"Creating a Framework for the Wisdom of the Community:" Review of Victim Services in Nunavut, Northwest and Yukon Territories

2.0 Nunavut

2.0 Nunavut

2.1 Considerations in Victim Service Delivery in Nunavut

2.1.1 Introduction

Nunavut Territory

The Nunavut Territory came into existence on April 1, 1999, through the proclamation of the Nunavut Act of 1993.[8] It is a large territory with a total population of 26,745 people[9] living in 26 communities scattered over some two million square kilometers. The newness of the territory and the isolation of many of the communities from one another are further exacerbated by a history of Euro-Canadian colonization of the indigenous Inuit. These factors of geography and history, together, have resulted in economic, health, and social problems for the people of Nunavut who face great challenges in the development and implementation of effective infrastructures that are necessary for adequate service delivery in this new territory.

Key health statistics for Nunavut as compared to Canada as a whole paint a picture of how these challenges play out in the life cycle of a people.[10] While the life expectancy for Canada overall is 78 years old, for Nunavut the life expectancy is 70 years. Looking at specific factors in this, while the death rate for Canadians as a whole from all respiratory diseases is 6 for every 10,000 people, for Nunavut it is 21 for every 10,000. The statistics are similar for deaths from all cancers. While the death rate for all cancers for every 10,000 population in Canada is 19, for Nunavut it is 33. The pattern for infant mortality rates is similar. While the infant mortality rate for Canada overall is 6 infant deaths for every 1,000 live births, the corresponding number for Nunavut is 18 infant deaths per every 1000 live births.

Turning to economic indicators, as of 1999 the unemployment rate of Nunavut was 20.7% compared to 8.5% for Canada overall. This disparity is wider among the Inuit of Nunavut. The unemployment rate in Nunavut for Inuit was 28.0% compared to 2.7% for non-Inuit.[11] This reflects, at least in part, that many non-Inuit move to Nunavut specifically to accept a job offer. This currently is being addressed by the Government of Nunavut in its focus on local capacity building.

Of most pertinent concern for victim services are the high rates of violent crime in Nunavut. In 2002, the rate of sexual assault in Canada as a whole was 7.8 for every 10,000 people, whereas in Nunavut, the rate of sexual assault was 96.1 for every 10,000 people. A similar pattern holds for the rate of violent crime overall. For Canada, the rate of violent crime overall in 2002 was 96.5 for every 10,000 people, whereas in Nunavut the rate of violent crime overall was 709 for every 10,000 people.[12] Moreover, there is a high rate of suicide, especially among youth. Together, these form the contexts within which victim services are provided in Nunavut.

2.1.2 Cultural Differences: Inuit Culture and the Dominant Canadian Culture

This section is devoted to building a working knowledge of key contributing factors that should be taken into account when designing victim services, and other types of human services and programming in Nunavut. The service providers, community caregivers, victims of crime, and federal, territorial and municipal government policy and decision makers interviewed during this research requested that any new services, or modified existing services, take into account the existing cultural differences between Inuit culture and the dominant Canadian culture. They also asked that a clear picture be drawn, for policy and decision makers at all levels of government, of the many challenges and obstacles that exist in terms of victim services program development and delivery in Nunavut communities.

Eighty-five percent of the population of Nunavut is Inuit, with Inuktitut the predominant language. A sizeable proportion of Nunavummiut are unilingual Inuktitut or Inuinaqtun speakers; however, a majority of younger people are bilingual, speaking English as well as their mother tongue. Ninety-one percent of the Nunavut population who identify as Inuit have knowledge of their mother tongue and 85% speak their language at home.[13]

Accordingly, this chapter is devoted to two topics: a general overview of the differences between Inuit culture and the dominant Canadian culture and a general overview of the challenges and obstacles inherent in victim services program development and delivery in Nunavut communities.

This section, which focuses on cultural differences, is not intended as a definitive description of the differences between the dominant "western" culture in Canada and the indigenous Inuit culture in Canada. It represents simply a basic overview, for the purposes of program planning, of major differences between European/Canadian and Inuit culture in areas that have some impact on program planning. These insights are based on interviews with Nunavummiut service providers, caregivers, victims of crime and government bureaucrats, and these respondents are quoted throughout.

Cultural Beliefs About Life

Within Inuit, and perhaps all land-based indigenous cultures, all aspects of life are seen as connected to each other in a web of infinite relationships. No part of life is separate from another part. All animal species, all vegetation and mineral life are related to each other, and to the earth. Nothing and no one can be understood outside of their place within this larger web of relationships. It is not possible to understand one person, or one event, by itself, without putting that person or event in its full historical, biological and spiritual context. In fact, physical and emotional survival is totally dependent on a focused, thorough appreciation and respect for this web of relationships.

