par merrien, anne-mariebiblio.uqar.ca/archives/030258952.pdf · 2009) and 1000 dwellings (pita...
Post on 17-Nov-2020
2 Views
Preview:
TRANSCRIPT
1
ARUC‐DTC
Série «Études», n
uméro 4
Bridging Housing and Identity: A Co-operative and Holistic Perspective of
Housing in Nunavik
Par MERRIEN, Anne-Marie
Cahiers de l’ARUC-DTC Série «Études» numéro 4
2010
i
L’Alliance de recherche université-communautés – Développement territorial et coopération est le résultat d’une association entre le Centre de recherche sur le développement territorial (CRDT) basé à l'UQAR (regroupant aussi l'UQO, l'UQAC et l'UQAT) et le Conseil québécois de la coopération et de la mutualité (CQCM), le Réseau des SADC du Québec, l'Association des CLD du Québec et la Fédération québécoise des municipalités (FQM), l'Université de Moncton, l'Université Laval et l’IRECUS. Cette alliance de recherche est rendue possible grâce à l'appui financier du Conseil de recherches en sciences humaines du Canada.
Les propos tenus dans cet ouvrage n'engagent que la responsabilité l’auteur. Distribution : ARUC-Développement territorial et coopération Adresse : 300, allée des Ursulines C.P. 3300, succ. A, local G-310 Rimouski (Québec) G5L 3A1 Téléphone : (418) 723-1986 poste 1247 Courriel : aruc-dtc@uqar.ca Site Internet : http://aruc-dtc.uqar.qc.ca/ ISBN : 978-2-923711-24-9 (papier)
978-2-923711-25-6(PDF) Dépôt légal - Bibliothèque et Archives nationales du Québec, 2011 Dépôt légal - Bibliothèque et Archives Canada, 2011
ARUC-Développement territorial et coopération
Vous pouvez également télécharger ce document sur le site Internet de l'ARUC-DTC : http://aruc-dtc.uqar.qc.ca/
________________________________
Ce document doit être cité comme suit : MERRIEN A.M. (2010). Bridging Housing and Identity: A Co‐operative and Holistic Perspective of Housing in Nunavik Cahiers de l’ARUC – Développement territorial et coopération, Série «Étude» n° 4, Décembre 2010, 86 pages.
Institut de Recherche et d’Éducation pour les Coopératives et les Mutuelles de l’Université de Sherbrooke (IRECUS)
BRIDGING HOUSING AND IDENTITY
A Co‐operative and Holistic Perspective of Housing in Nunavik
par Anne‐Marie Merrien
Essai présenté à la faculté d’administration Dans le cadre du programme de
Maîtrise en gestion et gouvernance des coopératives et des mutuelles
Sherbrooke Avril 2010
i
i
Table of Contents REMERCIEMENTS ......................................................................................................................................... iii
PROLOGUE .................................................................................................................................................... v
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................................................... 1
1.1 Context ................................................................................................................................................ 1
1.2 Research problem ............................................................................................................................... 2
1.3 Relevance of the subject ..................................................................................................................... 4
1.4 Presentation ........................................................................................................................................ 5
CHAPTER 2: METHODOLOGY ........................................................................................................................ 7
2.1 Research development ....................................................................................................................... 7
2.2 Qualitative/interpretative research .................................................................................................... 7
2.3 Case study method ............................................................................................................................. 8
2.4 Data‐gathering .................................................................................................................................... 9
2.5 Data analysis ....................................................................................................................................... 9
2.6 Iterative cycle and rooted theory ..................................................................................................... 10
2.7 Limits ................................................................................................................................................. 10
CHAPTER 3: THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK ................................................................................................... 13
SECTION 1: HOLISM ................................................................................................................................ 14
SECTION 2: INUIT CULTURAL IDENTITY ................................................................................................... 15
SECTION 3: SUBSIDIARITY AND EMPOWERMENT ................................................................................... 20
SECTION 4: CO‐OPERATIVE PARADIGM AND CO‐OPERATIVES ............................................................... 21
SECTION 5: DEFINITION OF HOUSING ..................................................................................................... 23
CHAPTER 4: NUNAVIK HOUSING CRISES ..................................................................................................... 27
SECTION 1: CAUSES OF NUNAVIK HOUSING CRISES ............................................................................... 28
SECTION 2: RESULTS OF NUNAVIK HOUSING CRISES .............................................................................. 32
SECTION 3: CONSEQUENCES OF NUNAVIK HOUSING CRISES ................................................................. 35
CHAPTER 5: PROGRAMS AND AGREEMENTS RELATED TO HOUSING ........................................................ 39
SECTION 1: HISTORICAL OVERVIEW ........................................................................................................ 39
SECTION 2: RECENT AND CURRENT PROGRAMS AND AGREEMENTS ..................................................... 42
SECTION 3: RESULTS OF PROGRAMS AND AGREEMENTS ...................................................................... 46
ii
SECTION 4: ANALYSIS OF THE PROGRAMS AND AGREEMENTS .............................................................. 47
CHAPTER 6: HOUSING CO‐OPERATIVES ...................................................................................................... 51
SECTION 1: CONTEXT AND HISTORY ....................................................................................................... 51
SECTION 2: HOUSING CO‐OPERATIVES MODEL ...................................................................................... 54
CHAPTER 7: HOUSING CO‐OPERATIVES IN NUNAVIK ................................................................................. 61
SECTION 1: POTENTIAL OF IMPLEMENTATION ....................................................................................... 61
SECTION 2: CHALLENGES OF IMPLEMENTATION .................................................................................... 65
SECTION 3: RECOMMENDATIONS ........................................................................................................... 66
CONCLUSION ............................................................................................................................................... 69
EPILOGUE .................................................................................................................................................... 71
APPENDIX 1 ................................................................................................................................................. 73
APPENDIX 2 ................................................................................................................................................. 74
APPENDIX 3 ................................................................................................................................................. 75
APPENDIX 4 ................................................................................................................................................. 77
APPENDIX 5 ................................................................................................................................................. 78
APPENDIX 6 ................................................................................................................................................. 79
APPENDIX 7 ................................................................................................................................................. 81
APPENDIX 8 ................................................................................................................................................. 82
BIBLIOGRAPHY ............................................................................................................................................ 85
iii
REMERCIEMENTS
Merci :
À Martin; pour tout. Vraiment tout.
À André; pour la disponibilité, l’inspiration et la passion.
To Mary Ellen; for the insightful comments and teaching.
To the FCNQ and Maggie Aupaluk; for the research opportunity and the discovery of Puvirnituq.
À celles et ceux qui ont participé aux échanges; pour leur générosité en temps et en idées.
À toutes et tous; pour la confiance.
Au plein‐air et à la famille; pour l’équilibre.
Et au vent du Nord; pour l’envie d’y retourner.
v
PROLOGUE
A housing crisis might be a political, economic or historical issue, yet it is first and foremost, lived by
individuals and families. Here are short stories of some of those I met in Puvirnituq this fall.
We entered in her home without knocking at the door. A house is always open to visitors in Nunavik.
She is almost blind, now. She welcomed us and we talked. She is part of the last generation who were
born and raised in tents and igloos; she lived as such until the late 1960’s. She has four children; some
are still living with her, along with their own children. She is alone struggling to pay the bills. Before, she
didn’t have to pay for housing or food. She sometimes misses the old way of life. She thinks they lost
their family bounds when they moved into permanent houses. But those houses are nice and warm. Yet
they are so squeezed...
They live in a two‐bedroom. The two parents, one of their child, his girlfriend and their baby. The
mattresses completely cover the floor of the young couple’s room. The parents’ room is filled with
furniture, boxes and other items. It is small, but they are welcoming. Coffee is always ready.
He lives alone in a two‐bedroom. He is handicapped. Sometimes, people come to his place to party,
because there is room. He has not much to say when it happens.
They are 11 and live in a three‐bedroom. The rooms are more than full. The parents put down a
mattress in the living room every night. They say they are tired, because they do not sleep well.
They used to be 16 in this five‐bedroom. Now they are “only” eleven, because some moved in the two‐
bedrooms that were constructed lately.
At the municipal housing office, I asked two employees whether people would be interested in being
owner of their house. “Of course! But it’s a dream!” Everybody would like to own his or her house. “But
it’s just a dream.
1
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION Members and employees of the Fédération des Coopératives du Nouveau‐Québec (FCNQ) know about
the housing conditions in Nunavik. Some have lived it, while others know persons who have lived or still
live the consequences of the shortage and inadequate housing. Until now, the FCNQ has not been
directly involved in the residential housing sector, but would like to see how they could participate
improving the housing conditions of their members and families in Nunavik. It was the starting point of
this research.
1.1 Context
The interest in the Canadian Far North is geopolitical, strategic, economic and even mythical. As the
ultimate internal frontier in Canada, this territory is once again a topical issue, with, among other things,
the climate change and the possible thaw of the North‐West passage. Furthermore, the economic
interests related to the natural resources discovered by the permafrost thaw, combined with the
touristic potential, and the issue of Canada sovereignty; all combine to bring Northern Canada to the
fore front of federal and provincial priorities. Yet, the complexity of the issues at stake, which can be
illustrated by the equivocations surrounding the drawing up of Plan Nord, call for an in‐depth and acute
analysis of the question. When considering those projects of development, one cannot ignore the
impacts on environment, political structures, agreements, international relations, and, maybe first of all,
on those who live on this territory.
Effectively, thousands of Inuit (and their ancestors, the Thule), of Crees, Denes and several other First
Nations communities have been living in Northern Canada, for millennia. The first contacts with
Europeans occurred in the early 16th century, with European whalers. Thanks to the fur trade, the 18th
century saw an increase of the contacts, thus marking the entry of Inuit in the European economic
system. Missionaries settled not long after the fur trade posts were created. (Martin:2003:30‐35)
The intentions and impacts of these institutions (Church, fur trade posts, state) are differently analyzed
depending of the authors, institutions or cultural groups. Nonetheless, almost all agree on the fact that
the combined impacts of the settling process, of the implementation of social and health services up
North, and the profound change in traditional ways of living and education, bring us now to an excessive
dependence of Inuit upon the Canadian and Quebec states. (Commision des Droits de la Personne et des
Droits de la Jeunesse (CDPDJ) :2007, Shrub :1996, Martin :2003, Webster :2006) According to Thibault
Martin (2003), the presences of fur trade posts and the Church, as well as the mounted police, “was
conducive to the weakening of traditional solidarity networks and the decline of certain traditional social
practices. [...] This situation had the consequence of creating a social void within which the modern
state brought itself in, in order to supply help for those in need or to manage conflicts.” (Martin,
2003 :34)1
1 Many documents consulted were originally written in French. All the references in French found in the
bibliography and quoted in this document were translated by the author.
2
In all cases, this new relationship needed, on the side of governments and inhabitants, a “sharing” of
governance and responsibilities. Still today, Inuit carry out a complete autonomy in very few sectors and
on a very small portion of their former territory (Land of category I, according to the James Bay and
Northern Québec Agreement) (Gagnon and Rocher, 2002:29‐30). Still, we should mention that current
agreements always plan or require consultation with Inuit.
Besides, the fact that Inuit have lived through excessively rapid and profound changes is unanimously
recognized. Without falling into clichés, we have yet to imagine that these communities went from
nomadism to settled villages and from subsistence hunting to high‐speed internet in a matter of fifty
years. It is obvious that those upheavals, no matter how they were introduced, have a destabilizing
effect on a people. In fact, Inuit are still living the aftermaths of those radical changes.
1.2 Research problem
2.2.1 General research problem
No one argues about the living conditions of Inuit being particularly harsh, on many aspects. One of the
most unanimously recognized issues is, without any doubt, the housing issue. Effectively, some consider
that a housing crisis existed since the beginning of the settlement process, in the 1950’s. More recently,
in the Socio‐economic Profile of Nunavik, Duhaime (2008) acknowledged that housing conditions have
worsened in the last ten years in Nunavik. The most obvious results of the housing crisis are
overcrowding and homelessness. This problem is lived everywhere in the Canadian North, but more
severely in Nunavik. Currently more than half of the Inuit of Nunavik live in overcrowded dwellings and
the same proportion are living in dwellings in need of major repairs. (Duhaime, 2008)
Today, in order to supply for all the housing needs of Nunavik’s 11 000 inhabitants, between 900
dwellings (according to Regional Housing Bureau, Radio‐Canada Abitibi‐Témiscamingue, January 23rd
2009) and 1000 dwellings (Pita Aatami, quoted in Yves Chartrand, in Rue Frontenac, 17 mars 2010)
should be built. Then, a pace of building 60 units per year would be necessary. (SHQ, 2001, Housing in
Nunavik :27) Also, the consequences of housing conditions on physical, mental and social wellness are
recognized by all stakeholders. (Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami : 2004, Société d’Habitation du Québec (SHQ):
2001, National Aboriginal Health Organization (NAHO) :2008, Webster :2006)
Responsibility in this realm has changed hands over the years, but generally, housing comes under
provincial jurisdiction. Usually, consultation with Inuit and their institutions are planned when
elaborating projects. The federal government is involved in housing by budget granting. (SHQ, 2001:12‐
15)
In addition to testimonies collected during a visit to Puvirnituq (summer 2009), the observations made
at this moment proved the pervasiveness, complexity and urgency of the situation. Unanimously, the
people expressed that not only not enough dwellings were built, but that what was being built did not
suit the needs. This comment, confirmed by the analysis of several authors (Strub :1996, Susanka :2008,
Dawson :1997), who underline the impacts of a loss of autonomy and competencies in the housing
realm, suggests to consider the housing crises in Nunavik as multiple. There is a housing shortage, of
course, but the very nature of the solution proposed does not correspond to Inuit’s needs and way of
3
life. In sum, we usually consider housing only in terms of dwellings, without taking into account what
housing represent for individuals and communities.
Actually, it would be more appropriate to talk about the housing crisis in its broader sense, within which
many crises coexist and are intertwined, such as the crisis in the number of dwellings (the shortage) and
the crisis of (inadequate) architecture. From now on, we will thus talk about the housing crises in
Nunavik.
1.2.2 General research question
Even though the housing shortage is recognized by different stakeholders, the solutions and programs
proposed until now do not seem to have a significant positive effect on the situation. This leads to a
simple but fundamental question: Why are current programs and agreements not fulfilling the needs in
housing?
The gap between the existing needs and the last years’ results calls for a revision of current solutions, as
well as for innovation. Also, the complexity and severity of the situation commands long term and
complete solutions. In fact, a different approach still needs to be developed.
1.2.3 Specific research problem
Actually, many studies demonstrate and analyze the causes, results and consequences of the housing
shortage in Nunavik and other Northern territories. These studies are carried on by federal and
provincial governments, regional organizations, non‐governmental organizations and university
researchers. However, little information or analysis is available concerning the results of current
solutions or about the characteristics to be taken into account when developing projects in the housing
realm in Nunavik. In light of this observation, it can be tempting to conclude that there is effectively not
lot of reflection made about the efficiency of the programs and solutions, and that the search for
alternative is as rare. We still can suppose that reports are made within these institutions and that a
certain evaluation is produced. Those documents are more difficult to find and consult, and we did not
made the additional steps to access to this document.
Still, according to several testimonies gathered in Puvirnituq and to an investigation conducted by Carole
Lévesque (2007), one of the reasons explaining the failure of some programs, comes from the disregard
of Nunavik’s specificities.
One of the main constraints in matters of economic development, as in other realms, according to
aboriginals institutions, comes from this inadequacy between the programs and measures
elaborated and implemented, and the needs, priorities and expectations of communities and
people. This inadequacy clearly results from a lack of consideration for “our difference”, “our way
of thinking and doing” [...]” (Lévesque, 2007:119)
If programs and measures are inadequate, it thus appears necessary to develop new approaches that
would take into account the cultural, historical, territorial, political and legal specificities of Nunauvik
4
and its population, as well as their needs, priorities and expectations, in order to truly understand which
strategies could create an appropriate solution to the housing crises.
1.2.4 Specific research question
The co‐operative experience in Nunavik and the past and current successes suggest that this model
represent an interesting avenue for the communities. In addition, the comments from the FCNQ, as well
as the need to develop alternatives for housing, as expressed by many local stakeholders, suggest
consideration of housing co‐operatives as a serious option.
Thus, we will try to verify to which extent the housing co‐operative model could represents an
appropriate solution to the housing crises in Nunavik, as well as a bridge between housing and identity,
in order to secure the respect of fundamental rights to housing.
In brief, we can note that several housing crises coexist in Nunavik and that the current programs and
agreements seem to be insufficient. New approaches still need to be developed. An appropriate solution
would require an encompassing vision of housing and of the territory’s specificities. Housing co‐
operatives could represent such a new approach, as long as several principles are respected.
Thus, we will attempt to argue that
‐ If crises are to be properly addressed, it is necessary that Inuit take back responsibilities and give
a sense of their own to housing. In other words, bridging housing and identity is fundamental;
‐ And, in this sense, housing co‐operatives could be appropriate, as long as they are developed
and implemented with a holistic understanding of housing and that principles and values of
cooperatism and subsidiarity are respected.
1.3 Relevance of the subject
In democratic and industrialized countries such as Canada or Québec, the harsh housing conditions lived
by Inuit appear as an incomprehensible exception, a reality difficult to admit and understand. The
successive report of the United Nations concerning the Covenant on economic, social and cultural rights,
highlight this seeming anomaly, this infringe to democratic principles. (FRAPRU, 2007) Housing is a
fundamental right recognized by numerous treaties, covenants and charter of human rights, on
international, national and provincial levels. Thus, the importance of such an issue does not need to be
further proven.
Also, it is interesting to raise the fact Canada, as well as United States and New Zealand, have not yet
signed the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. Even though Canada was
part of the negotiations groups working on the document, Harper’s government decided not to sign the
final draft. (CBC News, September 13th 2007) 2
2 Proof that it is a burning issue, the Prime Minister announced on the Speech from the Throne of March 3rd 2010: “A growing number of states have given qualified recognition to the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. Our Government will take steps to endorse this aspirational document in a manner fully
5
One of the controversial issues in the Declaration for Canada is the recognition of Aboriginal collective
rights, because it is seemingly contradictory to individual rights, on which the Canadian constitution is
based. In addition, according to the current conservative government, it would be risky to see territorial
claims being justified by this Declaration and so jeopardizing Canadian territorial integrity. This whole
issue underlines that the Aboriginal and Inuit situation is always, either subject to controversy or, at
least, to reflections. (CBC News, September 13th 2007)
In parallel, the relevance of this research is supported by the fact that it is conducted in partnership with
an organization involved in economic and social sector in Nunavik, and that the results of the study will
be useful for further projects development.
Hopefully, the results of the study will participate in the much needed search for alternative in housing
in the North. Even if this study is modest, the interest is to begin a reflection, to try revitalizing this
research realm and to commit to pursuing positive changes in Inuit living condition in Nunavik.
1.4 Presentation
This document will begin with a description of the research methodology. Then, we will proceed by
elaborating on the theoretical framework. This framework will be the basis for the subsequent analysis.
We will then devote some space to the housing crises, their causes, results and consequences. Further,
the past and current programs and agreements related to housing are to be analyzed, according to their
results and the theoretical framework. The housing co‐operative model will be the subject of the sixth
chapter. Afterwards, we will appraise the potential and challenges of implementing housing co‐
operatives in Nunavik. Finally, several recommendations are to be suggested and complete the
document.
consistent with Canada’s Constitution and laws.” (Government of Canada, Speech from the Throne, March 3rd 2010)
Australia was against the Declaration until April 2009. (International Work Group on Indigenous Affairs, April 3rd 2009)
7
CHAPTER 2: METHODOLOGY
2.1 Research development
In order to achieve the master in Gestion et gouvernance des coopératives et des mutuelles, an essay
and a practical experience in the cooperative milieu is planned. This “intervention‐essai”, as it is called,
is aimed to “strengthen the acquired knowledge and skills” during the program and to offer a “useful
contribution” to the partner organization. (Institut de Recherche et d’Études pour les Coopératives et les
Mutuelles de l’Université de Sherbrooke (IRECUS, 2002:2) In this context, the Fédération des
Coopératives du Nouveau‐Québec (FCNQ) was contacted and invited to propose an issue on which it
would be useful to work on. On September 1st2009, a meeting with representatives of the FCNQ, the
author and her supervisor allowed to introduce the subject and precise the expectations and needs of
the Federation. At this moment, the housing issue appeared as a priority for the FCNQ. Representatives
expressed that the current solutions were not fulfilling the housing needs, and that it would be
interesting to verify if housing co‐operatives could be implemented in Nunavik. Following this meeting, a
project of study was written and submitted to approval to the FCNQ.
The data‐gathering then started. Some contacts were established with local and regional stakeholders
and some useful and relevant interviews were conducted. The FCNQ expressed its will that the author
visit Nunavik, in order to realise first hand, the state of the situation. Thus, a journey of a week was
organized in Puvirnituq, between November 23rd and 27th 2009. Other interviews and observations were
pursued during the visit, as well as afterwards.
Thus, a movement, even a cycle, took place during all the research steps, between theoretical concepts
and principles and the author’s realizations, the finding of new data, the shared reflections with several
persons. Then, this movement slowly led to the elaboration of a theoretical framework as well as an in‐
depth analysis of the issue.
2.2 Qualitative/interpretative research
The process described below leads us to consider our study as qualitative/interpretative because we
were effectively motivated by the will of “understanding individuals reality”, the sense they give to their
reality and to produce a culturally, temporally and contextually rooted knowledge. (Savoie‐Zajc,
2004 :126) Ensuring the representativeness of reality and the usefulness of the study for local
stakeholders was a priority.
If we take the definition given by Savoie‐Zajc, we could say that qualitative/interpretative research
is a research that expresses specific ontological (its vision of reality) and epistemological
(associated with the conditions of knowledge production) positions, insofar as the meaning given
to the reality is conceived as being built between the researchers, the contributors and those who
will use the results of the study. (Savoie‐Zajc, 2004 :128)
8
We cannot say that we have elaborated a precise and thoughtful methodology right from the beginning.
Paillé (1996, quoted in Savoie‐Zajc) describe the process of qualitative/interpretative research, and it
appears to properly suit our own approach.
1) The study most often implies a personal and long term contact with stakeholders and a
consideration for their point of view;
2) The methodological design is never completely decided at the beginning of the study, but is
rather modified and constructed with the results obtained and once the saturation point
reached;
3) The steps of data‐gathering are not clearly separated, and are sometimes carried out at the
same time;
4) Throughout all the steps, the main methodological tool remains the searcher himself or herself;
5) The data analysis aims for the description or theorization of the process, rather than “results
capture”;
6) Finally, the thesis or the study report inscribes itself in a dialogical space of discovery and
validation of the process, rather than a logic of proof. (2004 :128)
2.3 Case study method
Along the process of data‐gathering and considering the visit to Puvirnituq, the case study slowly
became the preferred method. It suits the qualitative/interpretative research particularly well. First of
all, the qualitative nature of the data was the first evidence of the relevance of case study approach.
(Mace et Patry, 2000 :85) “Merriam (1998:19) considers that the relevance of case studies comes mostly
from the research process which facilitates “discovery more than confirmation” of new knowledges and
that brings a rich understanding of the realities studied.” (Villemagne, 2007 : 138) Thus, it seems that
the research questions (“Why current programs and agreements seem to be inappropriate or
insufficient?” and “How housing co‐operatives could represent an adequate solution?”) confirm the case
study as the most appropriate method.
Effectively, Yin (2003) argues in the same way when explaining that: “In general, case studies are the
preferred strategy when ‘how’ and ‘why’ questions are being posed, when the investigator has little
control over events, and when the focus is on a contemporary phenomenon within some real‐life
context.” (2003:1) Our subject seems to effectively contains all these characteristics.
Also, the author says that “[…] the need for case studies arises out of the desire to understand complex
social phenomena. In brief, the case study method allows investigators to retain the holistic and
meaningful characteristics of real‐life event [...].” (Yin, 2003:2) Mace and Patry speak of an “in‐depth
analysis of a precise phenomenon.” (2000 :86) This is precisely what this research aims for; being useful,
practically and theoretically, to the FCNQ and other organizations and persons interested in developing
alternatives in housing in Nunavik.
9
2.4 Data‐gathering
The “sources of evidence”, as Yin (2003) calls it (2003:83) came from written documents, observations
and interviews.
