannot be met up North. So there is that sort of migration.
I think it’s in flux as we speak, so I couldn’t give you a definitive response. But those are some of the reasons that people come south. And we hear a lot of women come south to escape violence.
Senator Doyle: It just depends on the community and whatnot. Thank you.
Senator Raine: Thank you very much for being here. I’m sorry that your president, Rebecca Kudloo, couldn’t be here. Please extend our greetings to her.
We did study housing in the North a few years ago, so those of us who were on the committee at the time are very familiar that this is at the root of all of the other social difficulties. We’re hoping that the government looks at our recommendations very seriously.
I am very interested in health with regard to nutrition and physical activity. I observed when we were in the North that children play very actively outside year-round. It was wonderful to see the energy and happy faces when they were playing actively, but I am concerned about Nutrition North and how it is relating to getting a good, healthy diet to the North.
I was interested that you commented on the fact that they were somehow relating the amount of weight that is transported to the North as being a measurement of success.
If we want to fix Nutrition North and make it a better program, how can Health Canada tap into the expertise of the Inuit women? Would your organization be a good place to make that policy? The ability to blend food from the South, in terms of pulse crops and things that are not perishable, with country food, I’m wondering what your thoughts are on that. How could it be structured so that the input of your members has an impact?
Ms. Cooper: For Pauktuutit, when it comes to consulting with our regions, it’s always an issue of resources to do this type of consultation, whether it’s our board membership or associated stakeholders.
We know that there has been a review of Nutrition North. We have not been able to fully engage, and it goes back to resources.
There are a lot of areas in Nutrition North that we have a lot of interest in. To provide you a snapshot of what that is, we would have to do a thorough review to date and how we consult with our stakeholders, because they are the ones in the North that are impacted by Nutrition North.
Senator Raine: So you’re saying that consultation without the financial resources to allow you to reach out to your very diverse and far apart members doesn’t work.
Ms. Cooper: That is correct.
Senator Raine: Thank you.
Senator Christmas: Good morning. Thank you for joining us and sharing your thoughts.
Ms. O’Hearn, you mentioned that Inuit women do not have the ability to speak for themselves and that the Government of Canada only recognizes the five national indigenous organizations. I fully agree with you that there is a great diversity of views among First Nations and Metis and Inuit women.
Can you explain to me why Canada has not recognized Pauktuutit as a national organization?
Ms. O’Hearn: I wish I could, senator. I know some of the history. It is a very challenging, diverse world.
Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami has represented Inuit nationally since the 1970s. There was the evolution of the Native Brotherhood of Canada to the congress now. There are the Métis National Council and Assembly of First Nations who engage in a nation-to-nation relationship.
The Congress of Aboriginal Peoples has been around for a long time representing the views of off-reserve.
In the 1980s, I believe, the Native Women’s Association of Canada took a case to the Supreme Court. I’m forgetting the particulars of the case; I’m sure Senator Pate would have much better recall. However, there was a case that went before the Supreme Court. Although the Native Women’s Association did not win their case, it had the effect of forcing the federal government to recognize and include, at that time, Aboriginal women, but without the distinctions. So that has been very difficult for Pauktuutit.
The Native Women’s Association of Canada has done tremendous work, but they do not bring forward the unique voices, views and priorities of Inuit women.
We have tried for 30 years to have the federal government recognize Pauktuutit. I would suggest that our new memorandum of understanding is getting Pauktuutit and its membership one step closer. The recognition of NWAC was a consequence of the federal government recognizing that they had to consult with women. I’m hoping this is a new opportunity as part of this renewed relationship.
We were really heartened a couple of weeks ago at the national emergency summit on child welfare that Pauktuutit was invited in its own right, and that was the first in quite some time. We’re hoping that will be the beginning of a new engagement model.
I think that’s the best I can answer your question.
Senator Christmas: Thank you.
As you may know, this committee is studying what the new relationship between Canada and indigenous peoples can look like in the future. If you can picture in your minds a group of young Inuit children, what would you say are the most important priorities for them in achieving this new relationship?
Ms. Cooper: Essentially, education is primary in order for our children to be as successful as the rest of Canadians. It’s education, healthy children with healthy nutrition, and just as many rights as the rest of Canadians have and enjoy. Because as much as Inuit are in the back doors of the mainstream of Canada, we’re still part of Canada. We’re right on top up there. So, it’s just an equal share and equal rights in all policies and legislation.
Ms. O’Hearn: I would like to add safety to that. Inuit children need to be safe in their homes.