It is also understood in these cultures that this ‘web of life’ has its own pattern that ebbs and flows with no beginning and no end. Inuit, like other indigenous peoples, do not think of themselves as being in charge of how this pattern unfolds. They understand that they have a place on earth, but they do not seek to force their own agenda onto the other participants in this pattern.

This means that within indigenous cultures decisions are made largely from a holistic perspective. A proposed course of action can only be judged in terms of its widest possible impact on the web of relationships that surround the proposed action. Will the proposed course of action drive the animals away? Will it make the next generation stronger? Any course of action that could in some way upset the existing, life-giving pattern and balance of life is questionable.

On the other hand, the dominant European culture in Canada largely takes the view that human beings are to some extent ‘in charge’ of what happens around them. The mechanistic, industrial and scientific developments within this culture over the last several centuries have lead to a worldview that places human beings above, and in charge of, the natural world. There is less emphasis on sustaining the fragile web of relationships in which we find ourselves. The idea of harmonizing oneself with the patterns and peoples of the natural world is somewhat obscure to the western mind. Instead, within the western worldview a person is admired when they ‘take charge’ and ‘make things happen.’ This has lead to, or perhaps resulted from, a perspective on life which bases survival on the ability to break ideas, events, plans and people into their various components in an attempt to fix or alter the component that is judged to be hindering the technical ‘progress’ western minds equate with survival.

Cultural Beliefs about Time

Within the dominant Canadian culture, clocks and calendars measure time. There is a very high cultural value put on doing things within set periods of time as measured by clocks and calendars. Being "on time" is regarded as a basic requirement for all types of employment and within most relationships. Those who are not "on time" or who do not meet "deadlines" are considered incompetent or lazy. This concept of time goes largely unquestioned within the dominant culture and is assumed to be both an accurate reflection of reality and a necessity in terms of "getting things done" and "making progress." "Timelines" are forced onto virtually every aspect of life. Very few people in the modern world escape the regimentation imposed by this approach to time. As one respondent stated, "Even the queen wears a watch." Time is the ultimate master of everyone within the dominant culture.

Within land-based indigenous cultures time is not measured by clocks and calendars. In fact, in these cultures, "time" does not exist in the way in which the dominant culture conceives of it as an external determiner of events. Within these cultures, "time" is not measurable but is rather a quality that exists within an event, an animal, a person and the earth. The earth and all the species living on it have their own internal time in which they express their natural birth, death and rebirth rhythms.

Therefore, within indigenous cultures, the idea of forcing events and people into an arbitrary, pre-arranged timeframe is nonsensical. Why would one do that when everything and everyone has a natural internal rhythm, which they must follow in order to truly be who and what they are?

In Inuit culture, the ultimate determinant of events is not the clock, but the earth. The earth itself, its creatures, its weather, will indicate when one should sleep, hunt, eat, rest, work, play and worship. A human being in these cultures strives to be as closely in tune with these rhythms and patterns as possible.

Cultural Norms in Communal Life

Within the dominant western culture in Canada, people live in communities based largely on the availability of work, housing and lifestyle choices. In order to secure these, Canadians of European descent will move long distances from their family and place of birth. Relationships with the people in the communities and regions to which they move are based largely on shared work, housing, recreational and social/political concerns. The technological focus of this culture means that many of these community relationships focus on the completion of mutually agreed technical tasks, which have prearranged timelines. In order to complete these tasks Canadians of a European descent organize themselves around tasks by forming committees, holding meetings, using technological communication devices, writing lists and meeting deadlines.

Within this cultural approach, rules, standards, laws, ideas, priorities, intentions and goals really only become real, and generally accepted, when they are in writing and signed by people whom the majority of residents/members have elected. There are many steps and stages before this final stage is reached.

Within the indigenous Inuit culture in Canada, communal life, as it exists today, is relatively recent. It is only within the last 40 years that Inuit people have lived in settlements that included more than their own extended family, and possibly their kinship group. While the new Inuit settlements may seem small by European Canadian standards, they are much larger than most Inuit families are accustomed to. Living with large groups of people with whom one is not intimately acquainted is a relatively new experience. Furthermore, Inuit families, and small kinship groups, moved seasonally with the animals, in an environment that is one of the harshest on earth.

Communal life was therefore bound by a life-and-death requirement to work closely together in the acquisition of food, shelter, clothing and warmth. Decisions often had to be made quickly and without warning. Energy had to be conserved for the essential tasks of survival. The people with the appropriate expertise, knowledge and ability took leadership over the survival task in question. There was no need to discuss these issues at length or hold meetings about them. In fact, doing so would constitute a waste of precious time and energy. Everyone knew each other’s expertise, knowledge and ability intimately. And everyone had the ability to understand the intentions of others without having to be told.