2.4.1 Literature review
Chronologically, I started the research with the literature review. Following the meeting with FCNQ
representatives, I began collecting information about the housing crises in Nunavik. Thus, several
documents concerning history of the territory and the general socio‐economic situation were consulted.
Then, I read studies analyzing the housing situation, as well as the James Bay and Northern Agreement,
and several programs and agreements signed in the last years.
In parallel, in order to identify the key characteristics of appropriate solutions, I also studied research
conducted with Aboriginal and Inuit communities, as well as different theoretical elements in the
political and philosophical realms. This slowly led to building the theoretical framework.
The literature review continued after the visit to Puvirnituq. Then architecture books (Nordic and
southern architecture) gave a broader and more complete understanding of housing. Also, some
examples of residential and community development in Aboriginal communities highlighted some
preferred practices and approaches. Finally, the literature review was completed with information
concerning principles, values and structures of housing co‐operatives.
2.4.2 Observation and interviews
The FCNQ rapidly showed its will to organize a visit to Puvirnituq. Actually, the relevance, and even the
necessity, of such a visit were obvious for the Federation. Thus a field investigation and observation took
place in Puvirnituq, at the end of November 2010. A new dimension to the study was then unfolded.
(See Appendix 6 for a summary of the visit. In French.)
During this filed study, many interviews were conducted with residents, with employees from housing,
construction, social services and police services. They were all on an open discussion mode. The theory
says that they were “semi‐directed” interviews.3 Also, several visits to houses and dwellings allowed me
to directly observe the impacts of overcrowding. Before and after this field work, I did some interviews
with people involved in the co‐operative milieu and the Kativik Regional Government. (See Appendices 7
and 8 for a list of the questions and a summary of interview)
2.5 Data analysis
Data analysis was carried on simultaneously with the data‐gathering. Since the very basis of our
questioning comes from praxis and experience, and that the goal is to draw conclusions and practices
from them, induction could be considered as one of the types of analysis used in this research. In other
3 “Semi‐directed interviews consist in a verbal interaction smoothly led by the searcher. […] aiming to address, on a
conversation mode, the general issues he or she wants to explore with the interviewee. Thanks to this interaction,
a rich understanding of the issue studied will be jointly constructed with the interviewee.” (Savoie‐Zajc, 2003 :296)
10
words, “Chevrier (2004:55) illustrate the inductive process as a “reality [...] in search of a theory”.”
(Villemagne, 2007 :142) This shows that our methodological design was “modified and constructed with
the results obtained and once the saturation point reached”, as for a qualitative/interpretative research.
(Paillé, 1996, quoted in Savoie‐Zajc, 2004:128) Once this “theory” elaborated, and since I did not come
across examples of housing co‐operatives in Inuit communities, the analysis of the solutions to housing
crises, as well as the potential of housing co‐operatives, was thus based on the principles and values
proposed in the theoretical framework. If this project is to become reality, it will be possible and
necessary to verify the relevance and accuracy of these principles and suggest adaptations.
The « choice » of an approach is not always the conclusion of a long rational and well‐considered
process. We cannot ignore the influence of our own values, principles, prejudices or experiences directly
or indirectly related to the issue. It is thus necessary to acknowledge them and to use them as explicit
tools of comprehension, and to stay open to contradictory elements. (Savoie‐Zajb, 2004 :139‐140)
2.6 Iterative cycle and rooted theory
An iterative cycle4 was noticeable between the “theoretical elements, the data‐gathering and the
inductive analysis. This cycle [was] repeated until saturation point.” (Savoie‐Zajc, 2004 :129) This data
saturation is reached when the researcher does not find any new elements or when the interviewees
comments begin to be repetitive. The research design is then considered as emergent. “This emergence
is guided by the sense gradually given by the author to the data and by his or her contact with
participants.” (Savoie‐Zajb, 2004 :129‐130) Once the saturation point reached, it is possible to draw
The central axis that gives sense to the data analyzed [...]. This is the step of the formulation of
the rooted theory, because it comes from reality observations. It does not tend to generalize a
body of knowledge, but rather to lead to working hypothesis and application suggestions of the
theory. (Savoie‐Zajb, 2004 :130)
Thus, we stopped the data‐gathering and interviews when not much new data was found. It was then
possible to analyse the potential and challenges facing housing co‐operatives in Nunavik, as well as to
elaborate several recommendations.
2.7 Limits
Obviously, such a research project bears limits and might have gaps to fill. Resources and time available
for this study depended on only one person, thus restricting the possible extent of the research. Also,
since this issue is still relatively new, the human and information resources were rather limited. Finally,
having only a recent and incomplete knowledge and experience about this subject, it is possible to have
forgotten, omitted or ignored the existence a certain facts or aspects
Certain limits related to the study case method have to be underlined. Effectively, one common concern
about study case method is the lack of rigor. According to Yin (2003), this prejudice comes from the fact
that very few methodology documents exist in this realm and that this method has been more often
subject to bias. This difficulty has rarely been overcome. (2003:10). Nevertheless, the case study method
4 The iterative cycle is simply a cycle, fed by new data and insights, repeated until saturation.
11
represents a relevant method, as long as the research and data‐gathering is honestly and rigorously
carried on, which is the case for all methods.
Another aspect at stake concerning the case study method is the generalization potential. In other
words: “How can we generalize from a unique case?” “The short answer is that case studies, like
experiments, are generalizable to theoretical propositions and not to populations or universes.” (Yin,
2003 :10) Thus, in our case, a certain potential of applicability of the results exist for other territories or
communities (Inuit, Aboriginal or others), but such parallel should be carefully and conscientiously
established.
In addition, we would rather name some existing biases, than obscure them. Thus, it is important to
note that we are not totally neutral in this research, insofar as we are truly committed to the issues at
stake in the study. However, a real concern for objectivity guides this research. In my opinion,
subjectivity and rationality are not antonymous. I strongly believe that this commitment to improve
Inuit living conditions ensures an intellectual honesty, an endeavour of investigation, as well as a
relevant and attentive critical thinking. Finally, my personal values, my life experiences, my cultural and
academic background, and my age are all elements influencing this research. This is why it will be even
more crucial to test the results with stakeholders involved in housing in Nunavik.
13
CHAPTER 3: THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK This chapter will allow us to elaborate on the theoretical framework on which our subsequent analyses
are based. As explained in the methodology section, this framework was developed simultaneously
during the whole process of data‐gathering, conducting interviews and visiting Puvirnituq. The concepts
further described touch many aspects of the issue: from broader concepts such as holism, and
subsidiarity, going through Inuit cultural identity and cooperatism. Housing itself will also be defined.
The principles and elements constituting the theoretical framework should be understood as an
interlocked body of analysis. Interrelations exist between the four guiding principles proposed. The
following illustration will give a general idea of the theoretical framework and the interconnectedness of
the principles and will be used along the present document.
14
HOLISMSECTION 1: HOLISM
This first concept should be understood at the same time as the
cement connecting the components of the whole research and one of
the essential elements of an interlocked body of analysis.
Holism comes from the Greek holos, which means the whole or the
entire, and is defined as following:
Term from a theological origin, which designates an approach tending, in biology and human
sciences, such as anthropology and sociology, to explains phenomenon in a globalizing way, from
a predominance of the whole over the parts, most of the time by putting the emphasis on the
effects of the system. (Baraquin, Baudart, Dugré et al, 2000:138)
Not many authors have written on holism (which should not be associated with mysticism or esoterism,
but considered as a valid epistemological posture). Those who have most integrated a holistic
understanding of the world might be the Aboriginal peoples. Since most of them have an oral tradition,
again, not a lot of writings exist on this philosophy. Vine Deloria Jr. is one of the few. He explains that
Western philosophy and science have generally sustained a unique way of thinking, putting on the side
other visions of the world.
The movement toward a “science of wholeness” depends in large measure on the ability of
philosophers and scientific thinkers to move beyond their comfortable and presently accepted
categories of arranging and interpreting data – to glimpse and grasp new unities of experience
and knowledge. In order to do this, we must first ask fundamental questions about the goals of
science.(1999:40)
According to Deloria, science and knowledge, for old Indians, are intimately linked to human’s place in
the world and the cosmos.
The old Indians [...] were interested in finding the proper moral and ethical road upon which
human beings should walk. All knowledge, if it is to be useful, was directed toward that goal.
Absent in this approach was the idea that knowledge existed apart from human beings and their
communities, and could stand alone for ‘its own stake’. (Deloria, 1999:43‐44)
Effectively, “The development of Western science was based on the idea that human beings could
abstract themselves from the observational and experimental situation” (Deloria, 1999:64) This is
precisely what Einstein challenged with his “Everything is relative”, explaining that the observer has an
influence on the behaviour of the object of study, and thus on the results. This posture consciously and
even call for the crucial role subjectivity plays in science and the understanding of the world. It is to say
that they assume their “parti pris”, their biases, for humans and humanity. The author explains how this
starting point affects the method of data‐gathering.
In most tribal traditions, no data are discarded as unimportant or irrelevant. Indians consider their
own individual experiences, the accumulated wisdom of the community that has been
15
HOLISM
INUIT IDENTITY
accumulated by previous generations, their dreams, visions, and prophecies, and any information
received from birds, animals, and plants as data that must be arranged, evaluated, and
understood as a unified body of knowledge. (Deloria, 1999:66‐67)
This is what the author calls a “wholistic understanding”. In western science, emotional, subjective or
nonrational elements or conclusions are put aside. A holistic vision supposes that there would be very
interesting and important work to do bringing “emotion and logic back together" which would actually
bring a better, broader understanding of the world. “This synthesis is necessary if we are to make sense
of our world and our experiences.” (Deloria, 1999:58)
The science of wholeness is well illustrated by Lévesque’s study. (See “principles of development” on
page 26) As the author explains: “These anchors [territory, knowledge, social cohesion and history] all
participate into a modern vision of community. [...] Such a vision goes behind any categorization by
sectors or by realm, either it concerns economic, political or social issues. [...]” (Lévesque, 2007: 119).
Moreover, according to Aboriginal organizations, one of the main problems in economic development or
any other realm is precisely the inadequacy of the programs in relation to the needs, priorities or
expectations of the communities and its members. (Lévesque, 2007 : 119)
This means that in order to properly address the issue of housing, we have to take into account the
whole picture, with its historical, political, cultural, individual, architectural, territorial and social aspects,
and their interconnectedness. If not, we consider that the analysis would not be complete and cannot
be relied upon. Not only can a holistic approach be the guarantee for sustainable and durable solutions,
but, according to Lévesque, it also reflects Inuit ways of thinking and collective concerns.
SECTION 2: INUIT CULTURAL IDENTITY
One implicit, but pervasive subject in this research is related to Inuit cultural
identity. In many of the documents consulted or interviews conducted, Inuit
culture and its specific values and principles are named, but rarely defined.
In addition, many documents mentioned the importance of “respecting
traditional values”, without describing them or explaining “current values”.
We have spent a good amount of time trying to find these explanations. It
was always partial or vague. It was not satisfying, especially because the
most explicit documents were not written by Inuit. A study by Jérôme Bouchard (2008) helped us to
understand this difficulty with finding clear information about identity issues.
2.1 Cultural identity
Identity is defined by Simard (2003) as an
intersubjective dialogue, along which the role players discover, understand and express what
distinguish them, durably and globally, from their “significant others” [...] in a specific context of
16
structured social relations, in a specific era and place.” (2003:11 quoted in Bouchard, 2008:138‐
139).5
Cultural identity, can be define as the “Set of the ways in which a community think, act and feel, in its
triple relation with nature, human and the Absolute” (Abou, 1986:31, quoted in Bouchard 2008:140).
Dorais (1994) gives another definition: “Fundamental consciousness of the specificity of one’s group
belonging, in terms of habits of life, tradition, language, values, etc.” (1994:254, quoted in Bouchard,
2008:140)
The delicate issue of defining cultural identity gets into play because it can be analyzed according to
three interdependent levels (Barth, 1994, quoted in Bouchard, 2008:140‐141): the local social context
(micro‐level), the political elite (intermediary level) and the state politics and global discourses (macro‐
level). Everything is set in place in order to prove that such a division exist in Nunavik, where
the definition of modern Inuit identity can vary, according to the interest and social position of
those who experience it. In Nunavik, for example, we found three main definitions of today’s
Inuit; the definition of the grassroots population, the one of Inuit administrative organizations and
the one of the euro‐canadian majority.” (Dorais, 1994:257, quoted in Bouchard, 2008:140‐141)
This last distinction explains why it can be so difficult, and tricky, to propose a list of values and
principles, specific to Inuit people. Also, we have to name a certain caution with describing a culture that
is not ours and that we started to know a little more only a few months ago. We are fully aware that the
culture we belong to has had tremendous influence and sometimes very negative effects on Inuit
people. This adds to the discomfort of sitting on the narrow line between folkorization, clichés,
prejudices and recognition of specificity. Anyhow, since it is so pervasive and so important, we will try to
put some landmarks on this subject.
2.2 Inuit values and principles
The FCNQ motto is: “Atautsikut/Together‐ working to develop as a people, leaving none behind.” (FCNQ,
2006) This short sentence efficiently expresses one important Inuit value.
In the Inuit culture, individual success is less important than that of the group, and prestige goes
more to someone contributing to the group's well‐being than to the one who amasses the most
goods. This means that encouragement will not go to someone who runs the fastest and comes in
first: it will go to the group's ability to reach the objective together. (Girard and Ninacs, 2006)
5 Taylor (1992) explains a little more the importance of intersubjectivity, saying that individual and collective identities are constructed in a dialogical relation with others. This fundamental characteristic implies that “those who count for us” (family, lover, friends, peers, governments, church, etc.) participate in the definition of our identity, even if this dialogue is sometimes more of an opposition. Furthermore, thanks to others’ recognition that one will constructs its own identity. (Taylor, 1992:48‐49)
17
We are fully aware that many distinctions (politically and historically, for example) exist between Inuit of
Nunavut and Inuit from Nunavik. Yet, the most complete document concerning values and principles we
founded comes from the Government of Nunavut website. They explain what the Inuit
Qaujimajatuqangit is. We reproduce the document almost in its’ entirety.
Inuit Qaujimajatuqangit is traditional Inuit Knowledge.
Connection Values ‐ sharing, generosity, family, respect, love, listening, equality, significance and
trust.
Work Values ‐ volunteer, observe, practice, mastery, teamwork, cooperation, unity, consensus
and conservation.
Coping Values ‐ patience, endurance, improvisation, strength, adaptability, resilience,
resourcefulness, moving forward, take the long view, survival, interconnectedness and honesty.
These values are based on the eight Guiding Principles as outlined below:
Inuuqatigiitsiarniq: Respecting others, relationships and caring for people.
Respect for others and treating others equally is a characteristic the elders have always stressed in
their words of advice (uqaujjuusiat).
Tunnganarniq: Fostering good spirit by being open, welcoming and inclusive.
We must make the workplace people‐friendly, welcoming and accepting for Nunavummiut,
elders, our colleagues and others.
Pijitsirarniq: Concept of serving
The concept of serving is central to the Inuit style of leadership as is the measure of the maturity
and wisdom of an Inuk. Key here is the understanding that each person has a contribution to
make and is a valued contributor to his/her community.
Aajiiqatigiingniq: Consensus–Decision Making
The concept of consensus decision‐making relies on strong communication skills and a strong
belief in shared goals. Being able to think and act collaboratively, to assist with the development
of shared understandings, to resolve conflict in consensus‐building ways, and to consult
respecting various perspectives and worldviews.
18
Pilimmaksarniq: Concept of Skills and Knowledge Acquisition
The concept of skills and knowledge acquisition and capacity building [in Inuit way of knowing and
doing] is central to the success of Inuit in a harsh environment. Demonstrating empowerment to
lead a successful and productive life, that is respectful of all, is a powerful end goal of our
educational system.
Qanuqtuurungnarniq: Concept of Being Resourceful to Solve Problems
The concept of being resourceful to solve problems, through innovative and creative use of
resources and demonstrating adaptability and flexibility in response to a rapidly changing world,
are strengths all [...] should develop.
Piliriqatigiingniq: Concept of Collaborative Relationship or Working Together for a Common
Purpose
The essential Inuit belief that stresses the importance of the group over the individual should
pervade all our teaching. Working for the common good, collaboration, shared leadership and
volunteerism. Expectations for supportive behaviour development, strong relationship‐building
and consensus‐building.
Avatimik Kamattiarniq: Concept of Environmental Stewardship
The concept of environmental stewardship stresses the key relationship Inuit have with their
environment and with the world in which they live. Articulat[ing] respect for this mutually
interdependent relationship and demonstrat[ing] responsible behaviours that seek to improve
and protect[ing] the relationship in ways that meet global challenges to environmental wellness.”
(Government of Nunavut, Department of Human Resources, 2005)
Concerning Inuit of Nunavik specifically, the previous description of Inuit values and principles appears,
at least, not in contradiction with our readings (Tulugak and Murdoch, 2007, Strub, 1996,Girard and
Ninacs, 2006, Lévesque, 2007) and observations and interviews in Puvirnituq.
Finally, Inuit cultural identity will be a major element to appraise the relevance and adequacy of current
programs and agreements, as well as alternatives in housing.
2.3 Principles of development
Cultural identity is certainly determining when speaking of principles of development. In this sense,
Carole Lévesque (2007) directed a study in Inuit, Naskapi, Innus and Cree communities of Northern
Québec. The aim of the study was to highlight the local perspectives on economy and to identify, from
inside, several conditions for successful economic and social projects of development. (Lévesque,
2007:116)
19
According to Lévesque, the unique situation of these communities, notably their isolation, small
population and recent history (as settled communities), increases the importance of the collective and
require a global contextualization of any questioning concerning employment, labour force, education
or entrepreneurship. The author explains that the ways in which the respondents expressed themselves
on economic development and its components are a good illustration of this globalizing vision. “Right
from the beginning, the concerns related to economy were extended to all domains of the community,
professional and personal life; they do not come from distinct universes; they are closely interlocked.”
(Lévesque, 2007:117)
Large integrating themes can be drawn from all the interviews. “Themes that constitutes, in some sense,
the organizing principles of economic development and, consequently, the collective and founding
anchors of local governance.” (Lévesque, 2007:117) Here are a summary of the four principles explained
by Lévesque.
Territory is a major, even unavoidable, component, of economic development and, by extension, of
community development; “territory is at the same time culturally revealing, a social mediator, a
collective wealth and a political stake.” (Lévesque, 2007 : 117‐118)
Knowledge is related to traditional wisdom, as well to practical and ecological knowledge. « Knowledge
is also considered as an essential vector of an economy that one [the respondents] would hope to be
more collective, and promoting solidarity and equity, and more reflective of an identity believed to be
distinct in all its dimensions and expressions.” (Lévesque, 2007 : 118)
The pursuit, accomplishment and maintenance of social cohesion were mentioned in most, if not all, the
interviews.
The economic development cannot be thought, foreseen or planned in a community without
taking into account the relational difficulties, the addiction problems or the violence faced by
people of every age. Worsened by the importance of unemployment, the lack of jobs, by the lost
of identity markers or by the rapidity of destabilizing changes, these difficulties are clearly a
matter falling onto the whole community responsibility [...]. (Lévesque, 2007 : 118)
Therefore, the consequences of a development project on the whole community, either good or bad,
should be attentively studied.
History is at the very heart of people’s concerns. “Young people as much as older ones share an acute
sense of history; it is to say, the consciousness to be part, individually and collectively, of a historical
continuity and future.” (Lévesque, 2007: 119) Some elders might express certain nostalgia about the
past, but most interviewees are well aware that the nomadic time is over. The wish is to move forwards,
to build future without forgetting the past history.
These founding principles are highly valuable, since they come from within the communities and reflect
a specific point of view; one that seems rarely met in development projects carried on by “traditional”
20
HOLISM
SUBSIDIARITY
INUIT IDENTITY
organizations (governments, its agencies, etc.). These principles of development also echo the holistic
vision and the values and principles of Inuit cultural identity.
SECTION 3: SUBSIDIARITY AND EMPOWERMENT
In the political realm, the principle of subsidiarity is the principle according
to which the responsibility must be taken by the smallest public
competent authority level, in order to address a problem. In other words,
we can say that subsidiarity means that “each superior level decides only
for what cannot be reasonably decided at the inferior level.” (Assistance
principle) (Laville & David, 2006: 577) These principles guide, amongst
other things, the relations between the countries of the European
Community.
Charles Taylor explains, in Grandeur et misère de la modernité, that Tocqueville considered
decentralization, especially if based on subsidiarity, as a way to give back power to citizens and to fight
against the political powerlessness felt by most people. (Talyor, 1992:147‐148) Thus, the underlying
principle of subsidiarity is empowerment or self‐help. In fact, most of the time, the challenge to make
these concepts (subsidiarity and empowerment) effective, is to ensure that the stakeholders have their
competencies and knowledge recognized and that they have access to the tools necessary to take
responsibilities.
In the case of housing in Nunavik, many levels of governments and numerous local and regional
organizations share different responsibilities and influences. Of course, the federal government plays a
crucial role in the issue, as well as the Québec’s government. Then, the Kativik Regional Government,
the Makivik Corporation, the social services, the Kativity School Board, municipal housing office, police,
the FCNQ, many other organizations and individual citizens also have interests, responsibilities,
competencies and agendas concerning housing.
Sharing social and political responsibilities implies, first of all, the acknowledgement of all the
stakeholders, and then, of their own specific knowledge and competencies; it is to say, their credibility.
In a process of intervention, each partner generally has an exclusive field of competency. This field
of competencies is constituted of all the subjects on which he is the only one to have the ability to
take a decision. Partners can be equally competent on certain issue. We then talk about shared
field of competencies. (Lescarbeau, 2003:236)
Aiming for subsidiarity and empowerment, thanks to mutual recognition, can lead to long‐term
solutions, as long as a real commitment to consult and cooperate is respected by all partners. It also
implies a strong will to take responsibility and to trust others’ capacities, competencies and
approaches.
21
HOLISM
SUBSIDIARITY
INUIT IDENTITY
COOPERATISM
SECTION 4: CO‐OPERATIVE PARADIGM AND CO‐OPERATIVES
Obviously, co‐operation is at the very heart of our study. Along with
holism, Inuit cultural identity and subsidiarity, cooperatism is the fourth
core principle of our analysis.
4.1 Co‐operative paradigm and cooperatism
Co‐operation is “a necessary interaction, an essential intersubjectivity to
reach a goal, a cause [...]” (Martin, 2008:3) It is the acknowledgment that
“we are stronger together” and of a profound solidarity. Thus, it is necessary to understand not only the
co‐operative as an organization, but also cooperatism as a paradigm, with its corresponding
understanding of human, its particular values and principles, and existential aims. (Martin, Molina et
Lafleur, 2006: 9)
The cooperative paradigm is then the theatre of a relation between individual freedom and human
equality. This movement is maintained in balance by the democratic principle. “Thus, the cooperative
paradigm compels us to commit to democracy in a movement of balance between individual freedoms
and human equality.” (Martin, Molina, Lafleur, 2006:13) Then, the concept of solidarity is “attached to
the notions of belonging and recognition of a group in particular” (Martin, Molina et Lafleur, 2006:14),
as well to a common goal. “The value of equity, on its part, compels to carry out the activities with a
culture of justice, considering each one’s use [of the co‐operative] and what is due to each one.” »
(Martin, Molina et Lafleur, 2006:14) Finally, all these principles lead to the recognition of the “human
worth” (valeur d’humanité) of others, with whom we are involved in a common goal. This recognition
brings dignity to those who participate in this project. (Martin, Molina et Lafleur, 2006:14‐15)
To summarize, we could say that the components of the cooperative paradigm are freedom, equality,
democracy, equity, solidarity and dignity. Besides, according to Favreau (2008), cooperatism and social
economy in general are collective actions or social mobilization inspired by three motives:
“socioeconomic needs (necessity); the yearning of certain groups for an identity of their own (identity);
and, more broadly, the shared perspective for a democratic and fair society (or at least a non‐capitalist
society project).” (Favreau, 2008:8)
4.2 Co‐operatives
So, we defined cooperatism as a particular understanding of human being, its values and existential
aims. In this context, Martin (2008) says: “If cooperation is inscribed in human’s heart, the co‐operative
is its philosophical, economic and social modern expression.” (2008:5) Thus co‐operatives, as collective
businesses, have a structure and a functioning inspired by this paradigm. In other words,
Well‐rooted co‐operative organizations are not just the impositions of an institutional form; they
often are the outward manifestations of a deep understanding of the benefits of collaborative
behaviour – the kind of understanding that emanates most persuasively from the communal
cultures of people [...]. (Hammond Ketilson and MacPherson, 2001:24)
22
Favreau (2008) exposes many definitions of a co‐operative, but suggests to look further to the one given
by Demoustier (2001). Demoustier shortly but efficiently defines the first and fundamental sense given
to collective enterprises: “S’associer pour entreprendre autrement.” Which could be translated by
“Joining forces in order to do business differently” or “Joining forces for alternative entrepreneurship.”