The Chair: If I could follow up with a supplementary to the first question from Senator Christmas, you were indicating that Pauktuutit was invited to the national round table on child welfare. If you were to imagine the future, would you recommend that Pauktuutit be considered on the same basis as the Native Women’s Association of Canada and be invited to all such national tables?
Ms. O’Hearn: Yes, we would. We have had the experience of being excluded from federal, provincial and territorial indigenous initiatives that have significant consequence to Inuit women. Yes, we would welcome an engagement model that includes Inuit women directly at the table, with the capacity to bring forward, as Rose Mary says, informed positions and recommendations.
Senator Pate: Thank you both for coming and for all the decades of work that you have collectively been doing, individually as well.
The first time I went to Iqaluit was with Pauktuutit. When I went to the prison there, I was struck by all of the women and children who were there and had been jailed for their own protection. That was the only place to take them in order to protect them from the violence they were experiencing in their home communities.
When I was there last year, there were some new jails, but the primary issue that the staff and the women in prison were talking about was the fact that children and women were still being jailed, in large part because of their response to the violence that wasn’t being dealt with in their homes. You have talked about that already.
There are plans to build yet another jail up North, spending $76 million on yet another jail. How would Pauktuutit suggest, as a policy recommendation, that money be spent instead to really protect women and children?
Ms. O’Hearn: I can’t offer it as a policy because I haven’t brought this to the board, but as many jails that are built will be filled. There has to be a much greater investment in healing, as Rose Mary says.
We are doing a current project working with Inuit men, to help men work with other men to reduce violence in their communities. This is a very small example. When we began this project, which was funded by Status of Women, we did an Inuit gender-based analysis of the situation of violence. We looked at the impacts of forced relocations and residential schools on women and men, and the contemporary issues and circumstances of Inuit men.
Surprisingly, we found Inuit women tend to be more employed. Also, a lot of Inuit men feel displaced from their traditional roles as providers and hunters for whatever reason. They have not engaged as much in the labour force. We found that to be very different.
Working with men’s groups, we created a first tool kit to allow men to help unpack decades, a life, of trauma, unresolved grief and things like jealousies. It looks like a very simple little tool kit for a men’s group, but we’re having tremendous success with it. We’re doing a trainer workshop on the north coast of Labrador in Nunatsiavut next week. There is tremendous interest.
I offer that as an example of a healing opportunity and initiative that hopefully will reduce the rates of crime and reduce, if not eliminate, the need for more prisons.
I would be remiss if I did not bring up child sexual abuse. It’s very difficult in any culture or society to arrive at exact numbers, but we have been told anecdotally that there is not a child untouched in either directly or indirectly. Rebecca Kudloo brings this up at every opportunity with every federal cabinet minister that she can.
There must be an investment in protecting children; children must live in safety, including not being subjected to sexual abuse.
That went around your question, but it’s definitely important to have an investment in healing to bring down violent behaviour and to reduce the need for prisons.
I would like to add a comment about Gladue sentences. This has come up on a regular basis among the Pauktuutit board and our membership. In Inuit communities, because the infrastructure is so lacking, an Inuk who receives a Gladue sentence upon release does not have access to the resources that are mandated as part of that sentence for rehabilitation. So it appears to victims that the offender has just gotten a slap on the wrist, and they return home and there is no follow-up or meaningful rehabilitation. I offer that as an example as well.
When we look at the review of laws, a priority for us would be to ensure those resources are in place. Thank you.
Senator McCallum: Thank you for coming to present. It has been educational for me to see the struggles and challenges you have had, considering the geographic location that seems to be such a hurdle. Despite all that, you have made progress in working with women and advancing forward.
You talked about the silo effect and how it contributes to ongoing issues in the communities. What would you recommend in terms of dismantling the silos to bring in the holistic perspective?
Ms. Cooper: In the Inuit context, it’s a holistic approach from birth to death. Everything is related. When we’re talking about men and women, if we don’t have men and women, we don’t have children. It combines the whole family unit; it’s the collective.
How do we look at the family? We look at them as a unit and not in terms of programs and services that are only geared for children, women or men. There is that interconnectedness.
Where we jail our men has a trickle effect. There are no resources and there is no support for the family to feed the family.
How do we ensure that we do not repeat historical wrongs? We must ensure you have healing programs so there is no intergenerational effect that continues. That’s one example.
Even the animals on our land feed us and nourish us. First and foremost, that has always been our grounding force — our environment, our land.
Everything is connected. It’s not just people; it’s the land and the air we breathe. So it’s just creating that circle of support. If Health is working on something, it has to have that interdepartmental connection globally; if you do this legislative change, it will have an effect here. It’s no different than any legislation. You cannot go to one extreme on legislation and expect it to turn around, because something else is going to go on.