As a result, in this culture, as in other land-based indigenous cultures, people developed what appears to individuals from more mechanistic European cultures as an intuitive, some might say "right brain," sense of what was happening around them. To westerners it appears that Inuit can see and feel what is happening, on a material, a cognitive/emotive and spiritual level, without being told verbally. Therefore, much of the verbalizing, arranging, planning and meeting necessary in western cultures is superfluous in land-based cultures such as the Inuit culture.

In addition, and perhaps because of the traditional need to work with and trust others to the degree necessary for physical survival, there is a strong level of commitment to keeping families and communities together at all costs. The priority is on collective survival and collective harmony as the full participation of each individual was the only way in which, until recently, people were able to survive.

Implications in Service Delivery

Services to victims of crime, and other community services, need to take these varying approaches to human existence, communal life and time into consideration. The dominant European culture requires for its communal functioning a type of infrastructure that is relatively new to Inuit and other Aboriginal peoples. Advisory committees, proposal writing, meetings and other dominant culture infrastructure tools may be either unfamiliar or meaningless in some Inuit communities. The irony is that they may, in fact, be redundant.

When the communal focus is on harmonious and fully interactive personal relationships, many of the infrastructure tools necessary in the dominant culture to create a working consensus become unnecessary. Forcing these tools onto a culture, which relies on a completely different type of infrastructure, causes frustration in both cultural groups.

At this juncture, in order to access funding and institute the programming, legislation and other initiatives necessary to address the present social situation, some degree of dominant culture infrastructure is necessary at the community level. Ironically, such requirements are in response to needs initiated by the changes imposed on the Inuit by Euro-Canadians developing the north for their own purposes.[14]

The answer may lie in taking an approach to service delivery that relies on both types of communal life and infrastructure. Inuit communities will most likely find it useful to employ some dominant culture infrastructure tools when it is necessary to interact with that culture or deliver a program based on a dominant culture methodology, such as a treatment centre. Governments and other dominant culture institutions, which are attempting to work with Inuit communities in finding solutions to social problems, might find it useful to learn about and employ an Inuit approach to infrastructure.

For Inuit communities, this means learning more about the technical tools involved in developing the social programs which will address specific problems. Within dominant culture institutions, this means ‘switching channels’ when dealing with Inuit communities and taking an approach that focuses primarily on building solid interpersonal relationships and a holistic perspective, rather than on the completion of technical tasks within a preset timeframe. People from the dominant culture may be surprised to see how quickly and efficiently tasks are completed once these relationships have been established. And, Inuit people may find that the technical requirements of the dominant culture can be adapted to their particular community situation.

All respondents involved in this research agreed that it would be best if future victim services programs took a "community development" approach to the delivery of services. Within the dominant culture, this might mean immediately forming committees and holding meetings, followed by the creation of funding proposals and staff training. Within Inuit and other Aboriginal cultures, this might mean putting the emphasis on visiting elders, leaders, caregivers and other community members to receive their advice, approval and commitment over many months, before doing anything else. It may mean adapting potential programs to fit the existing communal rhythms and patterns. As people are not thought of as separate from the job they do, it will mean that staff will also have to convince community members of their goodwill, skill, professionalism and altruistic intentions. And, it will also mean participating fully in community life with all its inherent ups and downs.

Within land-based cultures the program in question has to be more than a good idea that might work according to dominant culture timing, workplans and overall strategies. The community has to understand and trust the motivations of the people who are proposing the program. Nothing is separate in these cultures. The goodwill and maturity of the program proponents is more important than the program design. Once this trust and these relationships are established the technical parts of the program, as required by the dominant culture, will most likely fall into place.

The learning curve in this instance may land more in the court of the dominant culture institutions wishing to interact with Inuit communities and organizations. The idea that everything and everyone has their own compelling internal non-measurable time is difficult to meld with a "timeline," task-oriented approach to service delivery. It means that success with service delivery in the community’s eyes won’t really be measured by what happens within a preset timeframe. This is especially true if one follows the understanding of indigenous cultures in regard to time, which tells them that many things cannot be judged successful until several generations have passed and the impact of the action has been seen over decades, not years or months. This does not mean that stopping and/or decreasing violence cannot be achieved in years, or even months. It simply means that the overall long-term impact of any social development initiative will be evaluated by community members within a different timeframe, and with a different ‘measuring stick,’ than that used by dominant culture institutions.

In addition, the fact that a person’s motivations, spoken and observed, will not be separated from the community’s sense of the proposed program also has implications for service delivery. As motivations can really only be known over time, and through ongoing observation, it may mean that new services won’t be accepted and fully used by community members until they have had several years to assess it, or unless it is promoted and supported by persons who are already trusted and respected in the community.

Finally, programs will have to take a holistic approach to each individual and each situation. This doesn’t mean that any one program is expected to meet every need of every person. However, it does mean that some understanding of a potential client’s full circumstances within their family and community has to form the basis of any helping relationship.

These cultural considerations form the basis of many of the descriptions and recommendations provided throughout this chapter by Nunavut service providers, and others consulted during this research.