ᓄᕕᑉᐱᕆ 16, 2021-ᖑᑎᓪᓗᒍ, ᓄᓇᕗᑦ ᑐᙵᕕᒃ ᑎᒥᖓ ᐊᕐᕌᒍᓕᒫᕐᓯᐅᑎᒥᓂᒃ ᑲᑎᒪᑎᓪᓗᒋᑦ, ᐃᓚᒋᔭᐅᔪᑦ ᓈᖕᒪᒃᓴᓚᐅᕐᒪᑕ ᐱᖁᔨᕗᖔᕈᑎᒥᒃ ᑲᒪᒋᐊᖁᔨᔪᓂᒃ ᓇᖕᒥᓂᖅ−ᒐᕙᒪᖃᓐᓂᕐᒥᒃ. ᐃᓚᖏᓐᓄᑦ ᑐᓴᖅᑕᐅᒋᐊᙵᑐᒃᓴᐅᔫᒐᓗᐊᖅ, ᐃᓱᒪᒋᓗᒍ ᖁᕕᐊᓱᒍᑕᐅᒍᑎᒋᓚᐅᕐᓯᒪᔭᖓ ᐊᒻᒪ ᐱᒻᒪᕆᐊᓘᓂᖓ ᐅᐱᒋᔭᐅᓚᐅᕐᓯᒪᒻᒪᑦ ᐱᙳᖅᑎᑕᐅᑎᓪᓗᒍ ᓄᓇᕗᑦ 1999-ᒥ.
ᐱᙳᕐᑎᑕᐅᔪᕗᖅ ᓄᓇᕗᑦ ᐊᑎᓕᐅᖅᑕᐅᓪᓗᓂ ᓄᓇᕗᑦ ᐊᖏᕈᑎᖓ 1993-ᒥ. ᑕᐃᒪᓐᓇ ᑲᒪᒋᔭᐅᕙᓪᓕᐊᓯᒪᓂᖓᓄᑦ, ᐃᓄᐃᑦ ᐊᖏᔪᕗᑦ ᓵᖅᑭᑕᐅᒍᑎᖓᓂᒃ ᑭᓇᒃᑯᓕᒫᓄᑦ ᑐᕌᖓᓗᓂ ᒐᕙᒪᖃᕈᒪᓪᓗᑎᒃ ᖃᐅᔨᒪᑦᑎᐊᕐᑐᑎᒃ ᐃᓄᐃᑦ ᐊᒻᒪ ᓱᓕ ᒫᓐᓇᒧᑦ ᑎᑭᓪᓗᒍ ᐃᓄᒋᐊᓐᓂᕐᐹᖑᒻᒪᑕ. ᐃᓄᐃᑦ ᓂᕆᐅᓚᐅᕐᓯᒪᒻᒪᑕ ᓱᓕᔪᕐᓴᔪᓪᓚᒥᓪᓗ ᓇᖕᒥᖅ ᒐᕙᒪᖃᓐᓂᐊᕋᒥᒃ. ᑭᓯᐊᓂᑦᑕᐅᖅ, ᑖᓐᓇ ᓂᕆᐅᒋᔭᐅᓚᐅᕐᓯᒪᔪᖅ ᑕᑎᖃᕈᑕᐅᓗᐊᓚᐅᕐᓯᒪᒻᒪᑦ ᑕᕐᒪᕐᒥᒃ ᐊᒻᒪ ᐊᑑᑎᖃᖅᑎᐊᕐᑎᑕᐅᓗᑎᒃ ᐊᑐᓕᕐᑎᑕᐅᓂᐊᕐᓂᖏᓐᓂᒃ ᐱᒻᒪᕆᐅᓗᐊᕐᑐᑦ ᐃᓛᒃᑰᖓᔪᑦ ᓄᓇᕗᑦ ᐊᖏᕈᑎᖏᓐᓃᒃᑐᑦ, ᒪᑯᐊ ᐃᓛᒃᑯᑦ 23 ᒐᕙᒪᒃᑯᑦ ᐃᖅᑲᓇᐃᔭᕐᑎᖏᓐᓂᒃ ᒪᓕᖁᔨᓯᒪᔪᖅ ᐃᓄᐃᑦ ᐃᓄᒋᐊᓐᓂᖏᑦ ᒪᓪᓕᓗᒋᑦ ᐃᖅᑲᓇᐃᔭᕐᑎᑖᕐᓂᕐᒥᒃ ᑕᒪᐃᓐᓂ ᐃᖅᑲᓇᐃᔮᑎᒍᑦ ᖁᓚᕐᓇᐃᕈᑕᐅᒐᔭᕐᓗᓂ ᑕᒪᐃᑕ ᐃᖅᑲᓇᐃᔮᒃᓴᑦ ᒪᓕᓐᓂᖃᕋᔭᕐᓂᖏᓐᓂᒃ ᐊᔾᔨᒌᒋᑦᑐᓂᒃ ᐃᖅᑲᓇᐃᔮᓂ ᐃᓄᐃᑦ ᐃᓄᒋᐊᓐᓂᕐᐹᖑᓂᖏᑦ ᐊᑐᕐᓗᒋᑦ. ᐊᒻᒪᓗᓱᓕ, ᐃᓛᒃᑰᖓᔪᖅ 32 ᓇᓗᓇᐃᕆᑦᑎᐊᕐᓯᒪᒻᒪᑕ ᐃᓄᐃᑦ ᐱᔪᓐᓇᐅᑎᖏᓐᓂᒃ, “ᐱᖃᑕᐅᕙᓪᓗᑎᒃ ᓴᖅᑮᔪᖃᕐᐸᓪᓕᐊᑎᓪᓗᒍ ᐃᓄᓕᕆᔾᔪᑎᓂᒃ ᐊᒻᒪ ᐃᓕᖅᑯᓯᒨᖓᔪᓂᒃ ᐊᑐᐊᒐᓕᐅᕐᑎᓪᓗᒋᑦ, ᐊᒻᒪ ᐋᖅᑭᒃᑕᐅᓯᒪᓂᖏᓐᓂᒃ ᐃᓄᓕᕆᓂᕐᒧᑦ ᐊᒻᒪ ᐃᓕᖅᑯᓯᓕᕆᓂᕐᒧᑦ ᐱᓕᕆᔾᔪᑏᑦ ᐊᒻᒪ ᐱᔨᑦᑎᕈᑏᑦᖅ, ᐱᖃᓯᐅᑎᓪᓗᒋᑦ ᑲᒪᔾᔪᓯᖏᑦ ᐊᑑᑎᖃᖅᑎᑕᐅᓕᕐᑎᓪᓗᒋᑦ”.