With the five-year review as structured today, are amendments required? How do you look at legislation that works toward achievement in five years? But it’s not going from one extreme to another. Remember the days when the law said you weren’t allowed to spank the children? It went from one extreme to the other.
We look at child welfare. Lots of children are in foster care. Why is that? Where has the system gone wrong? How do we ensure that children stay within the family unit — with aunts, uncles and grandparents — and not have them out of territory?
If we don’t have the infrastructure for special needs, we have to place them outside of territory. It’s the investment. If you start looking at all the costs associated to have and to remove our children, it’s a greater cost to government. But if we invest in education for our people and in the infrastructure required, it’s a benefit for governments and the people they serve.
Senator McCallum: Thank you.
What principles or actions would guide the development of a nation-to-nation relationship? So much indigenous knowledge exists at the community level. I’m asking this question from that perspective.
Ms. Cooper: Can you please repeat your question?
Senator McCallum: What principles or actions would guide the development of a new relationship? I am thinking about the outside — like asking for people from the outside to look at your issues and move them forward. The goal is a nation-to-nation relationship. When you’re so overwhelmed with what you have presented, sometimes we don’t see a way out. The issues seem insurmountable, but there is a way out.
What is it that would guide us toward moving forward from the consequences of residential schools or policies of the government? How do we move out of that and start to move separately? Would it be through approaching leaders or different avenues that you see would help you move forward?
Ms. Cooper: Inuit are very resilient. The statistics are daunting when compared to mainstream Canadians, but we are resilient. No society in Canada — next to our organization and First Nations and Metis organizations — has had these kinds of historical challenges.
In order for a society to move forward, it has to take ownership of its own challenges and be at the front and centre of providing those programs and services. It goes back to fundamentals. In order for society to take control, it has to take control of its own people.
We have great models today. We have great leaders today. It’s astounding in the last 30 years the education attainment that is going on within our own people today.
How do we get there? I grew up in Iqaluit. I have to be blunt. I grew up knowing that I was the worst at everything. If I’m the worst at everything, does that motivate me to want to change the statistics? No, it motivates one to want to campaign, move forward and say, “I’m going to make a difference under these circumstances.” There are many Inuit doing this today.
It’s daunting with our statistics, but a part of our society has also learned to become victims and the system that has created dependence instead of independence, such as with welfare. In the beginning it was, “If you didn’t send your children to school, you wouldn’t get your flour and sugar.” What kind of society or government was creating this dependency?
Again, fundamentally it goes back to a house is where your heart and home is. You need infrastructure, like every other Canadian. You need programs and services that have meaning and that are going to support Inuit women, children, and men. It’s a holistic approach.
Senator Tannas: As we look to the future, so much of what needs to be accomplished is going to be through new arrangements around funding and the sharing of the wealth, whether it’s natural resource revenue or tax revenue that comes from all Canadians.
One of the things that is not clear to me — and I’m interested to know what you think — is how much of the wealth should be transferred to individuals and what should be transferred to indigenous governments. Could you comment on that? There are many schools of thought about who should get the money to do what. Do you understand what I’m asking?
Ms. O’Hearn: Senator, that question is beyond the scope of what we could respond to today. It is certainly beyond our mandate. There are Inuit governing authorities who would be much better positioned to answer those questions.
Senator Tannas: Okay.
In terms of the culture, and not just the culture today but the culture of the past, what do you think would be the natural way? Is it community, where the money comes in the top and somebody decides to sprinkle it down, or do individual Inuit view themselves as individuals who control their own destiny?
Ms. O’Hearn: It is my understanding there is a great sense of collectivity. In fact, Rebecca Kudloo is at a circumpolar Inuit educational summit in Greenland as we speak, so even in the circumpolar world, there is great unity.
We did some work a number of years ago on Inuit cultural property and intellectual property rights, and that was a fundamental question that came up: What are the rights of an individual designer to benefit from the creations, the designs and the garments of her community, her family or region? I offer that to say that I think there is a very strong sense of collectivity.
There has always been a very strong value of sharing their rights around harvesting. Do you want to talk a bit about that, Rose Mary?
You’re asking a very big question, senator.
Ms. Cooper: We are not in a position to answer that, senator.
Senator Tannas: Fair enough.
Senator Raine: I would like to follow up on your comment about an Inuit designer who designs a pattern that can be commercialized. What you’re saying is that the benefit flowing from that would flow to the region or the community that created the environment for the design to come through the individual. Would that be right? So there would be a shared use of any revenues flowing from a design. It wouldn’t just be the individual.
