In the comments section (link https://www.blogger.com
- "There are long time northern residents who were named beneficiaries when NTI and Nunavut were formed. Each community got to decide how long you had to live there to qualify. Saying "in order to be a "beneficiary" you need to be of a certain race" isn't true."
I've done some research on this since reading that, and I can't dig up anything on this, not even in a theoretical or policy sense. I meet a lot of people, from all walks of life, from many different communities, and would be aware of their beneficiary status. I have never come across a non-Inuit beneficiary, and I've been around a while.
I have to admit, I am very skeptical that this alleged group exists. If any do, these individuals would be very rare indeed.
So I turn it over to the readership, some of whom are reporters: Have you ever heard of a specific non-Inuit beneficiary? Not the concept that they could theoretically exist, I mean, do you actually, really know of any? Or, if you know where the policy or legislation on this matter is, point us towards it to learn more.
Don't give us names, but give us a vague idea of the individual's history in the north, the region they're in, and why they were given beneficiary status.
16 comments:
I have never heard of this either and I have been in the north for a while now. In fact I know 100% Inuit who do not even "qualify" as a benificiary under the regulations yet they have lived here 99.9% of thier lives.
You guys are making me break out my copy of the land claims agreement...
I know of two people from different Nunavut communities who are not descended from Inuit, but were named as beneficieries of the NLCA.
I won't be giving any more information about them, due mostly to the anonymous nature of this blog, and the sort of debate that inspires. I sign everything I write.
I also know a number of people who have worked as enrollment officers, who all confirm that some long term members of communities were named as NLCA beneficieries.
Enrolment requirements:
Sec. 35.3.1
c - is an Inuk as determined with Inuit customs and usages
The community committee decides who is Inuk in accordance to Inuit culture and practices, which could include somoene who married into a family, or had been in a community where they are considered a member of the extended community family. I know people who were included under this method.
The community committees are formed from 3 to 6 community members.
Anyone on the enrolment list can appeal the listing of anyone else, and the appeals committee is known for not having the open interpretation of the act that many of the community based committees have....
which is why those people aren't jumping up and down to say, "I'm a beneficiary too." They don't want to draw any attention to themselves.
OR, as the agreement puts it:
35.1.1a -- Inuit are best able to define who is an Inuk for the purposes of this agreement.
This is all I have to add on this debate...
except, baiting reporters, isn't that like shooting fish in a barrel ;)
Why is this even issue?
I know of several people in the Inuvialuit ( Sorry for the spelling)
region who were not of Inuit decent but were deemed by the community to have adopted there life style and were accepted under there land claims.
Even before land claims ,I know of a few individuals who were granted G.H.L.s ( General Hunting License) or in those days a caribou credit card.
I know this as I was one.
What's the furthest North you can drive in Nunavut?
I don't always agree with Kenn Harper on stuff, but he wrote an excellent feature in NN years ago about why he had declined beneficiary status. The Iqaluit community enrolment committee had approached him and asked him if he wanted to be listed as a beneficiary, recognizing what he had done for the community,his mastery of the language, his promotion of Inuit culture and history, and so on. His response, which I can only summarize (I tried to find it through the online archives, but I couldn't) was a polite refusal. He acknowledged and was flattered by the offer, but, as he said, the entire intent of beneficiary status was to compensate those Inuit who were giving up their Aboriginal title to most of Nunavut. He had no right to that compensation, as he had lost nothing - in fact, as a non-Inuit Canadian, he had, in a sense, gained a huge chunk of turf. It was a very articulate and principled response...wish I could find it again.
It is not like the beneficiaries of the NLCA are in any advantage, it only benefits elders and hunters. There are no other real incentives in the agreement, did we get shafted by the feds, could we have gotten a better deal?
In Nunavut, since there is no real prospect of economic viablility, we look up to NTI and gov't to take all the load to meet our needs.
Do we get any power? Our wildlife is controlled by DFO, our resources are mostly crown land, Nunavut Trust will be depleted soon, etc.
We can't go back, but to look on small victories like programs to enhance culture, etc.
I don't know much about whether the NLCA was supposed to set the stage for economic empowerment or not, so perhaps the last anonymous posting is correct.
However, it is wrong with respect to the 'control' of wildlife.
DFO does not 'control' wildlife in Nunavut. DFO manages marine mammals - as it does throughout Canada.
According to Article 5 of the NLCA, it is the Nunavut Wildlife Management Board and the Department of Environment of the GN that make decisions on the regulation of harvest of terrestrial wildlife (and polar bears). They - through consultations with community and regional hunting and trapping organizations - manage wildlife species according to traditional Inuit practices and the principles of conservation. Currently, only one species of wildlife is governed by a quota (polar bears) - all others species from raptors to caribou, to grizzly bears, wolverines and wolves have no quota.
So the NLCA protects the Inuit right to harvest wildlife - and in this respect is pretty powerful. DFO certainly doesn't.
In terms of prospects for economic viability... what a depressing comment! I see prospects all around from mining to shipping to tourism to art to sport hunting. It is just a matter of good marketing and keeping the benefits within Nunavut. The latter means education - as it means business savvy, marketing tools, etc.
The Government or NTI gives out all-expenses paid opportunities for higher education. All I can say to that is 'wow'! And you don't think you have been given any 'power?' You're right, the next step is yours. Its then on your shoulders to empower yourself!