(Favreau, 2008:11) This short definition wisely stresses three essential components of collective
businesses, which are the social dimension (joining forces, getting together), economic dimension
(business, entrepreneurship) and the political dimension (alternative to or different from the regular
capitalist business and values).
The definition given by the International Co‐operative Alliance (ICA) is also widely recognized. “A co‐
perative is an autonomous association of persons united voluntarily to meet their common economic,
social, and cultural needs and aspirations through a jointly‐owned and democratically‐controlled
enterprise.” (ICA , 2007) The ICA promotes seven principles for co‐operative, which are adopted by most
co‐operatives in the world:
‐ 1st Principle: Voluntary and Open Membership
‐ 2nd Principle: Democratic Member Control
‐ 3rd Principle: Member Economic Participation
‐ 4th Principle: Autonomy and Independence
‐ 5th Principle: Education, Training and Information
‐ 6th Principle: Co‐operation among Co‐operatives
‐ 7th Principle: Concern for Community6
There are many kinds of co‐operatives, depending on the nature of the membership. The most common
are consumers, producers, workers, solidarity and financial cooperatives. All these cooperatives work in
numerous sectors, such as agriculture, forestry, regional development, food, funeral services and, of
course, housing, to name a few. No matter the type or sectors, all co‐operatives share the particularity
of putting people first in their structure, values and goals. In all cases, the co‐operative paradigm,
cooperation in general and co‐operatives in particular, clearly take a stand for values, principles and
organizing structures that give priority to human.
We can ask if Inuit values and principles are in harmony with those of cooperatism. From the principles
proposed by the ICA and those of the Inuit Qaujimajatuqangit, many parallels can be drawn. Effectively,
in both cases, we saw a concern for the community, an importance given to education and knowledge
acquisition, a commitment to democracy and consensus decision‐making, a will to cooperate and aim
for collaborative relationships, a motivation to remain autonomous and self‐reliant, while promoting
openness and staying inclusive.
6 For a description of each principles see Appendix 2
23
HOLISM
SUBSIDIARITY
INUIT IDENTITY
COOPERATISM
In the case of Nunavik, some consider that co‐operatives do not echo Inuit values, such as Jean‐Jacques
Simard (Faubert‐mailloux, 2001: 218, quoted in Girard and Ninacs, 2006). However, according to Girard
and Ninacs,
the impulse to organize existed among the Inuit and co‐operation is an inherent element of the
culture because people are accustomed to co‐operating to survive in a harsh environment.
Nunavik's co‐operative movement is continually attempting to adjust the co‐op model to Inuit co‐
operative values. According to Rita Novalinga, the current FCNQ general manager, the Inuit co‐
operative movement arises from the people and their desire to learn new ways of co‐operating as
they faced a change in living conditions, a change that came as a threat in the mid‐twentieth
century. Co‐operatives appeared as a tool that gave them some control over their food and
equipment supply‐‐in short, over their survival. (Girard and Ninacs, 2006)
The co‐operative structure was not known at the time, but co‐operation has long been part of Inuit’s
life. (Co‐operative movement in Nunavik is further discussed in Chapter 6, Section 1.)
SECTION 5: DEFINITION OF HOUSING
The signification of housing given here is partly influenced by a holistic
vision and the principle of subsidiarity and empowerment. In our opinion,
housing is a lot more than a mere shelter. This is where it starts, but
housing can also be conceived as a continuum; starting from a shelter,
passing by a house and all the way through a home. This definition directly
leads us to believe that not only one, but multiple housing crises exist in
Nunavik.
5.1 Fundamental need and right
First of all, access to shelter is one of the fundamental human needs, as much as for food or clothes. Not
fulfilling these basic needs is obviously a danger for physical health, but also means infringing human
dignity. Considered as such, housing is then recognized as a fundamental right.
Many countries have ratified the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, where
“The States Parties to the present Covenant recognize the right of everyone to an adequate standard of
living for himself and his family, including adequate food, clothing and housing, and to the continuous
improvement of living conditions.” (Art.11, December 1966) This Covenant was ratified by Canada in
1976 and few years later, Québec followed. 7 In a general comment adopted in 1991, the Committee
summarises the definition of housing as follows:
7 The three last reports of the UN Committee of Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (1993, 1998 and 2006),
Canada and its provinces have received severe critiques and recommendations in order to ensure the respect of
these rights on the Canadian territory. (FRAPRU, October 2007:2)
24
the right to housing should not be interpreted in a narrow or restrictive sense which equates it
with, for example, the shelter provided by merely having a roof over one's head or views shelter
exclusively as a commodity. Rather it should be seen as the right to live somewhere in security,
peace and dignity. (General comment no.7, 1991)
The access to adequate housing is also recognized by the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights,
on paragraph 25.
Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well‐being of himself
and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services,
and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age
or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control. (UN, Art.25:1948)
Therefore, housing is internationally considered as fundamental human need and right.
5.2 Expression of humanity
This right is considered fundamental, we think, because housing is also the expression of our human
condition. It is one of the most meaningful human experiences. Human societies, since millennia, have
been able to build shelters and homes, where ever they were, even in the most difficult climate and
with very scarce resources. In this sense, Inuit are the most amazing example of human genius of
adaptation. “The snow house of the Canadian Central Arctic was a sophisticated product of centuries of
cultural evolution, a compact bundle of building principles full of lessons for today’s designers and
builders.” (Strub, 1996: 66)
St‐Exupéry expresses with poetry this particular ability of humans to create a little oasis of humanity and
civilization in his book Terre des hommes. He explains that after an emergency landing, he and his
companions had to spend the night in the middle of the desert.
“Thus we got ready to spend the night. Once unloaded from the baggage hold, five or six cases of
goods were emptied and placed in circle. In the bottom of each of them, as in an isolated shelter,
we light a small candle, poorly protected from the wind. So, in the middle of the desert, on the
bare skin of the Earth, we built a village of humans.” (St‐Exupéry, 1939 :44) 8
Housing, considered as an expression of our humanity, is again closely related to human dignity.
5.3 Expression of culture and identity 8 To translate the precise vocabulary and lyricism of St‐Exupéry, one has to have great expertise in translation and of the author’s work. This is not my case, so in order to preserve the initial meaning of this quotation, I include the original French version: "Nous nous sommes donc installés pour la nuit. Ainsi débarqué des soutes à bagages cinq ou six caisses de marchandise, nous les avons vidées et disposées en cercle et, au fond de chacune d’elles, comme au creux d’une guérite, nous avons allumé une pauvre bougie, mal protégée contre le vent. Ainsi, en plein désert, sur l’écorce nue de la planète, nous avons bâti un village d’hommes.” (St‐Exupéry, 1939 :44)
25
5.3.1 Culture
Anthropologists and architects do know that houses are a great indicator of people culture and history.
It seems obvious that houses are different from culture to culture, from time to time, suiting
environment, climate, politics, history, customs and even fashion. Thus, housing can be understood as
an expression of culture.
In the General Comment 4 of the Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (CESCR), the
Committee explains that adequate housing also means cultural adequacy.
The way housing is constructed, the building materials used and the policies supporting these
must appropriately enable the expression of cultural identity and diversity of housing. Activities
geared towards development or modernization in the housing sphere should ensure that the
cultural dimensions of housing are not sacrificed [...].(CESCR, 1991)
5.3.2 Individual and collective identity
Building your own house or participating to its construction, means experimenting pride and
empowerment, discovering what you want, a little more who you are. It’s getting your voice heard and
seeing the materialization of your needs and dreams.
Colin Dawson (1997) explains how houses are an expression of one’s identity.
Houses do not exist in and of themselves. Rather, they are the product of human decisions which
reflect the attempts of their builders to realize certain ‘goals’ through design (McGuire & Schiffer,
1983:232). While these goals take into account such practical considerations [...], attempts are
also made to design houses which reflect and sustain the lifestyle and cultural values of the
resident households. (Ward, 1996:40, quoted in Dawson, 1997:4)
Sarah Susanka, a renowned architect, published a book named “The Not So Big House”. The concept is
to build houses with a size that suits the owner’s needs. She says that she wants to build meaningful
houses, not “architect statements”. She also has a sensitive comprehension of the identity issue related
to housing.
There are few things in life as personal as our homes. Personalizing a home, though, goes beyond
decoration. Because it takes considerable thought and planning to make a house into a home, I
advocate far greater participation in the design process by the people who will live in the house.
Your house should be an expression of who you are, not something that’s impersonal and
generic.(Susanka, 2008:20)
If housing is an identity issue for individuals, it is also true for communities or peoples. A great example
of this understanding of housing is the project carried out in Oujé‐Bougoumou.
26
Our community is a tangible expression of our pride in our culture, and our pride in the Cree
Nation. This is a place that makes us feel truly at home. The beauty of our community inspires us,
it affirms our own culture and encourages us in our endeavour to improve the conditions of our
communities and to struggle for the interests of the Cree Nation as a whole. (Oujé‐Bougoumou
website)9
It appears clear that housing, considered as an expression of humanity, culture and identity, holds a
central place in individuals and communities’ lives. As a continuum (shelter‐house‐home), housing fulfills
physical, social and spiritual needs and is thus essential and highly meaningful.
5.4 Conclusion
If some concepts came back along the theoretical framework, such as identity, intersubjectivity, dignity,
humanity or encompassing vision, it is because these elements all belong to each principle described.
Holism, Inuit identity, subsidiarity and cooperatism surely share common values and understanding of
the world, and so are interconnected to one another.
Co‐operative housing in Nunavik is truly at the junction of these four principles, and so is inspired at the
same time by a holistic understanding of development and housing; by the cooperative paradigm, values
and principles; by the concept of subsidiarity and its underlying principles, which are empowerment,
recognition and responsibility; and by Inuit identity, where community, history, territory and social
cohesion are fundamental anchors.
9 See Chapter 7, Section 1 for more information.
27
CHAPTER 4: NUNAVIK HOUSING CRISES Nunavik, the vast Inuit territory of Northern Québec, is gripped by an ongoing and systemic
housing crisis. A history of inadequate and insufficient housing coupled with an exploding
demographic has created an urgent public health situation manifested by severe overcrowding,
deficient sanitation and ventilation, the spread of infectious diseases, psycho‐social stresses, and
violence. This crisis exists across Inuit communities of the North, but it is worse and worsening in
Nunavik. (Canadian Center for Architecture, 2008)
This situation is the result of many intertwined factors. As a starting point to this study, the next chapter
suggests an overview of the current situation, its causes and consequences. The factors that will be
explored are historical, political, geographic, demographic and socio‐economic.
HOLISM
SUB‐SIDIARITY
& EMPOWERMENT
INUIT IDENTITY
COOPERATISM
HOUSING IN
NUNAVIK
28
SECTION 1: CAUSES OF NUNAVIK HOUSING CRISES
1.1 History and politics
The settling process is a founding landmark in Nunavik’s history. The factors leading to the settling
process are multiple. Depending on the stakeholders, the interpretation of the reasons, intentions and
consequences of the process vary. Anyhow, all agree on the fundamental change it represents for Inuit
people.
Effectively,
Traditionally, the Inuit of Nunavik were a semi‐nomadic people with a subsistence‐based
economy. [...] the Inuit lifestyle remained generally unchanged until the 20th century, with arrival
of the trading posts and the growth of the fur trade. [...] In the 1940s and 1950s, the end of the
fur trade left Nunavik economically and socially dependent on the outside world. Government
assistance designed to help the Inuit eventually destroyed their semi‐nomadic lifestyle and led the
population to settle in villages where their subsistence economy was no longer viable. As a result,
most Inuit were forced to depend on the government. (Commission des Droits de la Personne et
des Droits de la Jeunesse (CDPDJ), Avril 2007: 5)
Strub, an architect who worked in the Canadian Arctic for more than 20 years, gives another
interpretation of this process. In the 1950’s,
the government determined (without consulting those affected) to extend welfare to the peoples
of the North. [...] A cheap, practical method of delivering basic services had to be devised. Since
the cost of extending a service pipeline from Ottawa to each of thousand moving dots on the
tundra would be prohibitive, people on the land were obliged to live in designated centers –
settlements‐ where the services could be more conveniently delivered. (Strub, 1996:13)
We could argue whether or not the intentions were good or if Inuit really chose this new lifestyle.
However, this is not the purpose of this research. At the same time, we are aware that the
comprehension we have about this historical fact has an impact on further analysis. What is sure is that
such a profound and radical change can only be destabilizing and bring great challenges of adaptation.
Yet we can wonder if this transition was made correctly, if Inuit were properly accompanied in this
challenge.
Gino Pin (Former chief architect, for the Government of Northwest Territories) makes it clear: “The
transition from the basic nomadic settlement –a coming together of family‐‐ to the contemporary
settlement –orchestrated by the planner‐‐ has not been a success.” (in Strub, 1996: X) Inuit people have
experienced numerous and profound changes, in a matter of few years. As a consequence, their
traditional life‐style has been overturned, triggering a series of social problems and questionings. The
Commission des Droits de la Personne et des Droits de la Jeunesse (CDPDJ) also considers that
government social‐services in general and housing services in particular, “have failed to adapt to Inuit
culture and realities.” (CDPDJ, Avril 2007: 5)
29
Education was also undertaken by the provincial government. On this issue, many consider that the
consequences have been quite negative on the children and the whole community or, at least that this
education process represents another destabilizing element.
Children were taught a foreign language and culture at the expense of knowing their own. The
physical separation of children from their relatives and from their landscapes they were born in
caused deep distress and a generation gap that has widened into permanent rift. The physical and
moral abuse heaped on many of these wards of the state by some of their teachers opened
wounds in native society that have not healed to this day. (Strub, 1996: 13)
The settling process was closely linked to trading posts and so to the introduction of capitalism and
business relations. This was new in Inuit culture, since their “commercial” relations were much more
based on non‐capitalist exchanges.
1.2 Architecture
Inuit, who had great expertise in building igloos and tents, appropriate to semi‐nomadic lifestyle, had
not much experience in designing and constructing permanent houses. Then, the construction of
permanent houses was undertaken by the government, but they did not have much expertise in Nordic
architecture. Thus houses were constructed following southern plans and criteria, obviously inadequate
for Nunavik and Inuit’s realities. As Strub summarizes it: “The problem was shaped to fit the solution.”
(Strub, 1996:13) Thus, “matchboxes” were the first permanent houses built for Inuit, in the 1950’s. It
was a single room house without toilet or running water. Then, from the 1960’s to the 1980’s, houses
with rooms, pit toilets and washbasin (no running water) were constructed. Finally, since the early
1980’s, the houses are more energy‐efficient, and better suit the harsh climate. They have between 2 to
6 bedrooms. The houses built in Nunavik all have pretty much the same plans and configuration. A
model is repeated, which probably lowers the construction costs. (See Appendix 2 for plans and pictures
illustrating the evolution of architecture)
Since 1999, the housing units built have only two bedrooms. The Société d’Habitation du Québec (SHQ)
considers that “This new approach to housing unit size is intended to meet the growing needs of single‐
parent families and young couples with one or two children.” (SHQ, 2001: 19) Concerning this last issue,
all the persons interviewed in Puvirnituq said that this kind of house did not fit their needs and that they
would prefer houses with at least three bedrooms. This is corroborated by the statistics concerning the
number of children per woman. “Since 1984, Nunavik’s synthetic fertility index has never been below
3.4 children per woman.” (Duhaime, 2008: 8)
We were not able to find enough sources of evidence to prove that Inuit were broadly consulted and
involved in setting the standards and characteristics of the dwellings built.
30
1.3 Territory and climate
Nunavik is a vast territory of
600 000 square kilometres,
covering “the whole Quebec
north of the 55th parallel.” (SHQ,
2001: 8) The population, 10 784
inhabitants (Socio‐economic
profile of Nunavik, Duhaime,
2008: 4) lives in 14 villages,
mainly along the coast line. (Map
from FCNQ, 2006)
There are no road links
between southern Québec
and Nunavik, or between the
Northern villages themselves.
Year‐round air transportation of passengers and freight is available, but costly. Sea transportation
is available during summer and fall months. (SHQ, 2001: 8)
The territory possesses an Arctic climate. Winters are long and extremely cold. Consequently, buildings
must be heated on a period on average twice as long as in the South and the construction season is very
short. Winds can reach over 100km/h. Thus, the buildings must be adequately constructed, because the
smallest crack “in the building’s outer skin creates glacial conditions inside and causes the structure to
deteriorate rapidly.” (SHQ, 2001: 8) Also, permafrost is the reality for 11 of the 14 villages. Because of
this condition, “there are no main water or sewer systems in Nunavik.” (SHQ, 2001: 9)
1.4 Demography
According to Statistics Canada (census 2006), 9 565 Inuit live in Nunavik (19% of the Inuit population in
Canada and 90% of Nunavik population). The Inuit of Nunavik is the fastest growing Inuit population:
“Population growth in Nunavik is much more pronounced. In the 30 years between 1971 and 2001, the
region’s population more than doubled.” (Duhaime, 2008: 6) Nunavut and Nunavik have also the
youngest population in Canada. The median age for both regions is 20 years old. “Since 1984, Nunavik’s
synthetic fertility index has never been below 3.4 children per woman.” (Duhaime, 2008: 8) It is obvious
that this demographic reality puts an increasing pressure on the housing supply.
It is also alarming to look at life expectancy indicators.
In Québec, life expectancy is constantly progressing. For the most recent period, it stands at 79.4
years. However, the same cannot be said for Nunavik. Life expectancy at birth was on the rise up
until the period from 1990 to 1994 and has been on the decline ever since. Moreover, life
expectancy at birth is 16 years lower in Nunavik than in Québec. [which is to say, 63 years old]
(Duhaime, 2008: 18)
31
1.5 Socio‐economic conditions
Employment in Nunavik is subject to contradictory tendencies. On one hand, a significant growth has
been observed in the past decade. “Between 1995 and 2005, the number of regular, full‐time jobs
nearly doubled.” (Duhaime, 2008: 38). On the other hand, despite this positive situation, the labour
market is grossly inadequate to meet the demand for jobs. “[...] the replacement index will rise at a
greater rate since each worker approaching retirement will be replaced by more than three new
workers. Theoretically, to meet this demand, the increase in jobs will need to be greater than 300%.”
(Duhaime, 2008: 38) This important increase is partly due to the fact that casual and part‐time positions
are a lot more common than regular full‐time jobs. It also has to be considered that “The income of a
substantial number of households derives from transfer payments (employment insurance, income
security, old age pensions, etc.).” (SHQ, 2001: 9) However, the statistics for unemployment are not
complete and it is difficult to portray properly the situation.
Moreover, a study conducted by the Kativik Regional Governement (Jobs in Nunavik, 2005, quoted in
Duhaime 2008) shows that the growth of regular, full‐time jobs has mainly benefited “non‐beneficiaries
of the James Bay and Northern Québec Agreement (JBNQA) [...]” (Duhaime, 2008: 40), which means it is
mainly White people who had benefited from this growth.
Additionally, “The cost of living in Nunavik is very high, and all goods and services cost significantly more
than in southern Québec. An item that costs $1.00 in Montréal costs an average of $1.60 north of the
55th parallel.” (SHQ, 2001: 9) Also, the costs of municipal services are very high. As it was mentioned
earlier, because of the climate, the sewing and water systems cannot function as in the South.
Consequently,
each house must have its own drinking water and wastewater tanks, receptively filled and
emptied by tanker trucks. In addition, the villages are supplied with power not from the
hydroelectric distribution grid as that serves the rest of Québec, but from powerful diesel
generators installed in each village. (SHQ, 2001: 9)
As a consequence, the annual tax bill “for a dwelling with three or four bedrooms can easily reach $
9,000 to $ 10,000.” (SHQ, 2001: 9)
To summarize, we will quote the Société d’Habitation du Québec (SHQ) in its document Housing in
Nunavik (2001)
The combination of geographical, climatic, social, economic and demographic factors found in
Nunavik places constraints on and demands particular approaches to the development of
residential housing in the region. Demographic trends drive the needs and demands for housing.
The social and economic situation of the households requires substantial, diversified government
intervention (social housing, home ownership support, etc.). In addition, the remoteness and
isolation of the Inuit communities in Nunavik creates economic constraints (high costs) and
logistical problems (short construction season). (SHQ, 2001, p.10)
32
Along these lines, a very similar analysis is made for the Canadian Arctic (NWT, Yukon and Nunavut) in
the report “Homeless in the Territorial North: State and Availability of the Knowledge” (Webster, 2006:
7‐14). The document highlights several key characteristics that have to be taken into account when
analyzing housing conditions and potential solutions in the North. The “demographic profile” (high birth
rate, young population) is first. Then, the geography and climate present their particular challenges (for
living conditions as well as construction conditions). Socio‐economic considerations are a third area to
be addressed (unemployment, dependence on federal transfers, social problems). Also, the supply and
condition of housing have to be considered (need for public housing greater than private housing,
reliance on housing assistance “is excessive”). Finally, the programs, services and facilities are often
underfunded and susceptible of financial collapses and overwhelming.
It is also important to underline that there is currently no private housing sector.
A harsh climate, remote geography, extremely small population base, lack of road or rail access,
underdeveloped infrastructure systems and the high costs of labour and materials combine to
prevent the development of the kind of housing market which encourages private investment in
southern Canada. Consequently, the creation of new housing supply in the Inuit regions is heavily
dependent on the public sector involvement. (Inuit Tapariit Kanatami, November 2004: 3)
SECTION 2: RESULTS OF NUNAVIK HOUSING CRISES
Now that we have a more complete understanding of the factors influencing the housing conditions, we
will look more closely at the results of the housing crises. Apparently, even if most stakeholders do
recognize the urgency of the situation, it seems that it has not been sufficient to significantly improve
the housing conditions.
2.1 Overcrowding
If we consider either overcrowding in dwellings10 or the need for major repairs11, the last ten years have
seen the housing conditions in Nunavik deteriorating. In fact, « Half of the Inuit population of Nunavik
lives in overcrowded dwellings. » (Duhaime, 2008: 92)The same proportion lives in houses in need of
major repairs. In both cases, « This proportion is higher in Nunavik than everywhere else in the Canadian
Arctic. » (Duhaime, 2008: 88) Of course, overcrowding accelerates the deterioration of the houses and
explains why many houses are in need for major repairs.
The statistics concerning overcrowding do not give exactly the same numbers, but all demonstrate the
severity of the situation. For example, the National Aboriginal Health Organization suggests that “53% of
10 The definition of crowding or overcrowding used in the statistics presented comes from Statistics Canada. “'Crowding' [or overcrowding] is defined as more than one person per room. Not counted are bathrooms, halls, vestibules and rooms solely used for business purposes.” (Satistics Canada, Census 2006, Table 6)
11 “Dwellings in need of major repairs are those that, in the judgement of the respondent, require major repairs to such things as defective plumbing or electrical wiring, and/or structural repairs to walls, floors or ceilings, etc.” (Satistics Canada, Census 2006, Table 10)
33
Inuit households [in Canada] are overcrowded [...]”(National Aboriginal Health Organization (NAHO),
March 2008: 2). In the Backgrounder on Inuit Housing: November 2004, the Inuit Tapariit Kanatami,
proposes: “In the five years between the censuses, 68% of Inuit in Nunavik lived in crowded conditions
as of 2001 [...].” (Tapariit Kanatami, 2004: 3) Statistic Canada (2006) also has its analysis: “According to
census data, crowding has declined during the past decade. The sole exception was Nunavik, where the
proportion of Inuit living in crowded dwellings increased slightly, from 47% in 1996 to 49% in 2006.”