ᐋᔩᕈᑕᐅᓕᓚᐅᕐᓯᒪᕗᖅ ᐱᙳᖅᑎᑕᐅᓂᒃᓴᖓ ᓄᓇᕘᑉ 1970-ᖏᓐᓂ, ᐃᓄᐃᑦ ᒪᒃᑯᑐᑦ 19-ᓂᒃ ᐊᒻᒪ 22-ᓂᒃ ᐅᑭᐅᓖᑦ ᐱᖃᑕᐅᓚᐅᕐᓯᒪᕗᑦ ᑕᑯᓐᓇᖑᐊᕐᑕᓂᒃ ᓴᖅᑮᔪᒪᓪᓗᑎᒃ ᖃᓄᐃᑦᑑᔪᓐᓇᕐᓂᖓᓂᒃ ᐊᒻᒪ ᖁᓚᙱᓐᓂᖃᓚᐅᕐᑐᑦ ᐱᐅᓂᕐᓴᒥᒃ ᓯᕗᓂᖃᓐᓂᐊᓂᕐᒥᓂᒃ.
ᑕᐃᒃᓱᒪᓂᐅᑎᓪᓗᒍ ᐃᓄᐃᑦ ᓄᓇᖃᓕᕐᑎᓪᓗᒋᑦ ᓄᓇᓕᖕᓂᑦ, ᖃᐅᔨᓚᐅᕐᑐᑦ ᓴᖅᑭᑕᐅᑎᓪᓗᒋᑦ ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᕐᕖᑦ, ᐊᒻᒪ ᐊᒃᓱᒻᒪᕆᐊᓗᒃ ᐊᓯᔾᔨᕈᑎᓂᒃ ᐊᑑᑎᓚᐅᕐᑐᑦ. ᓇᖕᒥᓂᖅ ᓄᓇᑖᕋᓱᐊᕐᓂᒃᑯᑦ ᐃᓄᐃᑦ ᓴᐳᑎᓯᒪᔪᒪᓂᖃᓚᐅᕐᐳᑦ ᐃᓅᔾᔪᓯᕐᒥᓂᒃ ᑕᒪᒃᑯᐊ ᐊᓯᔾᔨᕈᑕᐅᔪᑦ ᑕᒪᔾᔭᐅᒐᓗᐊᕐᑎᓪᓗᒋᑦ, ᐱᖃᓯᐅᔾᔭᐅᓪᓗᓂ ᐳᐃᒍᑕᐅᖁᔨᓇᑎᒃ ᐅᖃᐅᓯᕐᒥᓂᒃ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᐃᓕᖅᑯᓯᕐᒥᓐᓂᒃ, ᐱᓗᐊᕐᑐᒥᒃ ᐊᐅᓚᑦᑎᔾᔪᓯᑎᒎᖓᔪᒥᒃ.
ᓯᕗᓪᓕᐹᑦᑎᐊᖅ ᐱᙳᖁᔨᔾᔪᑎᐅᓚᐅᕐᓯᒪᔪᑦ ᓄᓇᕗᖕᒥᒃ ᑐᓂᔭᐅᓚᐅᕐᓯᒪᕗᑦ ᕕᕗᐊᕆ 27, 1976-ᒥ. ᔭᐃᒥᓯ ᐊᕐᕚᓪᓗᒃ ᐊᖓᔪᖅᑳᕆᔭᐅᑎᓪᓗᒍ ᐃᓄᐃᑦ ᑕᐱᕇᒃᓴᒃᑯᑦ ᑲᓇᑕᒥ (ᒫᓐᓇᐅᓕᕐᑐᕐᓕ ᐃᓄᐃᑦ ᑕᐱᕇᑦ ᑲᓇᑕᒥᑦ ᑕᐃᔭᐅᓕᕐᑐᖅ). ᑲᓇᑕᐅᑉ ᒪᓕᒐᓕᐅᕐᕕᒡᔪᐊᖓᓄᑦ ᐅᓂᒃᑳᕐᒪᑦ, ᐃᒪᓐᓇ ᐅᖃᓚᐅᕐᓯᒪᔪᖅ:
ᓂᐱᖃᓐᓂᕐᓴᐅᔪᒪᒐᑦᑕ ᒪᑯᓄᖓ ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᕐᑐᓕᕆᓂᖅ, ᐃᒡᓗᓕᕆᓂᖅ, ᐋᓐᓂᐊᖃᓇᖏᑦᑐᓕᕆᓂᒃ ᐊᒻᒪ ᐃᓅᓯᖃᑦᑎᐊᓂᕐᒧᑦ, ᐃᓄᓕᕆᓂᕐᒧᑦ ᐊᒻᒪ ᒐᕙᒪᓕᕆᓂᕐᒧᑦ ᐱᕙᓪᓕᐊᔾᔪᑎᓂᒃ, ᐊᒻᒪ ᓇᖕᒥᓂᖅ ᓄᓇᓕᖕᓂᒃ ᐊᐅᓚᑦᑎᓗᑕ. ᐃᒥᓂᕐᓱᕈᒪᔪᒍᑦ ᑕᑎᖃᙱᓪᓗᑕ ᑐᓂᓯᓂᖃᕈᒪᓂᖏᓐᓂᒃ ᖃᓪᓗᓈᑦ ᓄᓇᖓᓐᓃᒃᑐᓂᒃ ᑲᓇᑕᒥᐅᑕᓂᒃ. ᐃᒪᓐᓇᖃᐃ ᐅᖃᓪᓗᒍ, ᐊᐅᓚᑕᐅᔪᒪᔪᓐᓃᕋᑦᑕ ᓄᓇᓂᑦ ᐋᑦᑎᓯᒪᔪᓄᑦ. ᓇᖕᒥᓂᖅ ᐃᓅᓯᑦᑎᓐᓂᒃ ᐊᐅᓚᑦᑎᔪᒪᒐᑦᑕ, ᑕᐃᒫᒃᑕᐅᑦ ᖃᓪᓗᓈᑦ ᓄᓇᖓᓐᓂ ᑲᓇᑕᒥ ᐃᒻᒥᓐᓄᑦ ᐊᐅᓚᑦᑎᒻᒪᑕ.