So according to the land claims agreement, "c- is an inuk as determined with inuit customs and usages" pretty much confirms that you have to be inuit (as recogized by the inuit), so there wouldn't be any "long term northern residents" who aren't identified as inuit who are beneficiaries. Sounds basically like a few non-inuit who married into inuit families were granted beneficiary status- that's to be expected.
It's a social construct of race, not biological, which is the way it's done when it comes to these things.
You have more benefits as a non-inuk than you do if you were under NLCA.
Anonymous 3:19 said: "You have more benefits as a non-inuk than you do if you were under NLCA."
Can you expand on that please? That's a pretty serious blanket statement to make without any specific examples or additional information. Can you specify what benefits non-Inuit receive over Inuit?
Anonymous 1:55pm suggested the NCLA only benefits elders and hunters. Really? I had sort of gotten the impression that the Inuit community in general was pretty pleased about being better able to govern themselves and having more official rights to the land?
If I quit my job but decided to stay in Nunavut, as a non-beneficiary would I qualify for the $60/month/person rent that beneficiaries apparently pay if they are on income support?
If I raise my daughter here and she doesn't complete high school by age 18, can she, as a non-beneficiary, receive social assistance or educational allowance for staying in school until age 21?
If we still live here when my daughter decides to go to university or college would it be paid for in full as it is for beneficiaries?
Did these benefits exist prior to the introduction of the NCLA?
I'm not being facetious, I honestly don't know the answers to those questions.
J of N -
I couldn't agree with your sentiments more. I get irritated with what often seems as race-based (i.e., racist) policies and a government policies that may enable as opposed to help.
HOWEVER, the benefits of the non-Inuit relative to beneficiaries of the NLCA are enormous, though they are not written into law or policies. Rather they are products of history.
Most non-beneficiaries have the benefit of fluency in the world's working/professional language (English), a cultural work-ethic that fits into the world's economy, the know-how to invest and save money, easy access to banks and credit.
I certainly don't think that the above benefits are not available to beneficiaries, they are just more difficult to reach (in the remote communities; I'm not talking about Iqaluit or Rankin). Teachers and government programs are working hard to provide access to the inherent benefits of non-beneficiaries. Frankly, I suspect it is likely overwhelming. But the fact is that non-beneficiaries benefit from what comes with what used to be called 'high birth.'
I don't think that ill-conceived affirmative action is the way to close the divide of the 'benefits', but at this point in history, I would much rather take my benefits, than the benefits of the beneficiaries.
So – my answers to your questions...
YOU will pay for your daughter to go to university because you have the financial savvy to make it happen, because you have the cultural upbringing to have gone to university yourself. You know how to save and invest. You have had the ability to walk into a bank and open an account. You've been speaking English since before you can remember. Most importantly, you can pick up your daughter and leave Nunavut when you don't think it the benefits are good enough anymore. Many beneficiaries can't afford a flight to Iqaluit or have the language and/or financial skills to open a bank account.
Do you get to pay $60/a month for a shitty house? No, but you get to pay for a modern home, because you have know-how and fortune. You also get the self satisfaction and pride of having the skills to do so.
I can't imagine that you would want to trade places. If you aren't ready to trade places, I wouldn't let ‘the benefits that we don't get’ get to you.
I suspect that our(or my) irritation arises from observing that some beneficiaries of these policies are not taking advantage of them, but rather wallowing in blame whitey, drugs, violence and ignorance. But many (and perhaps most) are not.
I suspect that our aversion to racist policies that are written/policy into is natural. It does seem to go against ‘fairness.’ While I don't agree with the bullshit of beneficiary status, let’s not forget about the unfair benefits of being rich (with respect to most people in the world), white (it is still a racist world) and educated. Not to say you didn’t have to work for a good education, but it would be difficult to argue that it comes a lot easier to an Inuk in a remote village than to us.
"While I don't agree with the bullshit of beneficiary status, let’s not forget about the unfair benefits of being rich (with respect to most people in the world), white (it is still a racist world) and educated."
The claim tries to set in place some measures that will START to redress that imbalance over the long term. It's flawed for sure. But I would be interested in hearing your thoughts on alternative methods of achieving the same goals.
Anonymous 9:48am - Thank you for clarifying. I guess I had been thinking in terms of rights as Canadian citizens. One could easily argue, however, that if a beneficiary took advantage of all the opportunities available to him, he would have the same benefits as non-beneficiaries of "high birth".
It's not like it hasn't been done before. There's at least one Inuk here in town with a Masters.
My point in asking those questions was also to suggest that elders and hunters are not the only ones who benefit from the NLCA.
Don't worry, it's not getting to me. I'm not sure that it bothers me that I don't qualify for the benefits outlined in the NLCA. As you pointed out, I'm doing alright without them.
I am white and my parents are white, but I was born and raised in the Territories, my father was a trapper and a hunter, I still work and live here. I have a neighbor who is Inuk, his parents are from here, he was born and raised in Edmonton, he is a beneficiary, I can not be one.
I don't understand this,I thought it was supposed to be about land use not race.
A tad late to the discussion, I just stumbled across this blog. As a white person YES your child can benefit from FANS and receive the funding for post secondary education. For every three years they attend school in Nunavut they will qualify for one year of paid university. I have seen it with a young lad from Nfld. You might have to fight for it, get turned down a couple of times but if you stick with it, your non beneficary can receive free education.
On the other point of non Inuit receiving the benefits of the NLCA, yes that can happen also - through adoption. In Arviat we have a recently adoped baby with green eyes and blond hair CLEARLY NON INUIT, but adopted into an Inuit family. He will be eligible for all the benefits of the NLCA.
Post a Comment