(Statistics Canada, census 2006: 24) Also,
Inuit were nearly five times more likely than non‐Aboriginal people to live in households
containing more than one family. In 2006, 18% of Inuit lived in a household that was home to
more than one family, compared with 4% of the non‐Aboriginal population. Inuit have
traditionally lived in family groupings. But at least one report has stated that because there is a
serious shortage of housing in most communities, it is not unusual to find members of several
families sharing the same often very cramped accommodation. (Statistics Canada, Census
2006:26)
Thus, while cultural conditioning and norms concerning kinship patterns should be considered, it is not
sufficient to explain the severity of the situation.
Russell Copeman, provincial parliamentary assistant to the Health and Social Services Minister, says: [...]
“We’re very aware that there’s an acute housing shortage in Nunavik. [...]It’s a huge challenge, on that
we’re trying to work out, not as quickly as the community needs, and not as quickly as the community
would appreciate.” (CBC news, May 27th, 2008)
2.2 Homelessness
The majority of studies from governments and their agencies consider the problem of housing shortage
in terms of overcrowding (and all its consequences). On the other hand, some analysis from other non‐
governmental organizations underline that overcrowding is intimately linked to homelessness. Most of
the time, homelessness is associated to people living on the streets, in parks, abandoned buildings or
emergency shelters. This definition suits what Seychuk (2004, quoted in Nunavut Status Women Council
(NSWC), 2007) calls Visible or absolute homelessness (Seychuk, 2004: 1) However, considering
homelessness as a continuum would better reflect the complexity of reality. Thus, we suggest the
following definitions, coming from a study of the Nunavut Status of Women Council (NSWC), Little voices
of Nunavut; A study of Women’s Homelessness North of 60, 2007)
• Relative homelessness – applies to “those living in spaces that do not meet basic health and
safety standards, including protection from the elements, security of tenure, personal safety and
affordability” (Petit et al., 2004: no page number).
• Hidden homelessness – “includes women who are temporarily staying with friends or family or
are staying with a man only in order to obtain shelter, and those living in households where they
are subject to family conflict or violence” (Kappel Ramji Consulting Group, 2002: 1). [According to
34
Webster (2006), hidden homelessness “applies when persons live in overcrowded and/or
inadequate conditions.” (2006:4)]
• At risk of becoming homeless – “can include those who are one step away from eviction,
bankruptcy, or family separation” (Seychuk, 2004: 1)
Reference is also made in the literature (e.g. CMHA, 2004) to “core housing need”, which is
generally defined as follow:
• Core housing need – a household whose accommodation does not meet one of the following
standards: affordable (housing costs, including utilities, do not exceed 30% of before‐tax
household income); adequate (in condition and does not require major repair); or suitable
(sufficiently large, with enough bedrooms12, to appropriately accommodate the household)
(Ibid:8). (Nunavut Status of Women Council, January 2007: 29‐30)
In practical terms, this continuum of homelessness
Include[s] living on the street, seeking refuge in shelters, sleeping in the homes of friends or
relatives, accepting shelter in return for sexual favours, remaining in households in which they
and/or their children are subjected to various types of abuses, staying in accommodation that is
unsafe and/or overcrowded, and paying for accommodation at the expense of other livelihood
needs (such as food, clothing and health care). (NSWC, January 2007: 29)
There are four shelters for homeless people in Nunavik and only three shelters for women. (National
Aboriginal Health Organization and Nunavik Women Shelters) In summer, some people will live in tents
when it is necessary. (For example, when homes are needed to welcome the construction workforce.) In
some sense, during winter, there is no possibility for “visible homelessness”. In fact, living outside turns
quickly into certain death. This is why many people will welcome family or friends, even if their home is
already overcrowded. Then, one could conclude that Nunavik experiences a pervasive problem of
hidden homelessness, that many are “at risk of becoming homeless” and that a majority have “core
housing needs”. However, as the previous examples shows, hidden homelessness is a profound problem
with very dramatic and concrete consequences. An informant in the research about homelessness in
the territorial North (Webster, 2006) gives a clear explanation of it:
In the Inuit regions, the homelessness is what we term “hidden” because people won’t put others
on the street at forty below. So homelessness is really reflected in the severe overcrowding... and
it is at the heart of social disorder. [...] You can call this ‘hidden homelessness’ if you want, but it
seems pretty absolute to me. (Webster, Report for Human Resources and Social Development,
2006:50‐51)
12 “Suitable housing has enough bedrooms for the size and make‐up of resident households, according to National Occupancy Standard (NOS) requirements. Enough bedrooms based on NOS requirements means one bedroom for each cohabiting adult couple; unattached household member 18 years of age and over; same‐sex pair of children under age 18; and additional boy or girl in the family, unless there are two opposite sex children under 5 years of age, in which case they are expected to share a bedroom.” (CMHC, 2009 :81)
35
Hidden homelessness in the North turns out to “absolute homelessness” in the South. Housing shortage,
and the subsequent violence, substances abuses and other social difficulties, drives many to leave
Nunavik villages to go to Montréal, where they end up on the streets of the metropolis. (CBC news, May
27th, 2008). Statistics are alarming in that matter. “Inuit from Nunavik make up more than 40 per cent of
Montréal Aboriginal homeless population, even though they make up only 10 per cent of the city’s First
Nations community, according to the native Friendship Centre.” (CBC news, May 27th, 2008).
Overall, “The literature review, media scan, and informants are consistent that hidden homelessness is a
pervasive, widespread, and improperly appreciated problem in the North. The gravity of this problem
appears poorly understood in the South, from where Northerners draw support and financial assistance.
(Webster, 2006: 4)
SECTION 3: CONSEQUENCES OF NUNAVIK HOUSING CRISES
Thus, overcrowding and homelessness can be identified as the results of various causes. It is obvious
that such conditions have tremendous consequences on people. In fact, housing conditions have a direct
impact on many other social, physical and cultural concerns, and are consequently prior to many issues.
3.1 Physical, Psychological and Social Wellness
First of all, overcrowding affects Nunavitmmiut’s (the Inuit living in Nunavik) wellness, as individuals and
a community. Above all, this wellness concerns physical health. Of course, overcrowding is clearly
conducive to transmission of sickness, deficient hygiene and higher risk of injuries.
Health Canada has warned that inadequate housing is linked to a host of health problems,
including increased likelihood of transmission of infectious disease such as tuberculosis and
hepatitis A, and also increased risk for injuries, mental health problems, family tensions and
violence. (Inuit Tapariit Kanatami, November 2004: 3)
Thus, physical health is impaired by overcrowding and deteriorated dwellings. Moreover, living in
those conditions exacerbates tensions and often leads to violence and abuses. The feeling of distress
is pervasive and thus alcohol and drug consumption can be regarded as an escape. In sum,
Housing shortages and poor quality housing are an urgent health priority for all Inuit regions in
Canada. Insufficient housing can lead to overcrowding, deficient sanitation and ventilation, the
spread of infectious diseases, psycho‐social stresses, and violence. Among Inuit, housing problems
have been associated with low achievement levels in schools, spousal abuse, respiratory tract
infectious among infants, depression, and substance abuse. (NAHO, March 2008: 2) 13
13 The Commission des Droits de la Personne et des Droits de la Jeunesse (CDPDJ) agrees also on the negative impact of overcrowding:
‐ Overcrowding creates conditions conducive to the emergence of social problems and makes it more difficult to eradicate them.
‐ The lack of privacy exacerbates tension. Homes are noisy and people who are less tolerant may lose their temper. [...]
36
From the interviews conducted in Puvirnituq, we realize that diverse groups in the population will live
the consequences differently. For example, children will sometimes be victim of physical and sexual
abuses, will have difficulties in school and be the witnesses of drug and alcohol abuses. Women are
particularly at risk because housing shortage can be synonymous with victims staying with an abusive
partner, because they have no other place to stay. In the same manner, even if she is able to expel her
partner, he, in return, will have to be welcomed in a potentially overcrowded house and might do some
damage there too. It is common that the two partners finish by getting back together. The elders are
subjected to particular pressure and sometime violence. It is relatively frequent that elders live with
their grown up children, whom in turn also have children. Sometimes, the elders provide the single
income and are the ones paying for the dwelling. When alcohol and drug abuses occur in the dwelling,
elders might leave the house with the children, waiting until the adults get to sleep. Finally, people
suffering from mental disorders do not have a lot of helping resources. Furthermore, their dwellings are
sometime used by others as “party houses” and have not much power over the events. (From interviews
conducted between November 23rd and 27th 2010, in Puvirnituq)
To summarize,
Building houses and reducing overcrowding provides the foundation for better health, education,
social stability and economic development. Investment in housing is an important step in
addressing one of the roots of poor health among Inuit and Aboriginal peoples in Canada. (Inuit
Tapariit Kanatami, November 2004: 6)
The multiple impacts on physical, mental and social wellness clearly shows the determining role housing
conditions play on individuals and communities.
3.2 Disembodied housing
The housing shortage has direct and quantifiable effects on wellness. Besides, changes in architecture
and the meaning given to housing also have profound impacts, but which are a lot harder to evaluate.
In the course of the time and the settling process, Inuit have lost their responsibilities over and cultural
knowledge about housing. The definition of housing given earlier suggests that this loss is highly
meaningful and bears real consequences for a people. From the beginning, houses were built by
government agencies and staff. It was the first experiences of Nordic construction for them. It seems
right to say that Inuit were rarely if ever consulted nor involved in this process (concerning location,
architecture, environmental knowledge, etc.).
Housing erected by the government to serve native populations was designed on a pattern suited
to southern Canadian suburbs. The houses, unprepared for the Arctic and subarctic, were small,
cold and drafty. The first houses built and most of their successors failed to accommodate
aboriginal lifestyle: native people had to adapt their lifestyle to the house. (Strub, 1996: 14)
‐ Over half of all children live in an environment where at least one family member living under the same
roof drinks or is violent.[...] (CDPDJ, April 2007: 9)
37
This comment from Strub highlights what was the beginning of inadequate architecture and houses.
Historically, Inuit had great competencies and expertise in building their homes. “The snow house of the
Canadian Central Arctic was a sophisticated product of centuries of cultural evolution, a compact bundle
of building principles full of lessons for today’s designers and builders.” (Strub, 1996: 66) Or course,
igloos and tents are not considered as appropriate dwellings anymore. Few would prefer igloos to
heated modern houses. But what has to be understood from this kind of construction, is that it suited
needs, lifestyle and culture, and that Inuit were responsible and competent in that matter.
The procedures surrounding the access to a dwelling are another example of the loss of power over
someone’s life. “Today, a committee armed with a short list of vacant housing, a long list of people
waiting for housing, and a point system for ranking the names of list makes all the decisions.” (Strub,
1996: 72)
This is why we talk about disembodied houses. That is, meaningless and inadequate houses.
The crisis in the meaning given to housing is precisely about this inadequacy between houses and
identity. Strub says that: “Instead of moulding the building to fit our identities, to have it reinforce and
improve our ways of life, we allow the building to mould us.” (Strub, 1996: 71) If we consider housing as
an expression of humanity, culture and identity, what happens to a people when it loses its
competencies and responsibility over housing? What does it mean when such a fundamental part of
your individual and collective identity is decided by someone else, according to criteria of their own?
The housing crisis is a political and a historical issue, but it is also very much an issue of culture
and of architecture. The extremely accelerated and forced transition of the nomadic Inuit into
sedentary communities between 1930 and 1950 was an enormous cultural upheaval with
widespread repercussions for the Inuit and their way of life. [...] the contemporary architecture
the Inuit now inhabit is to a large extent derived from the architecture, the climate and the
culture of the South. Is it any wonder then that the Inuit do not feel “at home” in their new
homes? (Canadian Center for Architecture, 2008)
From an individual point of view, choosing or constructing a house is a strong identity builder.
Clearly, what should happen before a house is planned or built is an analysis of the lives – the
likes, dislikes, needs, and wishes‐ of the people who will live in it. There are few things in life as
personal as our homes. Personalizing a home, though, goes beyond decoration. Because it takes
considerable thought and planning to make a house into a home [Emphasis mine], I advocate far
greater participation in the design process by the people who will live in the house. Your house
should be an expression of who you are, not something that’s impersonal and generic. (Susanka,
2008:20)
Strub is not very optimistic when he looks at the whole picture: “In Canada, high latitude community
that properly serves the needs and aspirations of its population has not been built.” (Strub, 1996: 92)
38
In conclusion, this chapter explained how a multitude of causes and their interrelations lead to
overcrowding and homelessness. Also, the consequences are as various as are the causes. For now on, it
seems obvious that the housing issue in Nunavik go way beyond the scope of strictly material concerns.
Security, social health, human rights, individual and community future and identity are at play. This
study tries to bring those issues to the forefront and to address them in an encompassing vision. The
previous analysis reinforces the relevance of considering the housing crises as multiple: in matter of
number (shortage), of type of houses (architecture) and of meaning (disembodied housing and identity
issues).
39
CHAPTER 5: PROGRAMS AND AGREEMENTS RELATED TO HOUSING Permanent housing in Nunavik has a recent history. Through the decades, responsibility over housing
has been undertaken by different governments. So, programs and agreements related to housing reflect
the movements in the fields of jurisdictions, changes in governments and governance strategies. Also,
the programs and agreements negotiated are themselves a reflection of the meaning given to housing.
They are thus an important piece in the puzzle of housing.
SECTION 1: HISTORICAL OVERVIEW 1.1 The 1950’s to the 1970’s
The early 1950’s saw the first governmental initiatives regarding permanent housing in Nunavik being
developed. Various financial assistance programs were put in place in order to improve housing
conditions in these years (self‐built approach, renovations, etc.). Meanwhile, the needs for housing
became more striking, because “the traditionally nomadic Inuit lifestyle was beginning [...] to give away
to a more sedentary period. In such circumstances, the housing constructed during the 1950’s and
1960’s quickly became overcrowded.” (SHQ, 2001: 12)
In the late 1960’s and early 1970’s, the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development
(DIAND), made efforts to improve housing conditions in Nunavik by constructing and renovating more
than 800 dwellings. However, we must consider that the “overuse of the dwellings, caused mainly by
overcrowded housing units, led to rapid structural deterioration.” (SHQ, 2001: 12)
Thus, it seems that right from the beginning, Nunavik has faced houses shortage and rapidly
deteriorating dwellings. We have found no details concerning the extent to which Inuit were consulted
or involved in this process. As it was discussed earlier, the first houses that were built (1950’s to 1970’s)
clearly did not fit the environment and climate demands, nor Inuit lifestyle. Effectively, not long after,
the government changed the architecture of the houses being built in Nunavik. (See Appendix 2)
1.2 The James Bay and Northern Québec Agreement (JBNQA) and the 1980’s
We consider that it is worth spending some time on the JBNQA, its historical roots and economic and
political aftermaths, because it represents a major landmark in the history of Nunavik.
The current Nunavik territory represents a portion of the former Rupert’s Land, originally owned by the
Hudson Company, then recuperated by England in 1867, transferred to Canada in 1870 and finally
transferred in large parts to certain provinces, including Québec. These lands bear a clause about
respect of ancestral rights. The Québec government did not have much interest in these territories, and
the ancestral rights linked to it were considered as a federal jurisdiction. (Gagnon et Rocher, 2002:17‐
18).
But Québec completely changed its thinking in the early 1960’s. Pressured by [...] developers
seeking permits to develop natural resources in the “1912 territories”, Québec decided to rethink
its position and, through its presence in the territory, demonstrate its interest in what seemed to
be imminent economic development [...]. (Gagnon et Rocher, 2002:18).
40
Consequently, the government asked Hydro‐Québec to develop hydraulic potential in these territories,
“without, however, meeting the obligation prescribed in the 1912 Boundaries Extension Act to have
Aboriginals release their rights beforehand.” (Gagnon et Rocher, 2002: 18)
In 1971, Premier Bourassa announced that Québec would proceed with the development of a hydro
electric project in the James Bay region. Some work started in the North between 1972 and 1974.
Aboriginals applied in May 1972 to the Superior Court of Québec in order to stop the works. A case was
then opened, and the judgment took over a year. The judge ordered that “all work in the James Bay
territory cease immediately, a judgment whose effects were suspended five days later by the Québec
Court of Appeal.” (Gagnon et Rocher, 2002: 22) Other appeals occurred, but meanwhile, negotiations
were going on between representatives of the Inuit and Aboriginal peoples and the Government of
Québec. The agreement and negociations did not make the unanimity in the Nunavik and James Bay’s
communities. Despite some opposition, the Agreement was signed on November 11th, 1975. Different
categories of land were then created, each of which had specific legal characteristics and related to
different degrees of responsibility and rights for Inuit, Cree and governments.
Under the Agreement, the Cree and Inuit acquired broad responsibility for education, health
services and social services, administration, and hunting, fishing and trapping. The Agreement also
provided for the establishment of administrative structures and the financial measures required
to enable the Native communities to meet their new responsibilities. In exchange, the Natives
gave up their rights over more that 600,000 square kilometres of land, releasing it for
development by Québec in accordance with the rules set out in the Agreement. (SHQ, 2001: 13)
Concerning housing, “Section 29 of the Agreement, on the social and economic development of the
Inuit, provided for the continuation of existing programs covering housing services for Inuit communities
in Nunavik.” (SHQ, 2001: 13)
The extinguishment of ancestral rights is of course the most controversial point. According to dissidents,
this is a very high cost paid for what they received in exchange. The purpose here is not to discuss this
point further, even though we acknowledge the importance of the issue. We will rather conclude that
JBNQA is a milestone in the Québec and Nunavik relations and that many of the subsequent agreements
and programs are based on this historical agreement. In the follow‐up of the Agreement, two entities
where created: the Makivik Corporation and the Kativik regional government, in order to manage the
new responsibilities and budgets related to the JBNQA.14 Still today, Inuit representatives ask
14 Makivik Corporation is an Inuit owned economic development company. “ It has the mandate to represent the
9800 Inuit of Nunavik at the political level, and to administer the funds of the Agreement accorded to the Inuit
($90 million has been received over a 20 year period).” (Kativik Regional Government and Makivik Corporation,
August 9th) Kativik regional government (KRG) is a non‐ethnic public organization created in 1978 whose
jurisdiction covers nearly the entire territory of Québec north of the 55th parallel. KRG administers the affairs of
Nunavik in the areas of municipal affairs, transportation, police, employment, manpower training, income security,
environment, [...].” (Kativik Regional Government and Makivik Corporation, August 9th)
41
governments, especially federal, to respect the provisions concerning housing included in the JBNQA.
(Pita Aatami, quoted in Chartrand, Rue Frontenac, March18th 2010)
In 1981, the federal government transferred all its responsibility for housing in Nunavik to the
government of Québec. By taking this new jurisdiction, Québec also inherited of the 800 dwellings that
were previously built. “The Nunavik authorities interpreted this transfer of responsibility as a way for
the federal government to rid itself of the commitments made to the Inuit communities.” (SHQ, 2001:
14)
A few years later, in 1986, the “Canada‐Québec Global Agreement on Social Housing” was signed. This
agreement is the result of an extensive review by the federal government of all its housing assistance
policies. “The fundamental guideline set out in the 1986 framework agreement was the principle that
government financial assistance would be channelled primarily towards the households experiencing
the strongest financial hardship.” (SHQ, 2001: 14) The program included an “Inuit section”. A lot of
construction projects took place after the implementation of the program, under this section. During the
1980’s until early 1990’s, around 130 to 140 social housing units were built each year.
1.3 The 1990’s
The Agreement Respecting the Implementation of the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement was
signed in 1990, between the federal government and the Makivik corporation. Québec was not a party
of this agreement, which establishes a mechanism to resolve disputes concerning the implementation of
the JBNQA.
In 1993, the federal government announced unilaterally that it would no longer contribute financially to
any long‐term commitment in the social housing sector, including in Nunavik. (SHQ, 2001: 15) Despite
these cut backs, the federal administration continued its funding for “on‐reserve Aboriginals” housing,
excluding de facto the residents of Nunavik. Effectively, Inuit of Nunavik do not live on reserves, but
rather in municipalities.15 “Since that time, overcrowding among Inuit has become the worst of all
Aboriginals groups.” (Inuit Tapariit Kanatami, November 2004: 3) This decision was interpreted as a lack
of consideration for Inuit’s realities.
This might appear contradictory, but Canada decided to sign an agreement related to housing only a
year after its withdrawal. Effectively, a special agreement between the Canada Mortgage and Housing
Corporation (CMHC) and the Société d’Habitation du Québec (SHQ) allowed the construction of 130
social housing units during 1994 and 1995. Then, until 1999, very few units were built, “despite the fact
that demographic trends in the Inuit communities had generated an enormous need for new housing.”
(SHQ, 2001: 15)
15 This situation has the consequence of excluding Inuit from some programs created for Crees or other First
Nations living on‐reserve. Inuit are eligible to the so‐called universal programs, made for Canadians or Quebecers
living South, but most of the time inappropriate to for the Northern reality. This “in‐between” situation makes the
issue even more complex.
42
On the provincial side, an approach based on “allocating increased responsibility to the Nunavik
authorities” led to the signature of the “Framework Agreement Concerning the Kativik Region” in 1998.
One chapter concerns the management of the social housing stock in Nunavik and states that the
Government of Québec:
‐ Recognize and promote the establishment of a social housing management structure that would
reflect the prevailing situation in the region;
‐ Redirect all amounts recovered as rent owing from social housing tenants towards the
development of social housing. (SHQ, 2001: 15)
Under this agreement, Québec also agreed on the possibility of selling the dwellings to the families living
in them. We have not find information confirming that this possibility became reality.
Meanwhile, the Québec government and the SHQ undertook an important review of its housing
initiatives in the region. The two main issues were: “the diversification of programs and an in‐depth
review of social housing management practices. The main focus of the reform was greater responsibility
for Inuit authorities.” (SHQ, 2001: 22) In this spirit, three new programs were offered in 1999: the Home
Ownership Program for Residents of the Kativik Region, the Purchase‐Renovation Program for
Households in the Kativik region and the Residential Renovation Program for Owner‐Occupiers in the
Kativik Region. The programs are entirely funded by the provincial. In 2001, the criteria for eligibility
were supposed to be reviewed, in order to become more accessible. At the moment, these programs
have mitigated success and do not seem much used by residents, especially Inuit. One of the reasons
given is that even with this financial help, very few Inuit have the financial capacity to own their
dwelling. We must recall that 90% of housing on the territory is social housing and that a “few dozen [of
dwellings] in all” are owned by their occupants. (SHQ, 2001:18) For example, in Puvirnituq, there is only
one private house, which is owned by a White person.
The Agreement of 1998 also included the creation of the Kativik Municipal Housing Bureau, responsible
for managing Nunavik’s social housing stock.
SECTION 2: RECENT AND CURRENT PROGRAMS AND AGREEMENTS
2.1 Agreement respecting the Implementation of the JBNQA Related to Housing
(2000)
This agreement occurred between the Makivik Corporation, Kativik Regional Government (KRG), Kativik
Municipal Housing Bureau (KMHB), Québec and Canada governments. It settled any and all “disputes
related to the provision of housing under the JBNQA” and acknowledged “the importance of using the
construction, operation and maintenance of housing as opportunities to provide training and
employment to Inuit and other economic benefits to Inuit communities.” (Agreement Respecting the
Implementation of JBNQA, September 2000) Canada agreed to contribute $10 million annually for the
capital costs of constructing Inuit housing in Nunavik (Fiscal years 2000‐2001 to 2004‐2005). On its part,
Québec agreed to pay to Kativik Municipal Housing Bureau (KMHB) (or any successors) “the difference
43
between the operating costs of each Inuit housing unit and the rental revenues collected thereon for a
period of twenty years from the date of initial occupancy of each such unit.” (Agreement Respecting the
Implementation of JBNQA, September 2000)
Also, the rental scale for social housing was to be revised by Québec, KRG and KMHB. A Nunavik Housing
Committe was supposed to be set in place in order to ensure the implementation to the agreement.
2.2 Sanarrutik Agreement and Amendments (2002‐2006)
The Partnership Agreement on Economic and Community Development in Nunavik, known as the
Sanarrutik Agreement was signed in 2002 by the Makivik Corporation, KRG and Québec. Amendments
were made in 2003, 2004 and 2006. The Preamble is very helpful to understand the intent of the
Agreement.