ᐅᑭᐅᒐᓵᐃ ᓈᑎᓪᓗᒋᑦ, ᐃᓚᒋᔭᐅᓪᓗᑎᒃ ᓄᓇᒧᑦ ᐊᒻᒪ ᐆᒪᔪᓄᑦ ᐱᔪᓐᓇᐅᑎᑦ, ᐊᒻᒪ ᐊᑭᓕᐅᑕᐅᓯᒪᔪᓄᑦ, ᐊᕐᕚᓪᓘᑉ ᐃᓱᒪᒋᓯᒪᔭᖓ ᑎᑎᕋᖅᑕᐅᓯᒪᕗᑦ ᓄᓇᕗᑦ ᐊᖏᕈᑎᖓᓂ ᓇᓗᓇᐃᖅᓯᒍᑎᖓᒍᑦ: “ᓇᖕᒥᓂᖅ−ᐊᐅᓚᑦᑎᒍᓐᓇᖁᓪᓗᒋᑦ ᐊᒻᒪ ᐃᓕᖅᑯᓯᕐᒥᒍᑦ ᐊᒻᒪ ᐃᓅᓯᖃᑦᑎᐊᕈᓐᓇᖁᓪᓗᒋᑦ ᐃᓄᐃᑦ.”
ᐊᑑᑎᖃᕆᐊᖃᓪᓚᕆᒃᑐᓄᑦ ᓂᕆᐅᒍᑕᐅᓗᐊᓚᐅᕐᑐᖅ ᐅᖃᐅᓯᕐᐳᑦ. ᑕᐃᒪᓐᓇ ᓇᓗᓇᐃᖅᓯᒪᒻᒪᑦ 2019-ᒥ 18-ᒋᓕᕐᑕᖓᓂᒃ ᑲᑎᒪᓂᖃᖅᑎᓪᓗᒋᑦ ᓄᓇᕐᔪᐊᕐᒥ ᓄᓇᓖᑦ ᑲᑐᔾᔨᖃᑎᒌᖏᑕ ᑲᑎᒪᔨᖏᑦ ᐱᓪᓗᒋᑦ ᓄᓇᖃᖅᑳᖅᓯᒪᔪᓕᔪᑦ, “ᐅᖃᐅᓯᓕᕆᓂᖅ ᐱᔾᔪᑕᐅᓗᐊᕐᑐᓂᒃ ᐃᓄᖕᓄᑦ ᑲᒪᒋᐊᕈᒪᔾᔪᑕᐅᓯᒪᔪᖅ ᓇᖕᒥᓂᖅ ᓄᓇᑖᕐᓂᕐᒧᑦ ᐊᖏᕈᑎᑦ. ᐃᓄᐃᑦ ᐃᓱᒪᒋᔭᖃᓚᐅᕐᒪᑕ ᐱᐅᓂᕐᓴᓂᒃ ᐱᔨᑦᑎᕈᑎᓂᒃ ᐊᒻᒪ ᐱᓕᕆᔾᔪᑎᓂᒃ, ᐊᑐᕐᓗᒍ ᐅᖃᐅᓯᕐᐳᑦ ᐊᒻᒪ ᐃᓄᐃᑦ ᑐᑭᓯᐊᔾᔪᓯᖏᑦ ᐊᑐᕐᓗᒋᑦ ᐊᒻᒪ ᐃᓅᔾᔪᓯᕗᑦ.” ᓂᕆᐅᓚᐅᕐᓯᒪᒐᑦᑕ ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᕐᕕᓂ ᐃᓕᓴᔪᓕᕆᔾᔪᓯᐅᔪᑦ ᐃᓕᓴᐃᒐᔭᕐᓂᖏᓐᓂᒃ ᐃᓄᒃᑐᑦ ᖃᐅᔨᒪᓂᐅᔪᓂᒃ, ᐊᒻᒪᓗᑦᑕᐅᖅ ᑕᒪᐃᓐᓂᒃ ᐊᐅᓚᑦᑎᔾᔪᓯᐅᓲᓂᒃ − ᐊᒻᒪ ᐃᓅᓯᕆᔭᑦᑎᓐᓂᒃ − ᓱᕐᕋᑕᐅᔪᓐᓇᖏᓪᓗᓂ ᐃᓄᒃᑐᑦ, ᑐᑭᓯᐊᓂᖃᕈᑎᕗᑦ ᓄᓇᕐᔪᐊᕐᒥᒃ.
ᐅᑭᐅᑦ 22 ᐊᓂᒍᖅᓯᒪᓕᕐᑐᑦ ᑕᐃᒪᙵᓂᑦ ᑭᓇᒃᑯᑐᐃᓐᓇᕐᓄᑦ ᒐᕙᒪᐅᔪᖅ ᐱᙳᖅᑎᑕᐅᔪᒻᒪᑦ. ᓂᕆᐅᒋᓯᒪᔭᕗᑦ ᓄᓇᕘᒧᑦ ᓇᓕᖅᑯᑦᑎᓯᒪᙱᑦᑐᑦ ᐅᓪᓗᒥᐅᔪᖅ ᐊᑐᖅᑕᑎᓐᓂᒃ.