In the South, I would say that an individual would say, “That’s my design, so I get all the money.” But what I’m hearing you say is, “That design comes from us.”
Ms. O’Hearn: We did this work in 2000. We didn’t have the resources or the capacity to reach answers, but those were definitely some of the questions that came up.
If we think about Baker Lake for example, there are very unique patterns, designs and styles that come from the community. I recall individual designers asking questions like, “Well, what about my responsibility to my family and my community because these designs are not solely mine?”
We have seen a lot of appropriation of indigenous designs as well. At one time it was a very big issue.
Unfortunately, we were not able to continue the work. At one point there was discussion of an association of designers that would make those decisions and determinations. I think there is still a lot of great work that could be built on. I’m quite sure it was in 2000 or 2001.
It’s a different way of looking at it, as Rose Mary says. It’s the whole. No one can survive without another. People can’t survive without the environment. Everything is one. It was a very interesting piece of work.
Senator Raine: So if we look at a new relationship going forward, it’s very important that that collective view is established in that relationship.
Ms. O’Hearn: Yes.
The Chair: You were talking about violence in a community and that sometimes the women and family are flown out of the community and taken south, with part of the problem being not enough housing and overcrowding. If you were to imagine a better future relationship, what would you see instead of what is currently happening? What would be the ideal solution in situations where there was domestic violence? What should happen? What do you see as being a better solution?
Ms. O’Hearn: We hear a lot that the offender should be removed. It’s more complicated in a smaller community that is fly-in and remote. It is often difficult, if not impossible, to get away.
There is also the circuit court system, so when charges are laid, the victim and offender would have to wait for the circuit court to come around.
Ideally, violence would be reduced. There are some interesting models in Nunavik, in Arctic Quebec. They have developed family homes where people can go and cool off if they need a place to go.
Shelters are not the answer. Shelters are just a Band-Aid to the issue of violence. Ideally, the violence has to be reduced, but there have to be options within a community.
The Chair: I wonder if you could elaborate on the model that you were talking about where people could go to cool off, as you put it.
Ms. O’Hearn: I would refer you to the Nunavik Regional Board of Health and Social Services, which has been very innovative in trying to find options for family difficulties or when homes are very crowded. There can be literally nowhere to go. The pressure builds in a family. We hear too many stories of people sleeping in shifts, for example. So it’s a safe place to go. I wouldn’t describe it as a community centre, but it’s another space to be. I believe there are two now.
Ms. Cooper: There is a policy in place where the violator has to be removed from the home. The application doesn’t apply when you’re in a very small community. The infrastructure is not there, so generally the children and the mother are removed.
Is it a pilot project on a small scale before any legislation comes into play? How is this going to work? How is it not going to work? Is the community buying into this approach?
The community has to buy into it initially. Any policy will be very broad in the wish and dream of what we want to achieve, but it’s the community that’s affected by it. So that clear understanding at that grassroots level is essential, and that model going forward to the outlying communities, from small to large.
Senator McCallum: With regard to moving forward, you’ve said that some of them are Band-Aid solutions. When you look at the existing infrastructure you’ve put in place yourself to look at the safety of women, to put them in the jails, even though it is negative, that itself is a work-in-progress because you’ve looked at addressing the safety of the women. When you look at that, what is the next step? How could you see moving this forward?
One of the comments you made was that laws and policies almost seemed to stop the progress or keep you from fully move forward. Is that correct?
Ms. Cooper: Society has to support the legislation. With any legislation, there is consultation at the community and stakeholder level with service providers, entities that are associated by that piece of legislation. Thorough consultation is essential.
I’ll look at the consultation of any piece of legislation. It has to be in concert with what is going on at the community level, because a lot of the communities are overly consulted. So timing is essential. The public has to be aware. There are notices on any piece of legislation when it is coming up, what the schedule is looking like. So thorough consultation is essential.
Senator McCallum: I heard about the resurgence of culture and the ceremonies that are coming back. Looking at the spiritual genocide that occurred across indigenous lives, do you see spirituality as part of the solution?
Ms. Cooper: We were taught through churches that shamanism was a bad thing. We know very little today on how practices work. I couldn’t answer that specifically; it is not our area of work.
The Chair: On behalf of the committee, I would like to thank our witnesses today, Tracy O’Hearn and Rose Mary Cooper from Pauktuutit Inuit Women of Canada. Thank you for your insightful testimony, and thank you to the senators for their questions.
(The committee adjourned.)