Whereas the parties, in the spirit of the recognition of the Inuit nation by the National Assembly
of Québec in 1985, enter herby a nation‐to‐nation Agreement which strengthens the political,
economic and social relations between Québec and the Nunavik Inuit, and which is characterized
by cooperation, partnership and mutual respect. (Sanarrutik Agreement, Consolidated version,
2006:3)
Also, the parties “wish to enter into a long term partnership agreement in order to put forward a
common vision of the economic and community development of Nunavik.” (Sanarrutik Agreement,
Consolidated version, 2006:3)
With a duration of 25 years, the Agreement has the purpose of accelerating hydroelectric, mining and
tourism development, sharing the benefits of the economic development with Nunavik, favouring
economic spin‐offs for Inuit and a greater economy for Makivik and KRG, providing those institutions
more responsibilities for the economic and community development of Nunavik Inuit and, finally, to
enhance public services and infrastructures on the territory. (Sanarrutik Agreement, Consolidated
version, 2006:4) A simplified and more efficient way of paying the public funds to KRG would be
undertaken by Québec, in order to provide greater autonomy to KRG and the Northern villages. Along
the Agreement, some priorities were also highlighted, such as paving local roads, marine infrastructures,
improving police services, as well as correctional, social and preventive related measures.
In the Sanarrutik Agreement and its amendments, housing is not specifically mentioned. Nevertheless,
housing is definitely part of social and economic development and a public service. Anyhow, two
elements are interesting in that matter. First, the spirit in which the agreement was signed is, in our
opinion, crucial. It is question of “long term partnership, common goal, nation‐to‐nation” Agreement.
This put in place an approach that has not been named as such very often. Secondly, since greater
autonomy is valued, that funding is directed to and by KRG and Northern villages and that these
institutions set the priorities, we are pretty sure that housing constitutes one of theirs. Yet, we do not
have first hand information concerning the respect of the spirit of Sanarrutik Agreement.
2.3 Katimajiit conference (2007)
44
The Katimajiit conference was organized by Makivik Corporation and held in Kuujjuaq on August 23rd
and 24th 2007. According to Peter Aatami (President of the Makivik Corporation), “Never before have
the Nunavimmiut had the chance to dialogue with so many government decision‐makers [...].” (Horizon
Nunavik, 2007:4) Representatives from Makivik, Kativik Regional Government (KRG), Québec and
Canada were the main actors of this conference, but many other stakeholders took part at the
roundtables, conferences, workshops and official presentations. According to Maggie Emuldluk
(Chairperson of the KRG), this conference
[...] is the natural outcome of a vast initiative that the Government of Québec launched in our
region just over three years ago. [...] Some one hundred Nunavimmiut and elected
representatives of the provincial government had explored various possible solutions to meet the
needs of Nunavik, which are mainly linked to the remoteness and the robust population growth in
the region. (Horizon Nunavik, 2007:6)
The conference had encompassing targets. The major themes were economy and employment, culture
and education, health, social services and early childhood, infrastructure and housing, community
environment, sustainable development and the determination of a follow‐up mechanism. (Follow‐up
meetings were held in March 2009).
Concerning housing, Québec confirmed that they would give an additional investment of $25‐million for
the construction of new housing units by 2010. The SHQ would finance 50 new units and the budget for
renovations would increase to $53‐million, to reach a total of $135 million. (Gouvernement du Québec,
Press release, March 27th 2007) During follow‐up roundtable, it was mentioned that negotiations would
be carried on to hold a housing forum.
2.4 Latest agreements
“A commitment from the federal and provincial governments to build 1,000 additional social [housing]
units in Nunavik, where the current need is estimated at more than 750 units, was expected for some
time in 2009.” (George, Nunatsiaq News, March 18th 2010)
Expectations remained expectations. According to Louis Mercier (the Kativik Regional Government’s
political attaché) the announcement never took place because federal representatives have not yet
received the “go‐ahead” for negotiations. The announcement that was finally made concerned the
holding of a housing forum, planned for 2009. “This forum was cancelled, rescheduled and then put off
indefinitely.” (George, Nunatsiaq News, March 18th 2010) Lately,
Quebec’s cabinet was expected to approve an agreement this week to continue building about 65
social housing units a year in Nunavik — basically an extension of the previous housing
agreement, which expires March 31.The federal government has already thrown in more cash for
this deal, which was worth $14.2 millions in 2009. (George, Nunatsiaq News, Febuary 23rd 2010)
45
Finally, a new agreement was effectively concluded by the Canadian government, Québec’s government
and the Inuit of Nunavik. This agreement renewal will ensure the construction of 340 social housing on
the territory, starting April 1st 2010 and ending 2015. The total budget is $190 million. (Indian and
Northern Affairs Canada, Press release, March 24th 2010) However, according to Pita Aatami, President
of the Makivik Corporation, this new agreement is not sufficient. “As the years go by, the crisis will only
worsen. It is already unacceptable. We need 1000 dwellings today.” (Aatami, quoted in Yves Chartrand,
Rue Frontenac, March 17th 2010). Inuit leaders should meet again with Minister Chuck Strahl, from the
Indian Affairs, next May.
Concerning the Plan Nord of Québec’s government, from a “plan”, it became a “process”. Many have
criticized the vagueness surrounding intents, delays and agendas of the Plan Nord. From the interviews
conducted, it seems that this uncertainty is a shared feeling amongst diverse stakeholders and
researchers.
2.5 Perspectives
Approximately a year ago Bill‐304 was presented at the House of Commons of Canada. The Act to ensure
secure, adequate, accessible and affordable housing for Canadians went through second reading and a
report was made on March 24th, in order to be studied for the final approval.
The Bill says that “The Minister shall [...] establish a national housing strategy designed to respect,
protect, promote and fulfil the right to adequate housing as guaranteed under international human
rights treaties ratified by Canada.” (House of Commons, Bill C‐304, March 2010) It is mentioned that this
should be made in consultation with all governments, regional stakeholders, Aboriginal communities,
housing sectors (private and non‐profit) and civil society.
The introduction of the Bill highlights the commitment of Canada to human rights and housing in
particular, via its signature of the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the International
Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, in which adequate housing is considered as a
fundamental human right. The Bill also recognizes that the right to housing is related to other human
rights:
Whereas the enjoyment of other human rights, such as those to privacy, to respect for the home,
to freedom of movement, to freedom from discrimination, to environmental health, to security of
the person, to freedom of association and to equality before the law, are indivisible from and
indispensable to the realization of the right to adequate housing; (House of Commons, Bill C‐304,
March 2010)
It is also considered that Canada has a more than adequate national budget to ensure that every citizen
has secure, accessible and adequate housing. This housing is considered as “part of a standard of living
that will provide healthy physical intellectual, emotional, spiritual and social development and a good
quality of life.” (House of Commons, Bill C‐304, March 2010)
46
Finally, it is stated that improving “housing conditions are best achieved through co‐operative
partnerships of government and civil society and the meaningful involvement of local communities.”
(Bill C‐304, House of Commons, March 2010)The Act to ensure secure, adequate, accessible and
affordable housing for Canadians is supposed to go through third reading imminently. It is expected that
the Act could be in force this spring (2010).
From the historical overview, we realize that a lot of programs and agreements were negotiated.
Actually, in 50 years, it is 15 agreements and supposedly one to come (the Plan Nord); that means, one
every three years. This frequency can be questioned, leaving some space for asking why so many
agreements were not able to significantly improve the housing conditions. One thing is sure, is that the
housing realm is at a turning point. From the end of the current programs, some political shifts (Plan
Nord, Canada signature of the Declaration on Rights of Indigenous peoples, Bill C‐304) and the results of
the past experiences could generate a momentum for new partnership and initiatives.
SECTION 3: RESULTS OF PROGRAMS AND AGREEMENTS
As we could see, there are currently – and have been – numerous governmental initiatives in order to
address the housing needs. However, for different reasons, a gap is growing between the demand and
the supply for housing. Those reasons are multiple and intertwined. They are demographical (high
birthrate, young population…), economical (poverty, high cost of raw materials and transportation…),
political (outcomes of different agreements and convention…) and socio‐historical (consequences of
settling process, architecture…), etc. This gap is of course a matter of numbers, but also concerns the
very nature of the solutions proposed and the programs offered.
The fact remains that “According to census data [2006, Canada], crowding in Canada has declined during
the past decade. The sole exception was Nunavik, where the population of Inuit living in crowded
dwellings increased slightly, from 47% in 1996 to 49% in 2006.” (census 2006:24) In all Inuit regions of
Canada, except for Nuntsiatvut (Labrador region) the percentage of Inuit living in dwellings in need of
major repairs has increased from 1996 to 2006. The most significant increase is again in Nunavik, where
this percentage went from 8% in 1996 to 46% in 2006. This is also the highest percentage of all Inuit
region. The difference between the Inuit and Non‐Aboriginal is striking. Everywhere, there are fewer
non‐Aboriginals living in crowded dwellings and in need of major repairs. In Nunavik, 7% of non‐
Aboriginals live in crowded dwellings (compared to 49% of Inuit) and 16% in dwelling in need of major
repairs (compared to 46% for Inuit). (Census 2006:25‐26).
This short overview blatantly shows that the programs and agreements signed might have been good by
themselves, but apparently not good enough to improve the overall situation. It is thought provoking to
realize that, despite many agreements and programs, the situation has actually worsened. Programs and
agreements might not be the only reason, but it is obvious that the current approach to the issue is
neither efficient nor realistic. Hammond Ketilson and MacPherson (2001) give the same conclusion:
“There have been a number of efforts by governments to encourage economic development among
Aboriginal peoples, but they not achieved all the desired results.” (2001:4)
47
HOLISM
SUBSIDIARITY
INUIT IDENTITY
COOPERATISM
HOLISM
INUIT IDENTITY
SECTION 4: ANALYSIS OF THE PROGRAMS AND AGREEMENTS
In the chapter concerning the theoretical framework, we suggested that
several principles and concepts should guide our appraisal of the programs
and agreements. Since the co‐operative model has not been mentioned in
any of the programs and agreements, the principles that will be used are:
holism, Inuit identity (and principles of development), subsidiarity and
empowerment, as well as the definition of housing and the causes of the
housing crises, as explained earlier.
4.1 According to holism and Inuit identity (principles of
development)
Without surprise, there are not many official documents that address this
issue with a holistic vision. Bill C‐304 seems to be the exception that
confirms the rule. Housing in Nunavik refers at the same time to human
rights, health, Inuit relations, federal and provincial jurisdictions, history,
mortgage, environment, identity issues and so much more. This cannot fit
into only one category or come under only one ministry. This necessarily makes more complex the
elaboration of the actions to be taken, as well as the evaluation. It requires flexibility and long‐term
processes that are sometimes incompatible with “traditional” bureaucratic management.
In the same spirit, we would like to report the comments of Claude Gélinas, professor at Université de
Sherbrooke in Philosophy and Aboriginal studies. In his presentation called “The economic development
of Northern Canada and its potential for social and cultural future of First Nations” (Febuary 3rd, 2010)
he explained that three conditions were essential to economic development and the resolution of socio‐
economic problems. First, the establishment of real partnerships with Aboriginals; second, the
attribution of economic levers to Aboriginals; and finally, avoiding the tribunals path. Also, he concluded
his presentation by calling for a “return of the sense of responsibility” (Gélinas, Febuary 3rd 2010) and
saying that there is a “urgency for responsabilisation”, a need of having a real self‐determination
capacity and a veritable political autonomy. This discourse exposes some important principles to be
taken into account, but rarely did we come through such an approach in the texts of current and past
programs and agreements.
Also, it seems that the approaches suggested by governments do not suit the general conception of
development of Inuit communities. Robert Anderson (1999, quoted in Hammond Ketilson and
MacPherson, 2001) came to the same conclusion:
This collective development approach is intended to serve three purposes: the attainment of
economic self‐sufficiency, the improvement of socio‐economic circumstance, and the
preservation and strengthening of traditional culture, values and languages. It is this strong
collective aspect with its ‘national’ focus and its emphasis placed on culture, values and languages
that distinguishes the approach to economic development of Aboriginal people and communities
HOUSING
48
SUBSIDIARITY
from the approach of other Canadian communities of a similar size and in similar locations.
(Anderson, 1999:13‐14, in Hammond Ketilson and MacPherson, 2001:19)
4.2 According to subsidiarity and empowerment
There are some interesting and important elements in many of these
agreements. The Sanarrutik Agreement showed that it was crucial to put in
place real partnership and to set long‐term common‐goals. This Agreement
considered Inuit as a nation and recognized competencies to regional
institutions. This is in accordance to the principle of subsidiarity, as
explained in the theoretical framework. Besides, the Katimajiit Conference
took into account the plurality of stakeholders and the importance of consultation and co‐operation
process. Housing was named as a priority.
In these general agreements, regional or local consultation is almost always mentioned, but there are
few clear mechanisms put in place. It seems that current communicational and political channels are
taken for granted and considered sufficient. From the interviews conducted, consultation does not
appear systematic. Even more significantly; power over programs, agreements or housing conditions in
general is not felt at all. Thus, even if community and local participation is officially promoted, it seems
difficult to generate a feeling that local voices will be heard and recognized.
Local and regional institutions are considered to be the stakeholders and those who should set the
priorities concerning projects of development. However, the opinions of these institutions might not be
sufficient. They also have to maintain or create effective and efficient communication channels and
consultation mechanisms with the population, in order to really be representative.
The importance of co‐operative partnership as well as the involvement of local communities is
recognized in Bill C‐304. Again, the principle of subsidiarity, if not named as such, bears an important
place. Still, we will wait to see if it becomes effective.
This brings us back to the importance of recognition and consultation. Two examples show how much
work has to be done in order to create cohesion and collaboration between stakeholders. From the
interviews we did it was obvious that everybody craves an alternative in housing. An alternative, a
different approach, that is, some solution, that would finally really improve Inuit living conditions. We
heard that comment from citizens, police officers, social services workers, KRG employees, FCNQ
members and administrators, teachers, young, elders, KMHB employees, that is: everyone. Still, it seems
so hard to create communication channels, to take into account all these points of view. The goals seem
to be similar or even the same, but it is rarely collectively and widely discussed.
The other example of the lack of cohesion concerns an annual exposition held by the Canadian Center
for Architecture in 2008. During this “charette universitaire”, as they call it, students are asked to study
a specific issue and propose a project that would address the problem. So, in 2008, the students were
49
HOLISM
SUBSIDIARITY
INUIT IDENTITY
challenged to propose architecture projects adapted to Nunavik.16 They had a comprehensive vision of
architecture and the issues at play in the housing crisis. It is very likely that the innovative solutions and
analyses of this exposition were not taken into account in the elaboration of current building programs.
This last example simply highlights the tremendous challenge of communication and collaboration that
awaits stakeholders in matter of housing in Nunavik, but also the great potential of such partnerships.
On one side, some have the money, some have the will, many are in need, others have architectural
solutions or historical and philosophical vision... But how could they work in a concerted way?
4.3 According to the definition of housing
In none of the Agreements was a substantial or sensitive definition of
housing developed. It is understood much more as a shelter raised against
weather than a living environment. This was true in the past programs, as
well as in the current programs. Nothing let us believe that a broader and
more inclusive definition of housing (as expression of culture, identity and
humanity) would be part of the future programs. It seems that they have
not been inspired by the understanding proposed in UN Declaration or International Covenant.
In our opinion, Bill C‐304 has the most comprehensive definition of housing. Housing as a human right is
mentioned, and the interconnectedness between housing and other human rights is highlighted. Yet
again, the housing concept is not considered beyond dwellings and shelters
4.4 According to the causes of housing crises
Most, if not all, programs and agreements address only one of the crises (the shortage), without even
considering the crisis in the architecture of the houses and or the inadequacy between current housing
and Inuit identity. Overcrowding is widely considered as the principal result of the shortage. However,
homelessness was not mentioned in any of the programs and agreements studied. Consequently, the
issue is only partially addressed.
If we recall the causes of the housing crisis which were elaborated earlier, we would name: history and
politics (settling process), architecture, territory and climate, demography and socio‐economic
conditions. From these causes, territory, climate, demography and socio‐economic conditions are the
most frequently mentioned elements. Programs and agreements effectively take them into account. On
the other hand, the settling process and the impact of the changes in architecture were rarely
considered. In our opinion, this can partly explain the inadequacy between some solutions and the Inuit
reality. As we explained before, the settling process and architecture have fundamental roles to play on
16 « […] adapted to the northern environment; an architecture of the North : an architecture properly oriented for
the winds which blow strong and cold from the northwest all winter whether we live in Montreal or Inukjuak ; an
architecture which corresponds to the extreme variations in sunlight experienced from season to season at high
latitudes ; an architecture which reflects the traditional but also the modern ways of life of today’s Inuit societies ;
an architecture which addresses the present housing crisis in Nunavik.” (Canadian Center for Architecture, 2008)
HOUSING
50
individuals and peoples. Elaborating solutions without this perspective is disregarding some of the roots
of the problem.
In brief, from the theoretical principles developed, few were founded in the agreements and programs
studied. A lot of work still needs to be carried out in order to meet the needs, priorities and expectations
of Inuit, and much energy still has to be put into the elaboration of adequate measures. Again, 2010
seems to be a turning year for housing in Nunavik. A momentum is clearly appearing and hopefully the
emergency of the situation will not overwhelm the necessary fundamental reflection that should take
place.
51
CHAPTER 6: HOUSING CO‐OPERATIVES Two main questions led this research. The first asked why the current programs did not address properly
the needs for housing in Nunavik (that is what the previous chapters were aimed for) and the second
wondered how housing co‐operatives could represent an appropriate solution to the multiple housing
crises.
Thus, this chapter will endeavour to answer the second question and explain why and how housing co‐
operatives could be an appropriate solution to the crises. This answer implies describing how co‐
operatives were implemented in Nunavik. Then, housing co‐operatives will be studied, beginning with a
history of the movement in Québec. Afterwards, housing co‐operatives definition, values, principles and
structure will be analyzed. The appraisal of their social, economic and political impacts will be followed
by the assessment of the potential and challenges of implementation of housing co‐operatives in
Nunavik.
SECTION 1: CONTEXT AND HISTORY
1.1 Co‐operative movement in Nunavik
Over the years, 14 co‐operatives were created in Nunavik, one in each village, as well as a Federation,
based in Montréal17. The fields of activities are broad: retail stores, banking, post offices, cable
television, internet, management training, education, marketing of Inuit art, hotel, travel agency, fishing
and hunting camps, bulk storage and distribution of oil and fuel supplies, construction projects. (FCNQ,
2006) “The co‐op movement is now the largest non‐government employer in the region with over 300
employees in Nunavik and 150 employees in Montréal.” (FCNQ, 2006) According to the FCNQ, one of
the ways to ensure autonomy and independence in governance is to make sure that Inuit are hired as
much as possible in the co‐operative movement. This is why all the staff in Nunavik is Inuit and many
employees in Montréal are too. However, it is only since January 2005 that the General Manager is
Inuit.18
Many consider that co‐operatives can have an important influence on the socio‐economic development
of a territory and represent a great tool for local empowerment. (Favreau, 2008:8) It is the case of
Nunavik and its co‐operative movement, which have had a determining economic and political role to
play in Nunavik modern history. (Martin, 2003:139‐164). “The co‐operatives are tools in Inuit hands,
tools they have been able to use and adapt as levers in their quest for independence and the
preservation of their identity while building links with the outside.” (Girard and Ninacs, 2006) Co‐
17 The first co‐operatives were established at the end of the 1950’s and the beginning of 1960’s. It was concomitant with the settling process and the growing dependence on supplies available at the Hudson Bay Company stores. Over the years, some of those stores closed; it was then a good incentive to organize co‐operatives. (Tulugak and Murdoch, 2007:12) The idea of autonomy and empowerment was also part of the reflection. The first name of Puvirnituq co‐operative is, in this sense, meaningful: Puvirnitumiut Katujjiyut Immiguuqtut; “People of Puvirnituq, working together, for themselves”. (Tulugak and Murdoch, 2007: 31)
18 For a comprehensive and extensive history of the co‐operative movement, see Tulugak and Murdoch (2007), A new way of sharing: a personal history of the Cooperative Movement in Nunavik, FCNQ, 287 p.
52
operatives are also an important factor of preserving and promoting Inuit culture (Murdoch, quoted in
Tulugak and Murdoch, 2007:152). In other words, the co‐operatives have allowed Inuit to adapt
themselves to a new political and economic reality, while promoting their cultural specificity and
political independence.
Hammond Ketilson and MacPherson (2001), in a study concerning Aboriginal Co‐operatives in Canada
(2001) recognize the impact and important influence these co‐operatives have on communities’
economies.
1. The 133 Aboriginals co‐operatives in Canada, particularly those in the Arctic, make substantial
economic contributions to the communities they serve through local businesses and through
wholesales they own [...].
2. Co‐operatives are major employers of Aboriginal people. They have made and are making
significant contributions through the training and education they provide their elected leadership
and employees.
3. Aboriginal co‐operatives, particularly in the Arctic, have shown remarkable entrepreneurship by
engaging in a wide range of economic activities. (2001:4)
Critiques can be made about the co‐operative movement in Nunavik: loss of interest and motivation in
some villages or younger generations, the constant search of meaningful actions, the difficulty of
keeping employees, training issues, and the search for a place in the whole political and social picture.
(Girard et Ninacs, 2006) We could say that the FCNQ is facing pretty much the same challenges as
Nunavik and the co‐operative movement in general. As it was briefly explained in the theoretical
framework, the success of the co‐operative movement in Nunavik could be partially explained by the
existing adequacy between values and principles of cooperatism and those of the Inuit culture. (See also
Chapter 3: Theoretical framework, Girard and Ninacs, 2006, Martin, 2003)
If not the only one, the FCNQ is definitely an important stakeholder in Nunavik. Its political, social and
economic influence cannot be ignored and we will see further if this leadership and adequacy is possible
in the housing realm.
1.2 History of co‐operative and community housing movement19
A short historical overview of the community and co‐operative housing movement in Québec allows us
to understand the context of development, and so the foundations on which values and principles were
developed.
The first housing co‐operatives, in the early 1940’s (in the Asbestos region), were actually construction
co‐operatives. Once the construction completed, the members would buy the house and so the co‐
19 Community housing is a general category that includes housing co‐operatives and non‐profit organizations in housing (associative housing). However, social housing is not considered as part of this category. (Morin, Richard and Cuierrier, 2008:78)
53
operative was dissolved. (CQCH, 2006:Fasicule1/8) In 1968, the first housing co‐operatives in long‐term
ownership, as we know it, were set up by the Fédération Coop‐Habitat. These co‐operatives were
created without the co‐operative members’ participation. They got involved only at the moment of
moving into the dwellings. This is actually recognized as a major cause of the failure of this initiative.
(CQCH, 2006: Fasicule1/8‐9 and Bouchard and Hudon, 2008:24)
Bouchard, Lévesque & St‐Pierre (2005) explain that community housing (that is, co‐operative and
associative housing), had a second breath at the “turn of the 1970’s, in a context of transformation of
the urban world, of emerging new needs in housing and of governmental politics weakening in that
matter.” (2005:27) From this social, political and economic situation, a new understanding of housing
was developed by different social stakeholders. Housing is then considered as a living environment (a
physical, social, political and economic space that is shared. In French: “milieu de vie”). Groups of
Technical Resources (GTR) and non‐profit organizations developed an expertise in this sector and
supported groups of citizens determined to participate in the urban redevelopment of their
neighbourhoods, by building or renovating houses and dwellings, and avoiding excessive expulsions by
owners. (Bouchard and Hudon, 2008:24)
Housing co‐operatives and Non‐Profit Organizations in housing20 (NPO) experienced another great boom
in the early 1980’s. Many co‐operatives and NPO were created, as well as regional federations, such as
the Confédération Québécoise des Coopératives d’Habitation, in 1987. (Bouchard and Hudon, 2008:32‐
34)The economic crisis of the mid‐80’s had the effect of weakening some co‐operatives and NPO, but,
incidentally, showing all their relevance and importance, in front of a state struggling to manage the
crisis. Community housing then represented an interesting alternative to social housing, which was
considered to be too expensive. Actually so expensive that the federal government decided, in 1994, to
cut all the funding given to social housing. Then, the provincial government was given all the
responsibility in the housing realm, which was already a provincial jurisdiction. (Bouchard and Hudon,
2008:36‐46) After these cutbacks, Québec’s government created several programs for community and
affordable housing development (Bouchard and Hudon, 2008:42‐46).