ᐃᒪᓐᓇᐃᖔᕐᓯᒪᔪᖅ, ᐃᓄᐃᑦ ᐃᓅᓯᖏᑦ ᐱᕚᓪᓕᕐᓯᒪᙱᑦᑐᑦ, ᐃᒪᓐᓇᐃᖔᕐᓯᒪᕗᒍᑦ, ᐃᒡᓗᓂᒃ ᐊᒥᒐᕐᓯᓕᕐᓯᒪᓪᓗᑕ, ᓱᕋᑦᑎᓕᕐᑐᑎᒃ ᐊᑭᑐᔪᑦ ᐊᑲᕐᕆᔾᔪᑎᕗᑦ, ᓂᕿᒃᓴᖃᑦᑎᐊᐸᙱᑦᑐᑦ, ᐊᒻᒪ ᑲᒪᒋᔭᐅᔾᔪᑎᖃᙱᒻᒪᕆᑦᑐᓂ ᐳᐃᒍᖅᑕᐅᑦᑕᐃᓕᒪᒍᑎᐅᔪᓐᓇᕐᑐᓂᒃ ᐅᖃᐅᓯᑦᑎᓐᓄᑦ. ᑕᑯᕙᒃᑐᒍᑦ ᐃᓚᐃᓐᓇᕐᓲᑕᐅᔪᒻᒪᕆᐊᓗᖕᓂᒃ ᐅᕙᒍᑦ ᓄᓇᖓᓂ. ᒪᓕᒃᑐᒋᑦ 2016-ᒥ ᖃᐅᔨᓴᕈᑎᒥᓃᑦ, ᐊᒃᓱᓪᓗᐊᑲᓪᓚᒃ ᑮᓇᐅᔭᓕᐅᕈᑎᑦ ᐊᒻᒪ ᑮᓇᐅᔾᔭᒃᓴᒍᑎᒃ ᐊᔾᔨᒌᙱᑐᒻᒪᕇᑦ ᐃᓅᓂᕋᖅᑕᐅᙱᑦᑐᑦ ᑕᓪᓕᒪᐃᕋᓪᓗᐊᕐᑐᑎᒃ ᑮᓇᐅᔭᓕᐅᕐᓂᕐᓴᐃᑦ ᐃᓄᖕᓂᒃ. ᐊᔪᕐᓴᕐᓂᖅ ᐱᑕᖃᓪᓚᕆᒃᑐᖅ.
ᑖᓐᓇ ᑐᑭᓯᓇᔅᓯᕆᐊᒃᑲᓂᕐᓗᒍ, ᓄᓇᑦᓯᐊᖅ ᐱᕙᓪᓕᐊᔪᓂᒃ ᓯᑎᑉᐱᕆ 2021 ᓴᖅᑮᔪᕗᑦ, 2017−ᖑᑎᓪᓗᒍ, ᓄᓇᕗᖕᒥᐅᑕᐅᙱᑦᑐᑦ ᐃᖅᑲᓇᐃᔭᕐᑏᑦ ᓄᓇᕗᖕᒥ ᑮᓇᐅᔾᔭᒃᓵᖃᓚᐅᕐᑐᑦ ᑲᑎᑦᑐᒋᑦ $357 ᒥᓕᐊᓂᒃ − ᖃᓂᒋᔭᖓᓃᒃᑐᑦ 30 ᐳᓴᓐ ᑲᑎᓪᓗᒋᑦ ᑮᓇᐅᔾᔭᒃᓵᕆᔭᐅᔪᑦ ᓄᓇᕗᖕᒥ ᑕᕝᕙᓂ ᐅᑭᐅᕐᒥ.” ᑖᓐᓇ ᓈᓴᐃᒍᑕᐅᓯᒪᔪᑦ ᐱᒻᒪᕆᐅᔪᖅ. ᑕᑯᒃᓴᐅᑎᑦᑎᒻᒪᑦ ᐱᓂᐊᕐᓂᖃᕈᒪᙱᑐᒻᒪᕆᐅᓂᐅᔪᓂᒃ ᐊᒻᒪ ᑮᓇᐅᔭᐃᕈᒪᙱᑦᑐᓂᒃ ᐱᐅᔪᒃᑯᑦ ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᕐᓂᓕᕆᓂᒃᑯᑦ ᐊᒻᒪ ᐱᓕᒻᒪᒃᓴᐃᓂᒃᑯᑦ ᐃᓄᖕᓄᑦ ᑕᒪᓐᓇᓗ ᓈᖕᒪᙱᒻᒪᕆᒃᑐᓂ ᐃᓄᓕᕆᓂᕐᒧᑦ ᐊᒻᒪ ᑮᓇᐅᔾᔭᒃᓴᕕᒃᓴᓂᒃ ᓴᖅᑭᑦᑎᓯᒪᒻᒪᑦ ᐊᒻᒪ ᐊᑭᓖᒍᑕᐅᒻᒪᕆᓛᕐᑐᓂᒃ ᓄᓇᕗᖕᒧᑦ ᓯᕗᓂᕐᒥ. ᑕᑯᕙᒃᑐᒍᑦ ᓄᓇᕘᑉ ᑮᓇᐅᔾᔭᒃᓴᕕᖏᑦ ᓇᓕᒧᒋᙱᒻᒪᕆᒃᑕᖏᓐᓂᒃ ᐃᑲᔪᕐᓯᓂᖃᕈᑕᐅᖕᒪᑕ ᐃᓅᙱᑦᑐᓄᑦ ᐊᒻᒪ ᖃᓪᓗᓈᑦ ᓄᓇᖓᓐᓄ ᑲᓇᑕᒥ.
2018-ᖑᑎᓪᓗᒍ, ᑕᐃᑦᓱᒪᓂᐅᑎᓪᓗᒍ ᓯᕗᓕᕐᑎᐅᔪᔪᖅ ᓄᓇᕗᖕᒧᑦ ᐱᑕ ᑕᑉᑑᓇ ᐊᐱᕆᔭᐅᒐᒥ ᒪᓕᒐᓕᐅᕐᕕᖕᒥ ᐃᓄᐃᑦ ᐱᓕᒻᒪᒃᓴᔭᐅᓂᖏᑦ ᐱᓪᓗᒋᑦ ᓄᓇᕗᑦ ᒐᕙᒪᖓᓂ, ᑭᐅᓚᐅᕐᓯᒪᔪᖅ ᐃᒫᒃ “ᐃᓛᒃ ᑭᓇᒃᑯᑐᐃᓐᓇᕐᓄᑦ ᒐᕙᒪᒋᔭᐅᖕᒪᑦ.” ᐃᓱᒪᔾᔪᓯᕆᔭᐅᔪᖅ ᑖᒃᑯᐊ ᑕᒪᐃᑕ ᐱᓕᕆᔾᔪᑏᑦ ᐊᒻᒪ ᐱᔨᑦᑎᕈᑏᑦ ᐋᖅᑭᒃᑕᐅᓯᒪᕗᑦ ᐊᒻᒪ ᓴᖅᑭᑕᐅᓯᒪᔪᑦ ᓄᓇᕗᑦ ᑭᓇᒃᑯᑐᐃᓐᓇᕐᓄᑦ ᒐᕙᒪᖓᓄᑦ ᑐᕌᖅᑎᑦᑎᔾᔪᑕᐅᔪᓐᓇᖏᑦᑐᑦ ᐃᓄᒋᐊᓐᓂᕐᐹᓄᑦ ᐃᓄᖕᓄᑦ, ᑐᑭᖃᙱᑐᐃᓐᓇᖏᑦᑐᖅ, ᐊᑭᕋᖅᑐᓐᓂᖃᖅᑐᖅᑕᐅᖅ ᓄᓇᕗᑦ ᐊᖏᕈᑎᖓᓂᒃ.
ᐊᒃᓱᐊᓗᒃ ᖁᕕᐊᓇᙱᑦᑐᖅ, ᑖᓐᓇ ᐃᓱᒪᔾᔪᓯᕆᔭᐅᔪᖅ ᐅᓪᓗᒥᐅᔪᖅ ᓱᓕ ᑕᐃᒪᐃᒃᑑᖕᒪᑦ ᐊᒻᒪ ᐱᓗᐊᒃᑲᓂᕐᑐᓂᒃ ᑭᓇᒃᑯᑐᐃᓐᓇᕐᓄᑦ ᒐᕙᒪᒋᔭᕐᒥ. ᖃᐅᔨᔪᔭᕗᑦ ᓈᖕᒪᒋᔭᐅᓕᕐᒪᑦ ᐱᖁᔭᒃᓴᖅ 25, ᒪᓕᒐᖅ ᐋᖅᑭᒋᐊᕈᑕᐅᔪᖅ ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᕐᓂᓕᕆᓂᕐᒧᑦ ᒪᓕᒐᖅ ᐊᒻᒪ ᐃᓄᐃᑦ ᐅᖃᐅᓯᖏᓐᓂᒃ ᓴᐳᑎᓯᒪᓂᕐᒧᑦ ᒪᓕᒐᕐᒧᑦ. ᑖᓐᓇ ᒪᓕᒐᖅ ᓄᖑᑎᕆᑐᐃᓐᓇᔪᙱᑦᑐᖅ ᒐᕙᒪᒃᑯᑦ ᑲᒪᒋᔭᕆᐊᓕᖓᓂᒃ ᐃᓄᒃᑐᑦ ᐅᖃᕆᐅᖅᓴᐃᓂᕐᒥᒃ ᐊᒻᒪ ᑭᖑᕙᕐᑎᑦᑎᒋᐊᕐᑐᑎᒃ ᐸᕐᓇᒍᓂᒃ, ᑭᓯᐊᓂᑦᑕᐅᖅ ᓄᖑᑎᕆᔾᔪᑕᐅᔪᒻᒪᑦ ᐊᖏᔪᖅᑳᕆᔭᐅᔪᑦ ᐱᔪᓐᓇᐅᑎᖏᓐᓂᒃ ᐃᓄᒃᑐᑦ ᐅᖃᓪᓚᒍᓯᓂᒃ ᐃᓕᓴᔭᐅᖁᔨᓂᕐᒧᑦ ᕿᑐᙵᒥᓂᒃ. ᐊᑑᑎᖃᙳᐊᓂᒃᑯᑦ ᑭᐅᑦᑕᕈᓐᓇᖑᐊᕐᓂᒃᑯᑦ ᑖᓐᓇ ᒐᕙᒪᐅᔪᖅ ᐲᖅᓯᓯᒪᔪᑦ ᐃᓄᐃᑦ ᐱᔪᓐᓇᐅᑎᖏᓐᓂᒃ!
ᐱᙳᑎᑕᐅᓚᐅᕐᓯᒪᑎᓪᓗᒍ ᓄᓇᕗᑦ ᒐᕙᒪᒃᑯᖏᑦ, ᓄᓇᕗᑦ ᑐᙵᕕᒃᑯᑦ ᑎᒥᖓ ᓂᐱᖃᕈᑎᖃᐃᓐᓇᕐᓯᒪᕗᑦ ᐃᓄᒃᑐᑦ ᐅᖃᓪᓚᐅᓯ ᐃᓕᓴᒍᑕᐅᔪᓐᓇᖁᓪᓗᒍ. 2000-ᒥᓂᑦ 14−ᖑᓯᒪᔪᑦ ᐱᖁᔨᕗᖔᕈᑏᑦ, ᐊᒻᒪ ᐊᒥᓱᑲᓪᓚᒻᒪᕇᑦ ᐅᓂᒃᑳᓕᐊᕆᓯᒪᔪᑦ, ᐱᖃᓯᐅᑎᓪᓗᒍᓗ ᑕᐃᓐᓇ ᓇᓗᓇᐃᔭᐃᓯᒪᔪᖅ ᒫᓐᓇᐅᔪᒥ ᐃᒪᐃᒃᑐᒦᓐᓂᑎᓐᓂᒃ ᑕᐃᔭᐅᓪᓗᓂ “ᐅᖃᓪᓚᒍᓯᒥᒃ ᐳᐃᒍᖅᑎᑦᑎᓂᖅ,” ᐊᓯᔾᔨᖁᔨᓯᒪᔪᖅ. ᑐᙵᕕᒃᑯᑦ ᑲᑎᒪᖃᑕᐅᖃᑦᑕᔪᕗᑦ ᑭᒃᑯᓕᒫᕐᑎᑦᑎᑎᓪᓗᒋᑦ ᐊᒻᒪ ᑐᑭᑖᕈᑎᒋᓯᒪᔭᕐᒥᓐᓂᒃ ᑐᓂᓯᖃᑦᑕᕐᓯᒪᓪᓗᑎᒃ ᒪᓕᒐᓕᐅᕐᕕᖕᒧᑦ. ᐃᖅᑲᓇᐃᔭᖃᑎᖃᖃᑦᑕᕐᓯᒪᕗᒍᑦ ᐱᓕᕆᖃᑎᑦᑎᓐᓂᒃ ᐅᑯᓂᖓ ᑲᑎᒪᔩᑦ ᓄᓇᕗᖕᒥ ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᕐᑐᓕᕆᓂᕐᒧᑦ ᐊᑐᐊᒐᒃᓴᐅᖁᔨᓕᐅᕈᑎᓂᒃ ᓴᐳᑎᓯᒪᒍᑕᐅᒐᔭᕐᑐᓂᒃ ᐅᖃᐅᓯᑦᑎᓐᓄᑦ. ᑖᒃᑯᐊ ᒐᕙᒪᒃᑯᓐᓄᑦ ᓄᓇᕘᒥ ᑲᒪᒋᐊᕈᑕᐅᔪᒪᓕᕐᓯᒪᙱᑦᑐᑦ.