There are currently more than 800 non‐profit organizations in housing, representing 31 500 dwellings.
(Morin, Richard and Cuierrier, 2008:81) In 2005, there was 1 171 housing co‐operatives, cumulating
25 593 dwellings and more than 50 000 residents. (Morin, Richard and Cuierrier, 2008:91‐92) The whole
sector of community housing represents close to 5% of Québec housing rental stock. (Morin, Richard
and Cuierrier, 2008:108)
20 “Non‐profit organizations in housing are aimed to fulfill housing needs for households with low or modest
income and persons having specific needs. [...] half of the dwellings are conceived for elders.” (Morin, Richard and
Cuierrier, 2008:79). NPO in housing have a structure of collective ownership, managed by stakeholders coming
from the civil society, but giving place to residents and employees’ participation.”(Morin, Richard and Cuierrier,
2008:85). Tenants of NPO in housing are not collectively owners of their dwelling. (Morin, Richard and Cuierrier,
2008:78)
54
In sum, co‐operative housing, as many other co‐operative sectors, emerged in a context where some
basic needs were not fulfilled and at a moment where neither the state, nor the private sector, were
able to propose an appropriate solution. (Bouchard, 2008:8) In this sense, community housing is
considered as innovative. “It constituted a new way to produce an inhabited space, to organize its use
and responsibility, and to collectivize its ownership. The movement innovates also by creating a network
of public and private stakeholders and by placing groups of citizens at the very heart of the process.”
(Bouchard, 2008:8‐9)
SECTION 2: HOUSING CO‐OPERATIVES MODEL
2.1 Definition
Legally, housing co‐operatives are subject to the Cooperatives Act, first adopted in 1982. Under the
Québec law, a housing cooperative is a “[...] cooperative whose principal object is to assist its members
in acquiring the ownership or use of a house or dwelling.” (Art.220) Housing co‐operatives are also
subject to other laws and rules, such as the Code civil, the Loi sur la Régie du logement, the Loi sur la
protection des renseignements personnels dans le secteur privé, the Conventions d’exploitation and the
Régie du bâtiment. (CQCH, 2006, Fascicule 2:1)
Technically, a housing co‐operative is a regular building (or a set of buildings) where people live at the
same time as tenants and collective owners of the building. (CQCH, 2008) “As collective owners, the
members, which are the building residents, together ensure the complete and autonomous
management of their building and of the co‐operative itself.” (CQCH, 2008) In order to become a
member of the co‐operative, and thus one of the owners, a person has to buy a qualifying share, as
planned by the law. (The amount of this share generally does not exceed 1000$.)
Earlier, we explained that co‐operatives have a double nature: associations and businesses. Housing co‐
operatives add a third element to it. Not only are they associations and businesses, but they are also a
community. (CQCH, 2006, Fascicule1:1) The co‐operative are members’ home, their living environment,
their private sphere. In brief, the relation between the member and its co‐operative (the “lien d’usage”
in French) is particularly strong; very few co‐operatives are so intimately linked to their members. As the
Confédération Québécoise des Coopératives d’Habitation (CQCH) explains, “getting together in order to
control and improve housing conditions and living environment is the fundamental motivation” (CQCH,
2008) for most of the 50 000 persons in Québec living in co‐operatives. The ultimate goal of co‐operative
housing is not, as in the private sector, to maximize the profit, but rather to maximize the services
offered to the members. (Bouchard and Hudon, 2008:28)
2.2 Values and principles
Co‐operative housing can be considered as a bridge between economic and social development, as well
as a bridge between the individual and the community. Individuals decided to share a very important
part of their life –housing—and did so because they have common values, shared needs and specific
understanding of housing. The values and principles in co‐operative housing are, of course, inspired by
those of cooperatism in general. The CQCH (2006) recognizes the following as their founding values;
55
Empowerment and individual responsibility: everyone shall participate, and the co‐operative
formula shall give to everyone the means to fully take responsibility.
Democracy: the established rules ensure the full participation of everybody in this common
enterprise.
Equality: Each and everyone are equals even though there are different roles to play within a co‐
operative.
Self‐help and solidarity: the association of persons around a common project allows participants
to know the others better, to respect them and to help them. (CQCH, 2006, Fascicule 1:3)
Community housing proposes a model of collective empowerment and responsibility of habitat. In
parallel, “The stakeholders of this movement not only aim for satisfying unfulfilled needs, but also try to
re‐think habitat in its human and social aspects.” (Bouchard, Lévesque and St‐Pierre, 2005:28) If housing
co‐operatives bridge individuals and communities, they also bridge “[...] economic and social
development, thus contributing to reach objectives of general interest in health and [the] social services
realm.” (Bouchard, Lévesque and St‐Pierre, 2005:27)
Social diversity is also a founding principle for housing co‐operatives. Several reasons can be given for
promoting such diversity. “It is a criterion for sustainable development; it is a way of avoiding social
segregation and the vicious circle of poverty; and finally, it is a way of ensuring that people can stay in
their living environment.” (Cuierrier, Frohn and Hudon, 2008:166)
If promoted and wanted, social diversity, democracy, solidarity and neighbourhood relations are not
necessarily easy to manage. An adequate structure helps to resourcefully address this challenge, and so
tensions can be avoided or at least managed rapidly.
2.3 Structure
According to Guillaume Brien (General Director of the Fédération des cooperatives d’habitation de
l’Estrie), housing co‐operatives have three levels to deal with: the personal life, the group life and the
co‐operative management. These three levels are interrelated and have an influence on one another. M.
Brien explains that the individual of course has a determining influence on the group functioning. From
this point of view, the success of the co‐operative depends on the members’ involvement. (Interview
conducted on November 18th 2010) Also, in order to recognize these three levels and to manage
harmoniously their interrelations, a corresponding structure has to be put in place. This basic structure
is defined by the Act on co‐operatives.
2.3.1 Associative structure21
First of all, the General meeting is constituted of all the members and is the supreme decision‐making
body. The General meeting has to meet at least once a year, for the annual general meeting, where 21 See Appendix 4 for an illustration of the associative structure.
56
some administration decisions have to be made. The co‐operative can organize special meetings in
order to discuss some specific issues. The General meeting has the exclusive right to modify and adopt
the rules of the co‐operative. (CQCH, 2008 and Cooperatives Act, Chap.X)
The board of directors is constituted of not fewer than five nor more than fifteen directors. The board
has a crucial role to play within the co‐operative because its duties and powers are related to the
management of the affairs of the cooperative (Art.89) “For example, it is generally the board of directors
who hire the employees, gives its approval for furnishing contracts, [...] takes decisions related to the
finances and ensures the respect of the co‐operative bylaws.” (CQCH, 2008) The Board of director is
always beholden to the General meeting.
In order assume the tasks necessary to good management, committees are generally constituted.
Members participate according to their competencies and interests. This practice has the benefit to
reduce the amount of work each one has to do, as well as the related costs, since it is divided amongst
all the members. The most frequent committees are those for finance, maintenance, selection of new
members and cooperative education and training. (CQCH, 2008)
Through this structure, the members have the tools to get involved and be responsible for their co‐
operative and so to control the quality of their living environment.
2.3.2 Financial structure22
A housing co‐operative has the same financial obligations that a regular private owner has, and thus, a
“viability obligation” and the related responsibilities. Co‐operative owners (the members) “have to
manage a budget generally determined by exploitation costs and financing costs interests and loan
reimbursement. They have to carry out the daily functioning of all the residential buildings, as well as
constituting financial reserves in order to maintain in good shape their property.” (Bouchard and
Gaudreault, 2008:118) Nevertheless, housing co‐operatives have also the objective of keeping their rent
close the “price cost” and to promote the occupancy of the dwellings by low‐income households.
(Bouchard and Gaudreault, 2008:118)
The incomes of a co‐operative come from two sources: the rent paid by residents and the subsidies
given by public programs. If not a financial income, the help given by members, in time and human
resources, cannot be ignored. It is actually one of the reason co‐operatives can keep their rent so low.
Otherwise, the general expenses are related to operating costs and the mortgage reimbursement.
(Bouchard and Gaudreault, 2008:118‐119) There are two types of public subsidies. The first is individual
subsidies (“aide à la personne”), which allows the co‐operative to fulfill the gap between the payment
capacity of the resident and the costs needed to reach viability. The second type is building subsidies
(“aide à la pierre”), which represents a kind of supply regulation. It is mainly used to increase the supply
of affordable housing when there is a shortage or when the government wants to stimulate the
22 See Appendix 5 for an illustration of the financial structure.
57
economy. (Bouchard and Gaudreault, 2008:120) Finally, the public subsidies are given at different stages
of the project achievement (which are start‐up, realization/execution and long‐term funding).
There are many programs and funds available for community housing and co‐operative housing, but we
will not give an extended list or description of each of them and will review only the most common. The
Société d’habitation du Québec (SHQ) is responsible of several programs for affordable housing, such as
Programme AccèsLogis Québec and Programme Logement Abordable Québec (PLAQ). AccèsLogis
concerns individual subsidies and PLAQ is jointly financed by federal and provincial governments and
provide assistance to housing co‐operatives, non‐profit organizations and acquiring corporations, as well
as municipal organizations and housing authorities that wish to implement projects to help low‐income
households. There are two components to the program:
the Social and community component: is offered to non‐profit community organizations for the
creation of social and community housing units available to low‐income households. Kativik
component: targets the construction of 97 housing units for households in the Kativik region. The
objective of this component is to create affordable residential units in the 14 northern villages of
Kativik. (SHQ, 2007)23
Human and technical support is also given by Groups of Technical Resources, by Coopératives de
Développement Régional and the Confédération Québécoise des Coopératives d’Habitation.
2.4 Impacts
We have studied the definition, values, principles, financial and associative structures and history of co‐
operative housing. However, in order to assess their potential for Nunavik, we must pursue further the
analysis, by looking at the social, economic and political impacts of those co‐operatives on individuals
and communities. Effectively, “Beyond the supply of a low cost service, these organizations present a
potential of structuring effects as much for the individuals and households as for the communities in
which they are developed.” (Bouchard, 2008: 8)
Besides, in this context, Cuierrier, Frohn and Hudon (2008) consider housing as a fundamental need and
a core issue that affects many other aspects of individuals and communities’ life.
More than a mere shelter or a financial investment, housing is a source of stability, a basis for
social network and a refuge. Housing has three dimensions: material, symbolic and spatial (Dunn,
2002). The first is related to physical integrity and cost; the second, to social status, identity,
control and sense of belonging; and the third one to proximity of positive or negative elements,
such as work, school, services and pollution. Thus, housing plays multiple roles. It is as much an
23 Otherwise, the SHQ also provide support via the following programs: Rent supplement, Community and Social
Initiatives in Low Rental Housing and Assistance Program for Community Housing Organizations. Another financial
support is given by the Fond Québécois d’habitation communautaire. This non‐profit organization exists since
1997. The Fonds has a mission of coordination between housing stakeholders (governments, private sector,
organizations) and promotion and creation of affordable housing. (Morin, Richard and Cuierrier, 2008:69‐70)
58
SUBSIDIARITY
COOPERATISM
anchor point in society and space, as a place for intimacy and creativity. As a sign of social status,
it influences the identity construction. (2008: 155)
2.4.1 Social impacts
We must recall that community housing in general, and co‐operative housing in particular, facilitates
access to adequate and affordable housing to low income households. (Cuierrier, Frohn and Hudon,
2008, 156) In this context, these authors (2008) consider that community housing has a positive effect
on social integration. “Three elements contribute to social integration: social bonding, access to housing
and obtaining a job. Community housing enables the second, promotes the first [...] and can even
indirectly lead to employment.” (2008:164) Good neighbourly relations, as social ties, strengthen the
awareness of being “at home”, constitute bridges between different social networks and contribute to
the sense of belonging to the neighbourhood and participate in fulfilling the need for solidarity.
(Bouchard, Frohn and Hudon, 2008:165)
Community housing can have a positive effect on territorial development and sense of belonging to the
territory. Effectively, it has been demonstrated that this kind of housing favours neighbourhood
revitalization and helps rural communities to address the demand for rental housing. The direct effect is
then the slowdown of the rural depopulation, in a milieu where the private market is not generally
interested investing. (Bouchard, Frohn and Hudon, 2008:168) In an urban context, community housing
participates in new local dynamics and fights gentrification. Also, the value of solidarity present in
community housing positively affects the community, because residents are committed to their
organization and the community in which it is implanted. This relation contributes to the feeling of
security and the possibility of self‐managing their living environment. (Bouchard, Frohn and Hudon,
2008:168) “This unique formula improves the quality of life (Thériault, et.al., 1996) and health (FOHM,
2003). Housing strengthens neighbour’s relations, helps to create and maintain convivial living
environment (Dorvil, et. Ak., 2002), and inscribes itself in a territorial revitalization dynamics.”
(Bouchard, Lévesque and St‐Pierre,2005:28)
Community housing, maybe especially co‐operative housing, fosters the
development of individual and collective empowerment. On the individual
level, possibilities of training and workshops, involvement in the decision‐
making process, and participation in committees are all examples of spaces
where an individual can developed his or her autonomy, knowledge and
resources. Collectively, the co‐operative structure favours self‐help and
social solidarity. It reduces the dependency upon the state or the market
and creates a sense of responsibility and empowerment. (Bouchard, Frohn
and Hudon, 2008:161‐162)
HOUSING
59
HOLISM
COOPERATISM
The relation between housing and health (and wellness in general) is
clearly established. “According to the Ministère de la Santé et des Services
Sociaux (MSSS), there are eight social determinants of health: life habits,
education, transportation, city planning, physical environment, poverty
and, of course, housing.” (Bouchard, Frohn and Hudon, 2008:163) Then,
community housing participates in providing affordable, adequate and
non‐crowded housing, and thus reduce stress and insecurity related to
inappropriate housing conditions of dwellings, recognized as health
determinants.
In sum, adequate housing is also determining in the process leading to personal self‐help, a
starting point to the access to other services and for the development of social networks.
Furthermore, concerning persons who are victims of exclusions, housing constitute a turning
point in the process of rebuilding his or her self‐esteem, identity, and getting back into action. A
contrario, the lack of fixed or adequate dwelling jeopardize possibilities for social interventions.
(Ducharme, 2000). (Bouchard, Frohn and Hudon, 2008:178)
For further analyses, it would be relevant and useful to evaluate the potential of housing co‐operative
according the specific realities lived by different categories of the population, such as women, elders or
children, for example.
2.4.2 Political and economic impacts
A study from the Canadian Mortgage and Housing Corporation (CMHC), in 1990, showed that
community housing was less expensive to manage than social housing. (Bouchard, Lévesque and St‐
Pierre, 2005:31) Effectively, the non‐profit characteristic of community housing allows the organization
to establish and maintain a rental cost according to the real operation cost and the constitution of
reserves. Of course, these organizations have to maintain the buildings in good shape, but there is no
need to generate more profits than necessary, in order to satisfy a unique owner. (Bouchard, Frohn and
Hudon, 2008:172) If a surplus is generated, it goes back to the co‐operative and the members decide
how it will be used. Then, community housing is somehow safe from the free‐market rules. In a context
of housing shortage, the rents often become too high for the real quality of the dwelling. On a larger
scale, “This shows the importance of increasing the number of community housing dwellings, so they
can be used as comparison with rent from the private sector, and eventually, if founded in sufficient
number, could constitute an alternative market and thus contribute to maintain the rents at affordable
levels.” (Bouchard, Frohn and Hudon, 2008:172)
Also, community housing creates direct and indirect jobs of different types. From the development to
the operative phase, community housing requires a variety of resources (electricians, plumbers,
accountant, technical and cooperative support, architects, etc.) (Bouchard, Frohn and Hudon,
HOUSING
60
2008:172)24 On the individual level, secure, adequate and affordable housing helps the person to find
and keep a job and perform at work. (Bouchard, Frohn and Hudon, 2008:173)
Finally,
In the case of community housing, it might be the opportunity to show that this production and
consumption mode of housing is, on one hand, more efficient in matter of financial resources
(production efficiency), allows opportunity for populations excluded from the supply of dwellings
as well as social and health services (allocative efficiency), and, on the other hand, generates
positive externalities on communities and contributes to the emergence of a new citizenship.
(Bouchard, Lévesque and St‐Pierre,2005:31)
24 In Québec, the 60 000 community dwellings generate, overall, 10% of the jobs in social economy sector. (Bouchard, Frohn and Hudon, 2008:172) “According to the [CMHC] (2000), each dwelling construction creates three to six jobs on a five year period. In this logic, one can estimates that in 2008, every 100 000$ invested in the construction of a community dwelling, provides two jobs per year. (Bouchard, Frohn and Hudon, 2008:173)
61
HOLISM
INUITIDENTITY
COOPERATISM
CHAPTER 7: HOUSING CO‐OPERATIVES IN NUNAVIK Because co‐operative housing in Nunavik is still a new subject, we had to elaborate some premises
(theory, housing crises, programs and agreements and co‐operative housing in general) in order to
address more precisely the second question of our research, which wondered if and how housing co‐
operatives could become an adequate solution to the multiple housing crises experienced in Nunavik.
The previous chapter showed how housing co‐operatives, and community housing in general, can have
structuring effects on different political, social and economic aspects. We concluded on the relevance
and positive impacts of housing co‐operatives on individuals and communities. From these conclusions
and along with the theoretical framework, we now are enabled to evaluate the potential and challenges
of co‐operative housing in Nunavik.
If it was very rare to come across information about co‐operative housing for Inuit, there were some
studies made concerning either co‐operative housing for Aboriginals living in urban contexts, or on
Aboriginal and Inuit co‐operatives, all sectors included. Thus, we will use some of these studies in order
to identify the potential of co‐operative housing in Nunavik. Again, these examples cannot be entirely
reproduced for Inuit in Nunavik, because the territory and the communities have specificities of their
own. Therefore, this chapter can only be a hypothesis concerning the potential of co‐operative housing
on this territory. Despite this, Hammond Ketilson and MacPherson, in a study named: Aboriginal Co‐
operatives in Canada; Current Situation and Potential for Growth (2001), consider that several kinds of
co‐operatives “would appear to offer the most promise for development in the near future: arts and
crafts co‐operatives; co‐operative stores [...]; co‐operative financial services; co‐operative housing, both
on and off reserves [Emphasis mine].” (2001:5)
SECTION 1: POTENTIAL OF IMPLEMENTATION
1.1 According to holism and Inuit identity
Community and co‐operative housing suggests to avoid separating
social and economic development. Effectively, Bouchard, Lévesque and
St‐Pierre (2005) consider that community housing allows
[...]the stakeholders to reframe the public intervention in a global
perspective, refuting the dichotomy between the social and the
economic. Not only did the project conducted by community and
social economy groups find support, it facilitated a social and political coordination, building links
between each of these levels. (2005:34)
This is not without remembering the conclusions of Lévesque’s (2007) study on the Aboriginal anchors
of development, which refuse categorizing the diverse aspects of development.
The relevance of an encompassing understanding of the housing realm and the potential of the co‐
operative sector is illustrated by the following example. During a meeting of the Ontario First Nation
Steering Committee on Housing (OFNSCH) they exposed the “complementary study on feasibility and
HOUSING IN
NUNAVIK
62
SUBSIDIARITY
COOPERATISM
long‐term viability of the establishment of housing and purchase co‐operatives in First Nations
communities.”(CMHC, 2001:39)
The culminating point of this initiative would be the elaboration of a complete strategy addressing
the recommendation of the Royal Commission on First Nations on economic development of First
Nations, the improvement of their resources and competencies, the technological transfer, the
ecological integrity, the health and security, as well as First Nations autonomy. This initiative
would address the severe problems of employment and the striking lack of perspectives in First
Nations communities. Establishing housing and purchasing co‐operatives [...] would probably be
the most logical solution to adopt. (SCHL, 2001:39)
In brief, “the co‐operative approach conforms well to the aims and preferred methods for community
development articulated by Aboriginal peoples.” (Hammond Ketlison and MecPherson, 2001:4) In their
study, the authors used the term “Aboriginals” “to refer to all people who consider themselves
descendents of the first human beings to inhabit Canada: i.e. Amerindian peoples (status and
nonstatus), Inuit, Inuvialuit, Innu, and Metis.” (Hammond Ketlison and MecPherson, 2001:13) We
acknowledge the diversity in culture, traditions, territories, and ways of life amongst those groups.
Considering Inuit uniqueness, a distinct research would be relevant and even necessary. However, Inuit
might have more in common with other aboriginal people than with the mainstream culture, and so we
can attempt to carefully establish several parallels.
1.2 According to subsidiarity and empowerment
Within its own structure, as well as in its relations with the state, the
private sector and other social or political stakeholders, housing co‐
operatives are an example of the application of the principles of
subsidiarity and empowerment. Previously, we recognized the role
community housing can play in fostering individual and collective
empowerment, as well as the broader influence they can have on the
whole housing sector. “The partnership established between the state
and social stakeholders facilitates decentralized governance, where
community organizations participate in fulfilling the supply and demand, with the users’ participation, in
compliance with local resources.” (Bouchard and Hudon, 2008: 8)
Bouchard, Lévesque and St‐Pierre (2005) explain the importance of recognizing the civil society, as in the
case of community housing. In parallel, they highlight the close relationship between the social and the
economic realms and say that what facilitates this “cross‐disciplinary approach, is mostly a matter of
governance. An appropriate way of doing, the local level, seems to have a relevance, which is not the
case of hierarchical and centralized governance.” (2005:34) In other words, community housing is
inscribed in a logic of subsidiarity, where decisions are taken at the level closest to citizens or members,
but also recognizes the role the state, the private sector and the civil society have to play (by granting
funding, voting laws and rules, participating in the supply for housing, advocating, etc.).
HOUSING IN
NUNAVIK
63
INUIT IDENTITY
COOPERATISM
An example of housing co‐operatives involving Aboriginals, this time in urban context, takes place in
Saskatoon. This housing co‐operative comes from a grassroots will to improve their living conditions.
The Quint Housing Co‐operative was formed in 1997. “By increasing homeownership and contributing to
successful entrepreneurial ventures, community residents have experienced an increase in their sense
of self‐confidence, self‐determination, and self‐worth.” (Ketilson and MacPherson, 2001:398) This story
is today told with pride by the members. “My kids have a sense of belonging, a sense of comfort, a sense
of home. They have more respect for the things around them.” “We are achieving a dream most of us
had thought impossible. We are working together collectively at owning our own homes. We walk taller,
together we are stronger, and we smile when talking of our homes. We are home‐owners. (Quint
document 2)” (Ketilson and MacPherson, 2001:398) This example emphasizes the importance of the
potential individuals and communities can develop when taking things into their own hands.
In order to encourage individuals and communities to take responsibilities, decentralized governance is
usually preferred. In this sense, the model of federations, in the co‐operative world, is an excellent tool
to foster principles of subsidiarity and empowerment. This structure generally allows the members to be
consulted and involved in projects where they are concerned, benefiting from the force of the
federation, its resources, influence and channels of communication. It is part of the duty of the
federation to supply for the needs of the members, to give tools and resources and provide support to
them. Concerning housing in Nunavik, the Fédération des Coopératives du Nouveau‐Québec could
certainly be one of these privileged structures, supporting local will and projects.
1.3 According to the definition of housing and Inuit identity
It was said many times, but since it is at the very basis of our analysis, we
will repeat: a house is more than a shelter; it is supposed to become a
home. Housing is not only a fundamental right and need, it is as well an
expression of humanity (and thus of dignity), culture and identity
(individual and collective). Housing is understood in its wholeness by the
co‐operative housing movement. We often speak of the co‐operative as a
living environment, as a community, not merely as a building. This leads us to believe that, in its
foundations, co‐operative housing is compatible with our definition of housing.
It was not really possible to find a precise definition of housing, especially permanent housing, through
the information about Inuit cultural identity, and thus examine if it corresponds to the one promoted by
co‐operatives. However, the encompassing understanding of life and development seems, if not directly
linked, at least not in contradiction with the housing definition given earlier.
Nevertheless, some Aboriginal communities have developed expertise and reflection about housing.