ᓄᓇᕗᑦ ᒪᒃᑯᒃᑐᖏᑦ ᐃᓄᒋᐊᒻᒪᕆᐊᓘᖕᒪᑕ. ᑮᓇᐅᔭᕐᑎᒍᑦ ᑲᒪᒋᐊᕆᐊᖃᕈᑎᒋᔭᕗᑦ ᓱᕈᓯᓛᕗᑦ. ᖃᐅᔨᒪᒐᑦᑕ ᑲᑦᑐᑎᑦᑎᐊᕈᓐᓇᕐᓂᖅ ᓱᕈᓯᓛᖑᓂᖏᓐᓂᒃ ᐱᒋᐊᕈᑕᐅᓲᖑᒻᒪᑦ, ᐱᖃᑕᐅᓪᓗᑎᒃ ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᕐᕕᓂ, ᐃᓐᓇᐅᓕᕐᑎᓪᓗᒋᑦ ᐃᓅᓯᖃᑦᑎᐊᕈᓐᓇᓂᕐᓵᐅᓲᖑᔪᑦ. ᐊᒥᓱᑦ ᐃᓄᐃᑦ ᐊᒃᓱᕈᖅᑐᑦ ᐃᓅᓯᕐᒥᓂ ᐊᒻᒪ ᑮᓇᐅᔭᕐᑎᒍᑦ; ᑖᓐᓇ, ᐃᓚᔭᐅᒋᓪᓗᓂ ᓱᕈᓯᓛᕐᐳᑦ ᐃᓚᐃᓐᓇᓱᕐᑕᑦ ᐅᖃᐅᓯᓕᕆᓂᕐᒧᑦ ᐊᒻᒪ ᐃᓕᖅᑯᓯᓕᕆᓂᕐᒧᑦ ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᕐᕕᓂ.
ᐃᓱᒪᒋᓗᒋᒃ ᖃᓪᓗᓈᑎᑐᑦ ᐊᒻᒪ ᐅᐃᕖᑎᑐᑦ ᓯᕗᓪᓕᕐᐹᖑᑎᑕᐅᔫᒃ ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᕐᓂᓕᕆᔾᔪᓯᑎᒍᑦ ᓱᕈᓯᓛᕐᐳᑦ ᐃᓕᓴᑎᑕᓴᕗᑦ ᑭᓇᐅᔾᔪᑎᖏᑦ, ᐃᓅᓯᖏᑦ ᐊᒻᒪ ᐅᖃᓪᓚᒍᓯᖏᑦ ᓱᓇᐅᙱᓐᓂᖏᓐᓂᒃ. ᑕᒪᓐᓇ ᐃᖕᒥᓐᓄᑦ ᓱᒃᑯᑎᕈᑕᐅᓲᖅ ᐊᒻᒪ ᐃᓱᒪᔮᓕᕈᑕᐅᕙᒃᑐᓂ ᒪᒃᑯᒃᑐᓄᑦ ᐊᒻᒪ ᐱᓗᖅᑯᓯᐅᑎᓯᒪᕙᒃᑐᑦ ᐊᒃᓱᕈᓐᓇᓕᕈᑕᐅᓪᓗᓂ ᐅᕙᑦᑎᓐᓄᑦ ᒪᑯᑎᒎᓇᖅ ᐃᒡᓗᓕᕆᓂᒃᑯᑦ, ᐋᓐᓂᐊᖃᓐᓇᖏᑦᑐᓕᕆᓂᒃᑯᑦ, ᐊᒻᒪ ᑮᓇᐅᔭᓕᐅᕐᕕᒃᓴᓄᑦ.
ᐊᒃᓱᒻᒪᕆᐊᓗᒃ ᑕᑯᓐᓇᖑᐊᕋᓱᒐᒃᓴᐅᖏᒻᒪᕆᒃᑐᑦ ᑕᐃᒫᒃ ᐃᓄᐃᑦ ᑕᑯᓐᓇᖑᐊᕈᓐᓇᕐᓂᕆᐊᖏᑕ ᐃᑲᔪᕐᓱᐃᑎᓪᓗᒋᑦ ᐱᙳᕐᑎᑕᐅᓂᒃᓴᖓᓂᒃ ᑭᓇᒃᑯᑐᐃᓐᓇᕐᓄᑦ ᒐᕙᒪᐅᔪᒥᒃ. ᖁᓚᕐᓇᖏᑦᑐᖅ ᓯᕗᓕᕐᑎᒋᓚᐅᕐᑕᕗᑦ ᐃᑲᔪᕐᓯᒐᔭᓚᐅᙱᒻᓚᑕ ᒐᕙᒪᐅᔪᒥᒃ ᓴᖅᑭᔮᕐᑎᑦᑎᓂᐊᙱᑦᑐᒥᒃ, ᐃᑲᔪᕐᓯᓂᐊᖏᑦᑐᒥᒃ, ᐊᒻᒪ ᑲᒪᓂᐊᙱᑦᑐᒥᒃ ᐃᓄᐃᑦ ᐱᔪᒋᔭᖏᓐᓂᒃ.
ᐱᕕᒃᓴᖃᕈᓐᓃᓕᖅᑐᒍ. ᑭᓇᒃᑯᑐᐃᓐᓇᕐᓄᑦ ᒐᕙᒪᒋᔭᐅᔪᖅ ᐊᖏᕈᑎᒋᓚᐅᕐᓯᒪᔭᕗᑦ ᐊᑎᓕᐅᕋᑦᑕ ᓄᓇᕗᑦ ᐊᖏᕈᑎᖓᓂᒃ 1993-ᖑᑎᓪᓗᒍ ᑲᒪᒋᔭᖃᕈᒪᑎᓐᓇᒋᑦ ᐱᐅᓂᕐᓴᒥᒃ ᐃᓅᓯᕐᒥᒃ ᐃᓄᒋᐊᓐᓂᕐᐹᓄᑦ ᐃᓄᖏᓐᓂᒃ ᓄᓇᕘᑉ, ᐊᓯᐊᒍᖅᕕᖃᖅᑑᔮᕈᓐᓃᕋᑦᑕ ᑭᓯᐅᓂ ᐃᓱᒪᒃᓴᕐᓯᐅᕈᑎᒋᓕᕐᓗᒍ ᐊᒻᒪ ᑲᒪᒋᒋᐊᓕᕐᓗᒍ ᐃᓄᐃᑦ ᓇᖕᒥᓂ−ᒐᕙᒪᖃᓐᓂᖓᑦ. ᐊᔾᔨᑲᓴᑦᑎᐊᖓ ᑐᑭᑖᕈᑎᒋᓚᐅᕐᑕᑦᑕ ᐊᒃᑐᕙ 13, 2021-ᒥ, ᑐᓂᓯᓚᐅᕐᒪᑕ ᐃᖅᑲᖅᑐᐃᕕᒃᑰᑎᑦᑎᒍᑎᒥᒃ ᓄᓇᕗᑦ ᐃᖅᑲᖅᑐᐃᕕᖓᓄᑦ ᓄᓇᕗᑦ ᒐᕙᒪᒃᑯᖏᑦ ᐊᑐᓕᕐᑎᑦᑎᓯᒪᙱᓐᓂᖏᓐᓄᑦ ᐃᓄᐃᑦ ᐅᖃᓪᓚᒍᓯᖏᓐᓂᒃ ᐃᓕᓴᐃᓂᕐᒧᑦ ᐊᒻᒪ ᑲᒪᔾᔪᓯᕆᕙᒃᑕᖏᓐᓂᒃ ᓄᖅᑲᑎᑦᑎᒍᑕᐅᖁᓪᓗᒍ ᐅᖃᐅᓯᕐᒥᒃ ᐳᐃᒍᑦᑎᑦᑎᓂᒃ, ᒫᓐᓇᐅᔪᒥ, ᐊᓯᐊᒎᒃᑲᓂᕐᕕᖃᕈᓐᓃᕋᑦᑕ.
ᐊᖅᑯᑎᒋᓂᐊᕐᑕᕗᑦ ᓯᕕᑐᔫᔮᕋᓗᐊᕐᑎᓪᓗᒍ ᐊᒻᒪ ᐱᔭᕆᐊᑐᔫᔮᕋᓗᐊᕐᑎᓪᓗᒍ, ᓄᓇᓕᖕᓂ ᐅᖃᐅᓯᐅᕙᒃᑐᑦ ᐊᒻᒪ ᓴᖅᑮᓂᖅ ᐊᔾᔨᐅᖏᑦᑐᒥᒃ ᑐᙵᕕᒃᓴᒥᒃ ᐊᒻᒪ ᑲᒪᕙᓪᓕᐊᔾᔪᓯᓂᒃ, ᖃᐅᔨᒪᔪᒍᑦ ᐊᓯᕗᑦ ᓄᓇᖃᖅᑳᖅᓯᒪᔫᖃᑎᑦᑕ ᓄᓇᖏᓐᓂ ᐱᓇᓱᐊᕐᓯᒪᒻᒪᑕ ᑕᒪᑦᓱᒥᖓ ᐊᒻᒪ ᑕᐃᒪᐃᑦᑐᓇᕐᒥᒐᑦᑕ. ᖃᐅᔨᒪᔪᒍᑦ ᐱᔭᕐᓂᔮᙱᑦᑐᖅ ᐅᑎᕐᕕᒋᒃᑲᓐᓂᕋᓱᐊᕐᓗᒍ ᓯᕗᓕᕆᓚᐅᕐᑕᑦᑕ ᐃᓱᒪᒃᓴᕐᓯᐅᕈᑎᒋᔭᕆᐊᖃᓚᐅᕐᑕᖏᑦ, ᑭᓯᐊᓂᓗ, ᑐᑭᓯᐊᑦᑎᐊᕋᑦᑕ ᐊᔪᕐᓇᓂᕐᓴᐅᓂᐊᕐᓂᖓᓂᒃ ᐊᒃᓱᕈᐃᓐᓇᕐᓗᑕ ᐃᓅᓇᓱᐊᕆᐊᒃᓴᖅ ᒫᓐᓇᐅᔪᒥ ᒐᕙᒪᐅᔪᑎᒍᑦ ᐅᕙᑦᑎᓐᓂᒃ ᐃᑲᔪᕐᓯᑎᓐᓇᒋᑦ ᐊᒻᒪ ᑲᑦᑐᑎᑦᑎᐊᕈᔨᑎᓐᓇᒋᑦ ᑕᐃᒪᓐᓇ ᑕᑯᓐᓇᖑᐊᒐᐅᓯᒪᒻᒪ ᒪᑭᒪᓂᖃᑦᑎᐊᕈᓐᓇᕐᓂᖓ ᓄᓇᕘᑉ ᒪᒃᑯᒃᑐᓄᑦ, ᐃᒃᐱᒋᔭᖃᑦᑎᐊᕐᑐᓄᑦ ᐃᓄᖕᓄᑦ ᓯᕗᓕᕐᑎᐅᓯᒪᔪᓄᑦ 1970-ᖏᓐᓂ.
ᐱᔾᔪᔭᐅᑎᐊᓂᕐᓴᐅᖁᓪᓗᒋᑦ ᐃᓄᐃᑦ ᐊᒻᒪ ᓯᕗᓂᒃᓴᖃᑦᑎᐊᓂᕐᓴᐅᖁᓪᓗᒋᑦ ᓱᕈᓯᓛᕗᑦ ᐊᒻᒪ ᐃᕐᙳᑕᕐᐳᑦ, ᐅᖃᓚᐅᑕᐅᒋᐊᕆᐊᖃᓕᕐᒪᑕ.
ᖃᐅᔨᒪᓇᙱᒻᒪᑦ, ᐃᒻᒪᖄ ᓴᖅᑮᔪᓐᓴᕐᑐᒍᑦ ᐊᔾᔨᐅᖏᑦᑐᒥᒃ, ᐃᓄᐃᑦ ᐱᔪᒪᒋᔭᖏᑦ, ᐃᓕᖅᑯᓯᕐᒥᒍᑦ ᐊᒻᒪ ᐅᖃᐅᓯᕐᒥᒍᑦ ᐊᐅᓚᑦᑎᔾᔪᓯᖃᕈᓐᓇᕐᑐᑦ. ᑕᐃᒪᐃᒍᓐᓇᑐᐃᓐᓇᕆᐊᖃᓐᓂᖓ ᐃᓱᒪᒋᓗᒍ ᖁᕕᐊᓇᕐᑐᖅ.