Effectively, “Innovative economic and social strategies, such as the approach of the Cree community of
Oujé‐Bougoumou25, located in Abitibi [sic: Nord‐du‐Québec region], provide another model of
25 This Cree community, a few kilometres north of Chibougamau, have been, for many years, displaced by
governments, as well as mining and lumber companies. In the 1970’s, they started negotiations and pressure on
HOUSING IN
NUNAVIK
64
HOLISM
SUBSIDIARITY
INUIT IDENTITY
COOPERATISM
development rooted in community needs.” (Hammond Ketlison and MacPherson,2001:20) This
community has an acute understanding of the meaning of housing and community development. From
what they say, their new community is a constant inspiration and challenges them to do their best, as
well as a reminder of their belonging to the Cree culture and history.
Our community is a tangible expression of our pride in our culture, and our pride in the Cree
Nation. This is a place that makes us feel truly at home. The beauty of our community inspires us,
it affirms our own culture and encourages us in our endeavour to improve the conditions of our
communities and to struggle for the interests of the Cree Nation as a whole. (Oujé‐bougoumou,
website)
This example illustrate that the Cree community of Oujé‐Bougoumou shared with co‐operative common
values and understanding of housing.
1.4 According to the causes of the housing crises
Among the causes of the housing crises, we named the settling process and
inadequate architecture. According to Serge Gagnon, geographer and
professor in regional development (Université du Québec en Outaouais),
the settling process had the effect of dispossessing people of their
collective imagination (imaginaire collectif). He also says that the co‐
operative model can give it back, because it is more than a model of
organization; it is as well a kind of relation between stakeholders and the territory. (January 29th, 2010)
The inadequacy between permanent housing and Inuit identity is partially due to some irreconcilable
differences between Canadian‐European and Inuit approaches. Economic development projects have
typically be conceived as strategies directed towards individuals.
This approach ignores the importance of the collectivity in Aboriginal society and of rights,
institutions, and relationships that are collective in nature. It also overlooks the fact that
economic development is the product of the interaction of many factors – health, education, self‐
worth, functioning communities, stable environments, and so on. (Report on the Royal
Commission on Aboriginal Peoples (RCAP), 1997, quoted in Hammond Ketilson and MacPherson,
2001:21)
Co‐operatives, as much as housing co‐operatives, would also suit this conception of development,
where emphasis is put on the importance of collectivity.
Finally, we must keep in mind that housing crises are long lasting problem and, as such, call for a long‐
term solution. In this sense, co‐operatives are not ‘quick fixes’. They “develop gradually, recognizing the
complexities of personal and community development, relying upon the cumulative impact of education
governments in order to build a permanent community. This was finally possible years later and they started a
huge consultation process among the population. (Oujé‐Bouboumou website)
HOUSING IN NUNAVIK
65
and training programmes, and accumulating capital resources slowly. [...] When successful, they are
certain providers of economic security, personal empowerment, and community stability (Hammond
Ketilson and MacPherson, 2001:28)
SECTION 2: CHALLENGES OF IMPLEMENTATION
We might be convinced of the relevance and potential of housing co‐operatives, but important
challenges remain. In fact, theoretically and socially, there is not much doubt about the potential of
housing co‐operatives in Nunavik. Yet, some very down‐to‐earth considerations have to be addressed.
First, could a housing co‐operative in Nunavik be financially viable? The quick answer would be yes, if we
consider the many programs of subsidies and technical expertise available in the co‐operative
movement, the different government institutions and the local resources. However, even if “Aboriginal
co‐operatives have secured funding from a variety of sources, [...] there is a need for greater
collaboration with the government funding sources, Aboriginal economic organizations, and the co‐
operative sector.” (Hammond Ketilson and MacPherson, 2001:5) From the interviews we conducted
with local stakeholders, regional organizations and co‐operatives, and the latest news in housing (Bill C‐
304, new housing agreements, etc.), we strongly believe that a political and economic momentum exists
and that a place for innovative solutions is still left free.
Even though many recognize local autonomy and self‐management as determinants of success, a major
challenge exists.
A century of government administration and government and church control and the effects of
living in an atmosphere of state dependency, where virtually all decisions relating to your life and
your future are made by other will require developing new methods of response and community
involvement.(Cassidy and Bish, 1909:94, quoted in Hammond Ketilson and MacPherson, 2001:25)
Thus, a lot of efforts will be needed in order to build trust, competencies and resources within Inuit
communities and organizations, as well as in government agencies, which are mostly from Canadian‐
European culture and tradition. It is to say that few, if any, has ever considered housing development in
Nunavik with a holistic and co‐operative perspective. Incidentally, developing a sense of ownership and
responsibility will represent a core issue.
“Like all co‐operatives, Aboriginal co‐operatives [and housing co‐operative] have a significant challenge
in ensuring strong interest and involvement by their members.” (Hammond Ketilson and MacPherson,
2001:5) Again, the will for housing co‐operative cannot be imposed or come from a “top‐down”
initiative.
The economic development of any community or nation is a process – a complicated and difficult
one—that can be supported or frustrated. It cannot be delivered pre‐fabricated from Ottawa or
from provincial or territorial capitals. The principal participants, those on whom success directly
depends, are the individuals and collectivities of Aboriginal nations. (Report on the RCAP, 1997,
quoted in Hammond Ketilson and MacPherson, 2001:22)
66
HOLISM
SUBSIDIARITY
INUIT IDENTITY
COOPERATISM
SECTION 3: RECOMMENDATIONS
Now that we have recognized the potential of housing co‐operatives in Nunavik, as well as
acknowledged some challenges, several recommendations are to be made, concerning the guiding
principles, as well as some political, economic and co‐operative considerations. Finally, we will give
some suggestions for further researches.
3.1 Guiding principles
A particular effort will have to be carried on in order to inform and
educate stakeholders about a new approach. It will be necessary to
emphasize the importance of holistic and co‐operative perspectives of
housing. Also, we suggest insisting on the specific understanding of
housing developed in the research: adequacy between architecture and
identity, in a context of human fundamental need for housing and right
to dignity. Winston Churchill once summarized the influence of architecture by this short formula: “First
we shape our buildings and afterwards, our buildings shape us.” (Parker‐Pearson and Richards, 1994:3
quoted in Dawson, 1997 : XVIII) The approach in few words must be aiming for homes, not only houses.
Thus, a special attention should also be given to architecture.
In addition, we strongly suggest committing to the FCNQ motto: “Working together, leaving none
behind”, which is inspired by Inuit tradition. “[They] have started and developed co‐operatives to meet
clearly identified needs, not because someone told them it was a good idea: this basis in pressing needs
will be crucial in determining future success.” (Hammond Ketilson and MacPherson, 2001:5)
3.2 Political and economic considerations
A momentum currently exists. We believe that it is necessary to act quickly, but wisely. Let’s recall a
little bit the current political and economic situation; an agreement on housing was signed few weeks
ago, a Bill ensuring secure, adequate and affordable housing is on its way to become a law, and the
general housing conditions are clearly disastrous for Inuit people. This urgency is also illustrated by the
issue of the upcoming expulsions in the communities (summer 2010). However, the urgent should not
prevail on the important. The approach suggested in this study is innovative and has not often been
proposed to stakeholders. Thus, we must expect to face, if not reluctance, at least a lot of questions.
Also, creating strong partnerships and organizing vast consultations will be determinant. As Hammond
K. and MacPherson explain, “Formal links should be encouraged between co‐operative federations and
Aboriginal development corporations, particularly in the North, and the views and priorities of these
corporations with regard to co‐operative enterprise should be indentified [...].”(2001:4)
The potential partners are numerous and many contacts are waiting to be made between, for example,
federal and provincial governments and their agencies, Confédération Québécoise des Cooperatives
d’Habitation, Kativik Municipal Housing Bureau, Kativik Regional Governement, Conseil Québécois de la
Coopération et de la Mutualité, Institut de Recherche et d’Éducation pour les Coopératives et les
Mutuelles de l’Université de Sherbrooke, Canadian Center for Architecture, Caisse d’Économie Solidaire
67
Desjardins, Oujé‐Bougoumou community, the Ontario First Nation Steering Committee on Housing,
Quint Housing Co‐operative (Saskatoon), elders, architects specialized in Nordic architecture, etc.
3.3 Co‐operative considerations
We said earlier that building a sense of ownership and responsibility will represent a major challenge, as
much as developing a will to get involved in the creation of housing co‐operatives. A consultation
process would ensure to take into account local specificities, doubts, needs and interests. Every village is
different, while sharing some similarities.
One of the implications of this diversity is that it is no longer helpful, if it ever was, for economic
[or housing] development policy to be issued from Ottawa or a provincial/territorial capital and
applied uniformly to a range of conditions. This is one of the compelling reasons for locating
authority and resources to support economic development in the hands of appropriate [...]
institutions at the level of the nation and community. (Report on the RCAP, 1997, quoted in
Hammond Ketilson and MacPherson, 2001:22)
We would add that if a solution should not be “dropped” by governments, there is no reason for
excluding the co‐operative movement from this conclusion.
Because housing co‐operatives represent a new form of organization in Nunavik, an important work of
education and training will be necessary. Yet, it will have to be adapted to the Inuit reality. In this sense,
the FCNQ appears as a resourceful, adequate and privileged structure and organization.
3.4 Research follow‐ups
In a short or mid‐term perspective, we suggest carrying on a broader consultation process (with Inuit
and diverse stakeholders), in order to confirm the conclusions of this research and the interest in such a
project. (Questions about perception of housing, the will of being owners, the local needs, etc.) In the
future researches and interviews, a particular attention could be given to the specific realities lived by
women, children and elders.
Then, a feasibility study will be required to make sure that such a co‐operative is financially viable. We
also propose to study further the solidarity housing co‐operative model. It seems to us that it could
represent an interesting option for co‐operative housing in Nunavik.
On a long‐term perspective, we believe that a “test case project” (projet‐pilote) in one village could be
the first step before expanding the model to other communities.
Finally, the model proposed as a theoretical framework could be considered to analyze projects of
housing in other cultural communities. Also, it could be used, maybe with some adaptations, to appraise
other projects in Nunavik, but in other realms, such as tourism, health, art, communications, social
services, etc.
69
CONCLUSION The starting point of this research was a genuine question form the FCNQ: why past and current
solutions seem to propose solutions that are not improving sufficiently the housing conditions and that
appear to be inadequate? In other words: “what’s wrong?” Throughout the research, it appeared that
several elements were not taken into account. First of all, the solutions were considering only the
housing shortage. As we realized, housing in Nunavik is facing multiple crises; in number (the shortage),
in the architecture and in the meaning given to housing.
Also, it became obvious that a real commitment to local empowerment was necessary in order to create
adequate solutions, and that categorizing development projects or levels of interventions was contrary
to Inuit cultural identity. In few words, these programs and measures partly failed because it ignored the
foundational bridge that should be built between housing and identity, which could allow Inuit to build
homes for themselves. We could not insist too much on the necessity ‐‐and potential‐‐ of community
capacity building.
Besides, as a Federation of co‐operatives, the FCNQ obviously thought that it would be relevant to study
further the idea of implementing housing co‐operatives in Nunavik. Considering the four guiding
principles of the theoretical framework, the housing co‐operative model (its definition of housing, as
well as social, economic and political impacts) and several insights from stakeholders, allowed
considering housing co‐operative as an adequate solution.
In sum;
‐ If crises are to be properly addressed, it is necessary that Inuit take back responsibilities
and give a sense of their own to housing. In other words, bridging housing and identity is
fundamental;
‐ And, in this sense, housing co‐operatives could be appropriate, as long as they are
developed and implemented with a holistic understanding of housing and that principles
and values of cooperatism and subsidiarity are respected.
71
EPILOGUE The Report on the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples of 1997 puts it clearly:
Under the current conditions and approaches to economic development, we could see little
prospect for a better future. From this experience, we came to the conclusion that achieving a
more self‐reliant economic base for Aboriginals communities and nations will require significant,
even radical departures, from business as usual. [Emphasis mine] We also became convinced that
existing conditions and approaches entail enormous human and financial costs, a fact that also
adds urgency to the search for better solutions. (chapter five, Report on the RCAP, 1997:1 in
Hammond Ketilson and MacPherson, 2001:22)
Co‐operative housing in Nunavik exactly fits into this perspective. It is not “business as usual”. It is
absolutely innovative and calls for a radical change in our mindset. However, there is nothing to be
afraid of, because, actually, nothing is really new.
Are millennium Inuit values and culture that new?
Are the principles underlying centuries of co‐operative movement so recent?
Is the idea that housing is a living environment a revolution in the architecture world?
What is new, though, is putting all these elements together, in a holistic vision. What would be new,
would be putting spirit and reason back together, “in order to make sense of this world.” (Deloria,
1999:58)
What is really new, is bridging housing and identity in Nunavik and dreaming of homes, not only houses.
What is new, is the tremendous potential of giving hope and the real efforts everyone has to make in
order to trust and to commit to individual and collective empowerment in Nunavik.
“We have taken twenty years to get here and it will take thirty years more to finally have roots. To call
this house home – our dream has come true. We are finally home.” (Quint co‐operative, Saskatoon,
document 3, quoted in Hammond Ketilson and MacPherson, 2001:398).
Hopefully, in the near future, the housing municipal employees I interviewed will be able to say the
same, and see their dream of home coming true.
73
APPENDIX 1
This graphic illustrates the interrelations existing between the guiding principles proposed. Co‐operative
housing in Nunavik is truly at the junction of these four principles, and so is inspired at the same time by
a holistic understanding of development and housing; by the cooperative paradigm, values and
principles; by subsidiarity concept and its underlying principles, which are empowerment, recognition
and responsability; and by Inuit identity, where community, history, territory and social cohesion are
fundamental anchors.
HOLISM
SUB‐SIDIARITY
& EMPOWER‐MENT
INUIT IDENTITY
COOPE‐RATISM
HOUSING IN
NUNAVIK
74
APPENDIX 2 Evolution in permanent housing architecture in Nunavik
________________________________________________________________________
SOCIÉTÉ D’HABITATION DU QUÉBEC (SHQ) (2001). Housing in Nunavik, Gouvernement du Québec, p.46.
75
APPENDIX 3
CO‐OPERATIVE PRINCIPLES (International Co‐operative Alliance)
“The co‐operative principles are guidelines by which co‐operatives put their values into practice.
‐ 1st Principle: Voluntary and Open Membership
Co‐operatives are voluntary organisations, open to all persons able to use their services and
willing to accept the responsibilities of membership, without gender, social, racial, political or
religious discrimination.
‐ 2nd Principle: Democratic Member Control
Co‐operatives are democratic organisations controlled by their members, who actively
participate in setting their policies and making decisions. Men and women serving as elected
representatives are accountable to the membership. In primary co‐operatives members have
equal voting rights (one member, one vote) and co‐operatives at other levels are also organised
in a democratic manner.
‐ 3rd Principle: Member Economic Participation
Members contribute equitably to, and democratically control, the capital of their co‐operative.
At least part of that capital is usually the common property of the co‐operative. Members
usually receive limited compensation, if any, on capital subscribed as a condition of
membership. Members allocate surpluses for any or all of the following purposes: developing
their co‐operative, possibly by setting up reserves, part of which at least would be indivisible;
benefiting members in proportion to their transactions with the co‐operative; and supporting
other activities approved by the membership.
‐ 4th Principle: Autonomy and Independence
Co‐operatives are autonomous, self‐help organisations controlled by their members. If they
enter to agreements with other organisations, including governments, or raise capital from
external sources, they do so on terms that ensure democratic control by their members and
maintain their co‐operative autonomy.
76
‐ 5th Principle: Education, Training and Information
Co‐operatives provide education and training for their members, elected representatives,
managers, and employees so they can contribute effectively to the development of their co‐
operatives. They inform the general public ‐ particularly young people and opinion leaders ‐
about the nature and benefits of co‐operation.
‐ 6th Principle: Co‐operation among Co‐operatives
Co‐operatives serve their members most effectively and strengthen the co‐operative
movement by working together through local, national, regional and international structures.
‐ 7th Principle: Concern for Community
Co‐operatives work for the sustainable development of their communities through policies
approved by their members.” (ICA, 2007)
77
APPENDIX 4 DEMOCRATIC STRUCTURE OF HOUSING CO‐OPERATIVES
____________________________________________________________________________
Confédération Québécoise des Coopératives d’Habitation (CQCH) (2006). Guide pratique de gestion des coopératives d’habitation, « Une coopérative d’habitation, un mouvement », Fascicule 4, p.2.
GENERAL
MEETING
AUDITOR
BOARD OF
DIRECTORS
GENERAL
MANAGER
NEIGHBOURHOOD
COMMITTE
EDUCATION AND
TRAINING
COMMITTEE
SECRETARY
COMMITTEE
MAINTENANCE
COMMITTEE
FINANCE
COMMITTEE
SELECTION
COMMITTEE
EXECUTIVE
COMMITTE
78
APPENDIX 5 FINANCIAL STRUCTURE OF HOUSING CO‐OPERATIVES
__________________________________________________________________________
BOUCHARD J. Marie et Allan GAUDREAULT (2008). « Le financement de l’habitation communautaire », Se loger autrement au Québec; Le mouvement de l’habitat communautaire, un acteur du développement social et économique, sous la direction de Marie J.Bouchard et Marcellin Hudon, Anjou, Éditions Saint‐Martin, p.119.
FINANCIAL PLAN VIABILITY
CASH DOWN
Subsidies
Mortgage
financing
EXPANSES INCOMES
Exploitation costs
+
Mortgage
reimbursement
Households rents
+
Building Subsidies
Individual Subsidies
79
APPENDIX 6 Résumé du séjour à Puvirnituq du 23 au 27 novembre 2009
Lundi 23 novembre :
Nous sommes arrivées à Puvirnituq en début d’après‐midi. Nous avons convenu que le travail
commencerait réellement le lendemain. J’ai eu la chance de rencontrer deux personnes de l’Office
Municipal d’Habitation Kativik et de poser quelques questions sur l’organisme et son rôle.
Mardi 24 novembre :
Nous avons commencé la journée par une visite de Puvirnituq (les écoles, l’hôpital, le Group home, etc.)
En après‐midi nous avons rencontré deux personnes du housing municipal office. Elles nous ont
informées de la situation actuelle du logement dans la communauté et du rôle du housing municipal.
En soirée, j’ai discuté avec deux employés de l’Office Municipal d’Habitation Kativik, notamment à
propos des infrastructures (eau, électricité).
Mercredi 25 novembre :
Pour la journée internationale pour l’élimination de la violence faite aux femmes, nous avons participé à
la parade organisé pour l’occasion. Nous avions ensuite rendez‐vous avec le chef de la police de
Puvirnituq, policier dans la communauté depuis 6 ans. Il nous donnera son avis sur la situation du
logement, ainsi que sur les conséquences du surpeuplement et comment cela affecte son travail. Il
prendra aussi le temps de nous parler des difficultés liées à l’abus d’alcool, à la violence et à la pauvreté.
En après‐midi, nous avons rencontré une aînée de la communauté. Elle nous entretiendra de sa vie dans
les igloos et les tentes, de la façon dont s’est opéré le changement vers l’habitation permanente, des
conséquences et des différences liées à ce changement de mode de vie.
Le soir nous nous rejoindrons pour participer aux activités organisées dans le cadre de la journée
internationale pour l’élimination de la violence faite aux femmes. Des jeux avaient lieux dans le
gymnase.
Jeudi 26 novembre :
En matinée, nous avons rencontré la coordonatrice par intérim des services sociaux. Elle nous partagera
son avis sur la question du logement, les conséquences liées au manque de logements (selon différents
groupes de la population) et sur le besoin d’une mobilisation de la part des Inuit face à cette situation.
En après‐midi, nous avons discuté avec une femme qui travaille aussi au housing municipal, mais qui est
en congé de maternité en ce moment. Elle a pu nous partager son expérience et nous informer sur la
façon dont travaillent les institutions liées au logement et leurs interrelations (Makivik, KRG, housing
municipal, OMHK)
80
Le soir, nous avons rejoint une bonne partie du village au community fiest organisé par l’Association des
chasseurs, pêcheurs et trappeurs du Nunavik.
Suite à cela, nous avons visité quelques maisons, afin de se rendre compte sur place des conditions de
logements. Maggie avait auparavant parlé à la radio locale pour expliquer notre présence et notre
potentielle visite dans les logements. Ainsi, nous avons été bien accueillies.
Vendredi 27 novembre :
Pour la dernière journée, nous avons visité à nouveau quelques maisons (une dizaine au total). Nous
avons ensuite préparé les bagages, puisqu’il était déjà temps de retourner au Sud.
Le séjour à Puvirnituq m’a permis de confirmer que mes précédentes recherches avaient été bien
ciblées. J’ai pu valider certaines informations et aussi découvrir de nouveaux aspects à considérer. Cette
visite aura donc été hautement pertinente et, selon moi, déterminante pour la suite de la recherche et
du projet.
81
APPENDIX 7 Interviews Questions
As explained in the chapter on methodology, all the interviews were conducted in a semi‐structured
format and mostly on a discussion mode. Thus, we cannot give an extended list of all the questions.
Rather, we will give some examples of broad questions used to start or direct the discussions.
We divided the question into three categories; questions to local stakeholders, regional stakeholders
and housing co‐operative stakeholders.
1. Questions to local stakeholders (residents, municipal housing office employees, police and
social services)
a) According to you, what are the causes of the housing crises?
b) According to you, what are the consequences of the housing crises? How are you affected
by it, in your life, in your work?
c) Do you think that the housing needs are met?
d) What kind of houses should be built?
e) Are you consulted or do you feel that your needs and opinions are taken into account?
f) Would you be interested or do you think people would be interested in owning their house?
2. Questions to regional stakeholders (Kativik Regional Governement, FCNQ, Kativik Regional
Housing Bureau)
g) According to you, what are the causes of the housing crises?
h) According to you, what are the consequences of the housing crises?
i) Which initiatives were undertaken by your organization?
j) Are current solutions adequate? What would be the characteristics of an adequate solution?
k) Are local organizations consulted?
l) What are the relations between the different organizations?
3. Questions to housing co‐operative stakeholders
m) How would you describe housing co‐operatives?
n) What are the social and economic impacts of housing co‐operatives?
o) What are the values and principles of this model?
p) Financially, what is the functioning of housing co‐operatives?
82
APPENDIX 8 COMPTE‐RENDU CONFÉRENCE TÉLÉPHONIQUE
11 janvier 2010
Présences :
‐ Adel Yassa, Directeur Recherche et Développement à l’Administration Régionale Kativik
‐ Chhoan Sokchiveneath, Economic Development manager à la FCNQ
‐ Anne‐Marie Merrien, étudiante IRECUS
La conversation débute par une introduction d’Anne‐Marie qui permet d’expliquer l’origine du contact
établi et l’intention derrière cette conférence téléphonique. Sont donc mentionnés l’intervention‐essai à
l’IRECUS, le mandat donné par la FCNQ et le besoin d’informations qui a donné lieu à cette entrevue.
M.Yassa commence en partageant son enthousiasme par rapport au sujet et à la présente recherche. M.
Yassa travaille pour l’Administration Régionale Kativik depuis de nombreuses années. Il explique que
Pierre Roy (qui travaillait alors pour l’OMHK) et lui‐même avait déjà débuté des recherches à propos des
coopératives d’habitation et la possibilité d’en implanter dans le Nord. Selon lui, il est nécessaire de
trouver des outils et des pistes de solutions qui permettraient de développer un produit alternatif en
matière de logement.
Il semble qu’il y a deux ans, la SHQ a accepté de financer une recherche sur les coopératives
d’habitation dans le Nord. M. Yassa n’a cependant pas plus de détails et ne connaît pas les suites de
cette initiative.
Toujours selon M. Yassa, c’est le temps de proposer concrètement une telle solution. Il donne l’exemple
de Pierre Corbeil (Ministre des Affaires autochtones) et de Peter Aatami (Président de la Société
Makivik) qui tous deux s’entendaient sur les ondes de Radio Boréale pour dire que la priorité des actions
devaient être liée l’habitation.