ON NOVEMBER 16th, 2021, during Nunavut Tunngavik Incorporated’s annual general meeting, the membership passed a resolution to pursue Inuit self-government. This may come as a surprise to some, given the great celebration and accolades during the creation of the Nunavut Territory in 1999.
The creation of the Nunavut Territory was an outcome of the signing of the Nunavut Agreement in 1993. Out of this process, Inuit agreed to the establishment of a public government knowing that Inuit were and continue to be the majority population. Inuit expected a de facto self-government. However, this expectation relied on the full and effective implementation of critical articles of the Nunavut Agreement, such as Article 23 which requires the public service to achieve a representative workforce in all levels of employment. This was meant to ensure that all jobs, across all categories, would mirror the public population. Further, Article 32 clearly articulates the Inuit right, “to participate in the development of social and cultural policies, and in the design of social and cultural programs and services, including their method of delivery.”
When discussions to create Nunavut first started in the early 1970’s, Inuit as young as nineteen and twenty-two participated in creating a vision for what it could be and held a lot of hope for a better future.
By then Inuit were living in settlements, had witnessed the introduction of schools, and were experiencing tremendous changes. Through the land claim process Inuit sought to protect their way of life amid these changes, including protections for their language and culture, specifically within governance.
The first proposal for the creation of Nunavut was presented on February 27th, 1976. James Arvaluk was the president of Inuit Tapirisat of Canada (now Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami). In his presentation to Parliament, he said:
We want a stronger voice in such fields as education, housing, health and welfare, social and political development, and the running of our communities. We want to be self-sufficient rather than having to rely on the generosity of southern Canadians. In other words, we are no longer satisfied to be colonial subjects. We want to handle our own affairs, just as the people in southern Canada do.
Years later, Arvaluk’s ideas are reflected in the Nunavut Agreement preamble: “to encourage self-reliance and the cultural and social well-being of Inuit.” This alongside land and wildlife rights compensation.
Central to these expectations was language. As I stated at the 18th session of the United Nations Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues in 2019, “Language was a motivating factor for Inuit to work towards achieving a land claim agreement. Inuit envisioned better services and programs, in our language and reflecting Inuit ways of understanding and being.” We expected that our formal education system would instill strong Inuktut skills, but also that all aspects of governance – and our lives generally – would be embedded in Inuktut, the lens for our worldview.
It has now been twenty-two years since the public government was created. Our expectations for Nunavut have not matched our reality. Instead, we see that Inuit lives have largely not improved.
Instead, we find ourselves in a housing crisis, with crumbling and inadequate infrastructure, grave food insecurity, and no real measures to protect our language. We see the stark inequities in our homeland. According to the 2016 census, there is a significant economic and wage discrepancy where non-Inuit make five times more than Inuit. Poverty is very real.
To further illustrate this point, a Nunatsiaq News article from September 2021 revealed that, “In 2017, non-resident workers in Nunavut earned a total of $357 million — nearly 30 per cent of the total earnings made in the territory that year.” This data is important. It demonstrates that the chronic lack of commitment and investment in good formal education and training for Inuit is driving poor socio-economic outcomes and costing Nunavut the future. We see Nunavut’s economy disproportionately benefiting non-Inuit and Southern Canada.
Yet, in 2018, the then Premier of Nunavut Peter Taptuna was asked in the legislative assembly about Inuit training in the territorial government, his response was “it is a public government.” The sentiment that all programs and services designed and developed by Nunavut’s public government cannot specifically target the majority population of Inuit is not only absurd, but it goes against the Nunavut Agreement. Sadly, this sentiment continues today and is even widespread in the public government. We saw this with the passing of Bill 25, an Act to Amend the Education Act and Inuit Language Protection Act. This act not only reduced the government’s responsibility for Inuktut language training and delayed established plans, but it also took away parent’s rights to demand Inuktut language of instruction for their children. Under the guise of efficiency and accountability this government took away Inuit rights!
From the creation of the Government of Nunavut (GN), Nunavut Tunngavik Inc. (NTI) has consistently lobbied for Inuktut language of instruction. Since the year 2000 there have been at least 14 resolutions, and several reports, including one that described the current situation as “linguicide”, that have called for change. NTI has participated in public meetings and made many submissions to Legislative Assembly. We have worked with partners such as the Coalition of Nunavut District Education Authorities to create policy proposals to protect our language. None of these efforts have compelled the Government of Nunavut to act.
Nunavut has a very young population. We must invest enough in our children. We know that success in early years, including in school, is linked to success later in life. Many Inuit face desperate social and economic situations; this, on top of children facing language and cultural discrimination in the school system.
Given that English and French is prioritized in our education systems we are teaching our children that their identity, their way of life and their language does not matter. This reinforces the lack of self-esteem and mental health issues of young people and further perpetuates collective crisis we face in areas such as housing, health, and the economy.
It is difficult to imagine that this was the vision Inuit had when they supported the creation of a public government. Surely our leaders then would not have supported a government that did not promote, support, and reflect Inuit interests.
We are running out of time. If the public government that we agreed to through the signing of the Nunavut Agreement in 1993 cannot or will not focus its energies to make life better for the majority Inuit population in Nunavut, we feel like we have no choice but to seriously consider and begin pursuing Inuit self-government. Much like our recent decision, on October 13, 2021, to file a statement of claim in the Nunavut Court of Justice against GN for failing to implement Inuktut language education and to stop the continued practice of linguicide. We are running out of time and we are running out of options.
While the road may be long and tedious, with community conversations and the development of new frameworks and processes, we know that other Indigenous communities have pursued it and we can too. We recognize it will not be easy to re-visit questions that were considered just a generation ago, however, we wholeheartedly understand how much more difficult it is to continue to struggle to live under a regime that does not support us nor wants us to succeed in realizing and fulfilling the vision of a prosperous and thriving Nunavut envisioned by young, articulate and bold Inuit leaders in the 1970s.
To better serve Inuit and create a better future for our children and grandchildren, the conversation must begin again.
Who knows, perhaps we can even create a unique model, one where Inuit interests, culture and language are central to governance. The possibilities are exciting.
We owe it to our fellow Inuit to try.
Featured Image: Tristan Omik