Chhoan Sokchiveneath explique qu’il a proposé en septembre dernier d’inclure le logement dans le plan
quinquennal de la FCNQ. Il travaille en partie à élaborer une étude de faisabilité pour les coopératives
d’habitation. Il travaille principalement avec la Caisse d’Économie Solidaire Desjardins pour
l’implantation de caisses dans le Nord et voit donc, évidemment, la CESD comme partenaire de premier
plan dans l’élaboration de coopératives d’habitation. Il insiste sur le fait que les coopératives ne doivent
pas représenter une compétition face à l’Office Municipal d’Habitation Kativik. C’est plutôt un autre
service qui aiderait à combler les besoins qui doit être proposé.
M. Yassa explique qu’il existe, à l’ARK, un programme de prêts avec des taux très avantageux et que ces
prêts ont déjà servis à financer la construction de logements. Il explique aussi que l’ARK serait
certainement prête à appuyer un projet‐pilote de coopérative d’habitation, aussi tôt que mars 2010. Il
faudrait pour cela présenter un plan d’affaire détaillé et complet.
83
M. Sokchiveneath parle de l’une des grandes contraintes qu’il voit par rapport aux coopératives
d’habitation, c’est‐à‐dire le coût des services municipaux (eaux usées, carburant, eau potable). Les coûts
reliés à ces services sont extrêmement élevés et sont généralement assumés par le gouvernement dans
le cas des logements sociaux. À cela, M. Yassa répond que s’il s’agit là du seul problème ou d’une
contrainte majeure à la réalisation d’un projet coopératif, il serait sans doute possible de s’arranger, de
faire une exception ou d’aider à financer ces charges.
Tous deux semblent d’emblée convaincus de la pertinence de la formule coopérative. L'emphase ne
semble pas être tellement sur l'aspect d'adéquation entre les valeurs inuites et coopératives, mais
davantage sur le modèle "financier" que représentent les coopératives.
M. Yassa donne l’exemple de deux programmes qui ont pour but de favoriser la construction privée. Ces
deux initiatives ont toutefois connu un succès limité, entre autres compte tenu des défauts de
paiements de la part des résidents.
À ma demande, M. Yassa explique les liens qui existent entre les différents organismes qui oeuvrent
dans le Nord. Ainsi, l’OMHK est un organisme à part entière, au sein duquel l’ARK siège sur le CA. Aussi,
tous les trois mois, l’ARK tient des réunions avec les élus municipaux. L’OMHK présente un rapport à
cette occasion; ainsi, l’information circule. Enfin, la sélection des maisons (combien seront construites,
où…) se fait un an à l’avance, de concert avec l’OMHK et la Société Makivik. Ces organismes discutent
avec l’ARK et rendent une décision commune. Selon M. Yassa, les instances locales sont consultées. À ce
sujet, une récente étude (mai 2008) a permis de mettre à jour les informations à ce propos pour le
village de Kuujjuarapik. Enfin, l’OMHK, la section construction de la Société Makivik et l’ARK se
rencontrent régulièrement. Tout ces organismes assurent de mettre la pression politique nécessaire
pour qu’une volonté se dégage et que des projets concrets soient mis sur pied.
M. Yassa m’indique que pour connaître plus de détails à propos des ententes liées au logement, il serait
préférable que je consulte Watson Fournier, directeur‐général de l’OMHK. Néanmoins, il me confirme
que le Housing Forum qui devait avoir lieu en 2009 a effectivement été reporté trois fois, pour être
ensuite annulé. Aussi, la conférence Katimjiit a permis d’aller chercher 53 M$ auprès de la ministre
Normandeau afin de rénover le parc immobilier actuel. Enfin, en septembre 2007, le ministre
responsable des aînés a rencontré des communautés du Nunavik et la préoccupation liée au logement
pour les aînés faisaient partie des priorités. Ainsi, des propositions d’hébergements on été étudiées (soit
des maisons pour aînés, mais aussi des maisons intergénérationnelles).
Tous deux s’entendent pour dire que l’un des problèmes‐clés en matière de logement, est le coût de la
construction et des loyers. Aussi, il importe de proposer plusieurs produits et catégories de prix. Pour
qu’un projet de coopérative d’habitation fonctionne, le coût des loyers ne peuvent être plus élevés que
ceux des logements sociaux.
Il y a des études qui ont été complétées il y a 5 ou 6 ans à propos d’innovations technologiques afin de
réduire les coûts liés au logement (sur l’énergie solaire, par exemple). Aussi, M .Yassa rappelle que le
coût de la main‐d’œuvre représente près du tiers des coûts de construction. Ainsi, si les Inuits
construisaient eux‐mêmes leurs maisons, les coûts seraient beaucoup moins élevés. Cependant, M.
84
Yassa rappelle ce que Harry Tulugak, de Puvirnituq, lui expliquait en 1983, c’est‐à‐dire qu’avant la
Convention de la Baie‐James et du Nord‐Québécois, les Inuits pouvaient construire leur maison, mais
suite à cette signature, ce n’est plus possible, entre autres à cause des normes de la Commission de la
Construction du Québec (CCQ). Des programmes de formation existent et sont offerts aux Inuits.
Cependant, les emplois liés à la construction restent assez peu nombreux et souvent temporaires. M.
Yassa donne l’exemple qu’en 1993, le gouvernement du Québec a injecté près d’un milliard de dollars
pour la construction et la rénovation d’habitations, mais seulement deux emplois ont été créés pour les
Inuits. M. Yassa fait aussi référence à la loi hypothécaire de la CBJNQ. (cela reste à vérifier)
Selon Chhoan Sokchiveneath, à court et moyen terme, il serait important et pertinent d’offrir à l’OMHK
de l’aide pour fournir du logement, et ce grâce à une autre façon de faire. M. Yassa insiste sur le fait qu’il
faut impliquer les jeunes dans ce type de projets, entre autre parce que la nouvelle génération se voit
« obligée » de rester dans le Sud pour poursuivre leurs études et trouver du travail.
On termine en suggérant de vérifier ce qu’il en est de l’étude que la SHQ a fait il y a quelques années à
propos de l’habitation coopérative.
Cette conférence téléphonique permet de réaliser qu’il existe un réel momentum et un enthousiasme
partagé pour la réalisation d’un projet‐pilote de coopérative d’habitation dans le Nord.
85
BIBLIOGRAPHY Documents26: BARAQUIN, Noëlla, Anne BAUDART, Jean DUGRÉ et al. (2000). Dictionnaire de philosophie, Paris,
Éditions Colin, 2e édition, 318 p.
BOUCHARD, Marie, Benoît LÉVESQUE et Julie ST‐PIERRE (2005). « Modèle québécois de développement et gouvernance : entre le partenariat et le néolibéralisme? » Cahiers de l’ARUC‐ÉS, Cahier C‐09‐2008, Montréal, Chaire de recherche en économie sociale, 39 p.
BOUCHARD J. Marie (2008). « Introduction », Se loger autrement au Québec; Le mouvement de l’habitat communautaire, un acteur du développement social et économique, sous la direction de Marie J.Bouchard et Marcellin Hudon, Anjou, Éditions Saint‐Martin, p.7‐11)
BOUCHARD J. Marie et Allan GAUDREAULT (2008). « Le financement de l’habitation communautaire », Se loger autrement au Québec; Le mouvement de l’habitat communautaire, un acteur du développement social et économique, sous la direction de Marie J.Bouchard et Marcellin Hudon, Anjou, Éditions Saint‐Martin, p.115‐153.
BOUCHARD J. Marie et Marcellin HUDON (2008). « L’histoire d’une innovation sociale », Se loger autrement au Québec; Le mouvement de l’habitat communautaire, un acteur du développement social et économique, sous la direction de Marie J.Bouchard et Marcellin Hudon, Anjou, Éditions Saint‐Martin, p.15‐53.
CANADIAN MORTGAGE AND HOUSING CORPORATION (CMHC) (2009). “Affordability and Core Housing Needs”, Canadian Housing Observer 2009, CMHC, Ottawa, p.81‐100.
COMMISSION DES DROITS DE LA PERSONNE ET DES DROITS DE LA JEUNESSE (CDPDJ) (2007). “Nunavik: report, conclusions of the investigation and recommendations”, Investigation into child and youth protection services in Ungava Bay and Hudson Bay, April 2007, CDPDJ, 82 p.
Confédération Québécoise des Coopératives d’Habitation (CQCH) (2006). Guide pratique de gestion des coopératives d’habitation, « Une coopérative d’habitation, un mouvement », Fascicule 1, 21 p.
CQCH (2006). Guide pratique de gestion des coopératives d’habitation, « Une coopérative d’habitation, un mouvement », Fascicule 2, 16 p.
CQCH (2006). Guide pratique de gestion des coopératives d’habitation, « Une coopérative d’habitation, un mouvement », Fascicule 4, 15 p.
CUIERRIER, Ysabelle, Winnie FROHN et Marcellin HUDON (2008). « Apport social et économique du logement communautaire », Se loger autrement au Québec; Le mouvement de l’habitat communautaire, un acteur du développement social et économique, sous la direction de Marie J.Bouchard et Marcellin Hudon, Anjou, Éditions Saint‐Martin, p.155‐184.
26 Many documents consulted were originally written in French. All the references in French founded in the
bibliography and quoted in this document were translated by the author.
86
DAWSON, Peter C. (1997). Variability in Traditional and Non‐traditional Inuit Architecture AD. 1000 to Present, (Dissertation submitted to the Faculty of graduate studies in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of philosophy), Calgary, University of Calgary, Department of Archaeology, 372 p.
DELORIA, Vine Jr. (1999). Spirit and Reason, Colorado, Fulcrum Publishing, 372 p.
DUHAIME, Gérard (2008). Socio‐Economic Profile of Nunavik: 2008 Edition, Québec, Université Laval, 128 p.
FAVREAU, Louis (2008). « Origines et contours, fondements et trajectoire des entreprise collectives au Québec et dans le monde », Entreprises collectives; Les enjeux sociopolitiques et territoriaux de la coopération et de l’économie sociale, Québec, Presses de l’Université Laval, p.1‐35.
GAGNON, Alain‐C. et Guy ROCHER (2002). Reflections on the James Bay and Northern Québec Agreement, Montréal, Éditions Québec Amérique, 257 p.
INSTITUT DE RECHERCHE ET D’ÉTUDE POUR LES COOPÉRATIVES DE L’UNIVERSITÉ DE SHERBROOKE (IRECUS) (2002). Guide d’intervention COP 637, Université de Sherbrooke, IRECUS, 6p.
LAVILLE, Jean‐Louis et Antonio David CATTANI (2006). Dictionnaire de l’autre économie, Paris, Éditions
Gallimard, 680 p. LESCARBEAU, Robert, Maurice PAYETTE et Yves ST‐AMAND (2003). Profession : Consultant, 4e édtition,
Montréal, Éditions Gaëtan Morin, 327 p. LÉVESQUE, Carole (2007). « Perspectives locales sur le développement économique : études de cas chez
les Inuits, les Naskapis, les Innus et les Cris du Québec », Gouvernance autochtone : aspects juridiques, économiques et sociaux, sous la direction d’Andrée Lajoie, Montréal, Éditions Thémis, p.115‐123.
MACE, Gordon et François PÉTRY (2000). Guide d’élaboration d’un projet de recherche, 2e édition, collection Méthodes des Sciences humaines, Québec, Presses de l’Université Laval, 132 p.
MARTIN, André (2008). « Renouveler le paradigme coopératif par l'éducation », Cahiers de l'IRECUS, 02‐08, Sherbrooke, 59 p.
MARTIN, André, Ernesto MOLINA et Michel LAFLEUR (2006). « Le paradigme coopératif: proposition renouvelée pour répondre aux attentes de la société actuelle », Cahiers de l'IRECUS, 01‐08, Sherbrooke, 18 p.
MARTIN, Thibault (2003). De la banquise au congélateur : mondialisation et culture au Nunavik, Québec, Les Presses de l’Université Laval, 202 p.
MORIN, Richard, Andrée RICHARD et Ysabelle CUIERRIER (2008). « Portrait de l’habitation communautaire au Québec », Se loger autrement au Québec; Le mouvement de l’habitat communautaire, un acteur du développement social et économique, sous la direction de Marie J.Bouchard et Marcellin Hudon, Anjou, Éditions Saint‐Martin, p.55‐111.
NUNAVUT STATUS OF WOMEN COUNCIL (NSWC) (2007). “The Little Voices of Nunavut: A Study of Women’s Homelessness North of 60”, Territorial Report, January 2007, 151 p.
87
SAVOIE‐ZAJC, Lorraine (2003). « L’entrevue semi‐dirigée » Recherche sociale. De la problématique à la collecte de donnée, dirigé par Gauthier B., Ste‐Foye, Presse de l’Université du Québec, p.294‐316.
SAVOIE‐ZAJC, Lorraine (2004). « La recherche qualitative/interprétative en éducation », La recherche en éducation : étapes et approches, dirigé par Korsenti et Savoie‐Zajc, Université de Sherbrooke, Éditions du CRP, p.123‐150.
SOCIÉTÉ CANADIENNE D’HYPOTHÈQUE ET DE LOGEMENT (SCHL) (2001). Bâtissons ensemble : Meilleures pratiques autochtones d’établissement de maisons saines et de collectivités durables, Ottawa, SCHL, 52 p.
SOCIÉTÉ D’HABITATION DU QUÉBEC (SHQ) (2001). Housing in Nunavik, Gouvernement du Québec, 45 p.
ST‐ÉXUPÉRY, Antoine de (1939). Terre des hommes, Paris, Éditions Gallimard, 243 p.
STRUB, Harold (1996). Bare poles: Building design for high latitudes, Ottawa, Carleton University Press, 190 p.
SUSANKA, Sarah (2008). The Not So Big House: A Blueprint for the Way We Really Live, Newtown, Tauton Press, 219 p.
TAYLOR, Charles (1992). Grandeur et misère de la modernité, Montréal, Éditions Bellarmin, 150 p.
TULUGAK, Aliva et MURDOCH, Peter (2007). Partager autrement : La petite histoire du mouvement coopératif au Nunavik, Baie‐d’Urfé, Fédération des Coopératives du Nouveau‐Québec, 287 p.
VILLEMAGNE, Carine (2006). « Des choix méthodologiques favorisant une approche inductive : le cas d’une recherche en éducation relative à l’environnement », Recherches qualitatives, Vol. 26 (2), p.131‐144.
WEBSTER, Andrew (2006). Homelessness in the Territorial North : State and Availability of the Knowledge, Report prepared for the Housing and Homelessness Branch, Human Resources and Social Development Canada, Ottawa, 142 p.
YIN, Robert K. (2003). Case Study Research, Design and Methods, 3rd Edition, Applied Social Research Methods Series, Thousands Oaks (CA), Sage Publications, 166 p.
Internet: Agreement respecting the Implementation of the James Bay and Northern Québec Agreement Related to
Housing in Nunavik, September 20th 2000, [En ligne], http://pubs.aina.ucalgary.ca/makivik/CI181.pdf, (Page consultée le 1er décembre 2009).
Loi sur les coopératives, L.R.Q., chapitre C‐67.2 (à jour le 1er avril 2010), [En ligne],
http://www2.publicationsduquebec.gouv.qc.ca/dynamicSearch/telecharge.php?type=2&file=/C_67_2/C67_2.html, (Page consultée le 7 avril 2010).
Partnership Agreement on Economic and Community Development in Nunavik (Sanarrutik Agreement),
Consolidated administrative Version of August 9th 2006, [En ligne],
88
http://www.saa.gouv.qc.ca/relations_autochtones/ententes/inuits/sanarrutik‐consolidee_en.pdf, (Page consultée le 1er décembre 2009).
BOUCHARD, Jérôme (2008). « Élaboration du gouvernement régional du Nunavik et construction de
l’identité collective inuit », Études/Inuit/Studies, Vol.32, no1, p.137‐153, [En ligne], http://id.erudit.org/iderudit/029824ar (Page consultée le 1er février 2010).
CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION (CBC) (2007). « Canada votes ‘no’ as UN Natives rights
declaration passes”, CBC News, September 13th 2007, [En ligne], http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2007/09/13/canada‐indigenous.html, (Page consultée le 1er avril 2010).
CANADIAN CENTER FOR ARCHITECTURE (2008). Housing Crisis in the North: Interuniversity Charette, 14th Edition, [En ligne], http://www3.cca.qc.ca/charrette/2008/index_en.html, (Page consultée le 23 octobre 2009).
CBC (2008). “Nunavik Housing Crunch Squeezes Inuit onto Montreal Streets”, CBC News, May 27th 2008,
[En ligne], http://www.cbc.ca/canada/montreal/story/2008/05/27/qc‐puvirnatik.html?ref=rss., (Page consultée le 23 octobre 2009).
CHARTRAND, Yves (2010). « Habitation : les Inuits n’en peuvent plus! », Rue Frontenac, 18 mars 2010,
[En ligne] http://ruefrontenac.com/nouvelles‐generales/93‐politique/19526‐crise‐du‐logement‐chez‐les‐inuits (Page consultée le 19 mars 2010).
CONFÉDÉRATION QUÉBÉCOISE DES COOPÉRATIVES D’HABITATION (CQCH) (2008). Qu’est‐ce qu’une coopérative d’habitation?, [En ligne], http://www.cooperativehabitation.coop/site.asp?page=element&nIDElement=21 (Page consultée le 1er mars 2010)
FÉDÉRATION DES COOPÉRATIVES D’HABITATION DU NOUVEAU‐QUÉBEC (FCNQ) (2006). Site officiel, [En ligne], http://www.fcnq.ca/webconcepteur/web/fcnq/en/nav/federation.html (Page consultée le 15 octobre 2009)
FRONT D’ACTION POPULAIRE EN RÉAMÉNAGEMENT URBAIN (FRAPRU) (2007). « Le droit au logement, loin d’être respecté au Québec et au Canada », Document soumis à M. Miloon Kothari, rapporteur spécial des Nations Unies sur le droit au logement, Octobre 2007, [En ligne], http://www.frapru.qc.ca/IMG/html/Kothari.html, (Page consultée le 23 janvier 2010).
GEORGE, Jane (2009). “Nunavik housing deal once again put on hold : Quebec‐federal dispute stalls forum”, Nunatsiaq News, September 4th 2009, [En ligne], http://www.nunatsiaqonline.ca/stories/article/once_again_housing_commitment_is_put_on_hold/, (Page consultée le 1er décembre2009).
GEORGE, Jane (2010). “Nunavik leaders: 300 housing units is not enough; New deal for 1,000 units could
be discussed in May”, Nunatsiaq News, March 18th 2010, [En ligne], http://www.nunatsiaqonline.ca/stories/article/98679_nunavik_leaders_300_housing_units_not_enough/, (Page consultée le 23 mars 2010).
89
GEORGE, Jane (2010). “Ottawa eyes 1,000 social housing units for Nunavik”, Nunatsiaq News, Febuary 23rd 2010, [En ligne], http://www.nunatsiaqonline.ca/stories/article/98678_ottawa_ponders_1000_social_housing_units_for_nunavik/, (Page consultée le 23 mars 2010).
GIRARD, Benoît et William A. NINACS (2006). Case Study: The Fédération des Coopératives du Nouveau‐Québec, Secrétariat aux coopératives, Gouvernement du Québec, [En ligne], http://www.coop.gc.ca/COOP/display‐afficher.do?id=1234902281285&lang=eng (Page consultée le 15 octobre 2009).
GOUVERNMENT DU QUÉBEC (2007), « Des investissements de 78 millions de dollars pour améliorer les conditions de logement au Nunavik », Communiqué de presse, 24 mars 2007, [En ligne], http://www.premier‐ministre.gouv.qc.ca/salle‐de‐presse/communiques/2007/aout/2007‐08‐24b.shtml, (Page consultée le 25 janvier 2010).
GOVERNMENT OF CANADA (2010). “ A stronger Canada. A stronger Economy. Now and for the Future”,
Speech from the Throne, March 3rd 2010, [En ligne], http://www.discours.gc.ca/eng/media.asp?id=1388, (Page consultée le 1 er avril 2010).
GOVERNMENT OF NUNAVUT (2005). Inuit Qaujimajatuqangit, [En ligne],
http://www.gov.nu.ca/hr/site/beliefsystem.htm (Page consultée le 23 février 2010).
HAMMOND KETILSON, Lou and Ian MACPHERSON (2001). Aboriginal Co‐operatives in Canada: Current situation and Potential for Growth, Saskatoon, Center for the Study of Co‐operatives, 400 p.
HORIZON NUNAVIK (2007). Messages from the Co‐presidents of Katimajiit, [En ligne],
http://www.nunavik.ca/katimajiit/en/leaders.html, (Page consultée le 1er décembre 2009). HOUSE OF COMMONS (2001). Bill C‐304: Secure, Adequate, Accessible and Affordable Housing Act,
March 2010, [En ligne], http://www2.parl.gc.ca/HousePublications/Publication.aspx?Docid=4375076&file=4, (Page consultée le 6 avril 2010).
INDIAN AND NORTHERN AFFAIRS CANADA (2010). “Renewed Agreement Will Translate Into
Construction of Around 340 Housing Units”, Press release March 24th 2010, [En ligne], http://www.ainc‐inac.gc.ca/ai/mr/nr/j‐a2010/23326‐eng.asp, (Page consultée le 27 mars 2010).
INTERNATIONAL COOPERATIVE ALLIANCE (ICA) (2007), “Statement on the Co‐operative Identity”, ICA
Official website, [En ligne], http://www.ica.coop/coop/principles.html, (Page consultée le 25 janvier 2010).
INTERNATIONAL WORK GROUP ON INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS (IWGIA) (2010). Australia supports UN
Indigenous rights Declaration, [En ligne], http://www.iwgia.org/sw37643.asp, (Page consulté le 15 avril 2010).
INUIT TAPIRIIT KANATAMI (2004). Backgrounder on Inuit and Housing; for discussion at the Housing
Sectoral Meeting, November 24 and 25th in Ottawa, [En ligne], http://www.aboriginalroundtable.ca/sect/hsng/bckpr/ITK_BgPaper_e.pdf, (Page consultée le 23 octobre 2009).
90
KATIVIK REGIONAL GOVERNEMNT and MAKIVIK CORPORATION (2007). “Nunavik to Benefit from Announcements at the First Day of the Katimajiit Conference”, Press Release, August 23rd 2007, [En ligne], http://www.krg.ca/pdf/press%202007/08‐23‐2007%20Katimajiit%20Communique_en.pdf, (Page consultée le 25 mars 2010).
NATIONAL ABORIGINAL HEALTH ORGANIZATION (NAHO) (2008). Homelessness and Housing Realities for
Inuit: Background for Discussion, Mach 18 and 19th 2008, [En ligne], http://naho.ca/inuit/e/resources/documents/2008‐03‐18_HousingandHomelessness_BACKGROUNDFORDISCUSSION.pdf, (Page consultée le 23 octobre2009).
NUNAVIK WOMEN’S SHELTER, “Home”, Official Website, [En ligne],
http://www.nunavikwomenshelters.ca/, (Page consultée le 1er mars 2010). OUJÉ‐BOUGOUMOU. « Tour of our community », Official website, [En ligne],
http://www.ouje.ca/content/meet‐community/tour.php#tour, (Page consultée le 1er décembre 2009).
SOCIÉTÉ D’HABITAION DU QUÉBEC (SHQ) (2007). « AccèsLogis Québec », Programmes et services SHQ, [En ligne], http://www.habitation.gouv.qc.ca/programmes/acceslogis.html, (Page consultée le 1er mars 2010).
SHQ (2007). « Logement abordable Québec », Programmes et services SHQ, [En ligne],
http://www.habitation.gouv.qc.ca/programmes/logement_abordable.html, (Page consultée le 1er mars 2010).
SOCIÉTÉ RADIO‐CANADA (SRC) (2009). Un surpeuplement dangereux, 23 janvier 2009, [En ligne],
http://www.radio‐canada.ca/regions/abitibi/2009/01/23/002‐Nunavik‐logements.shtml (Page consultée le 1er février 2010).
STATISTICS CANADA (2006). « Aboriginal Peoples in Canada in 2006: Inuit, Métis and First Nations, 2006 Census: Findings », Census 2006, [En ligne], http://www12.statcan.ca/census‐recensement/2006/as‐sa/97‐558/index‐eng.cfm, (Page consultée le 23 octobre 2009).
UNITED NATIONS (1948). Universal Declaration of the Human Rights, [En ligne],
http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/, (Page consultée le 21 octobre 2009). UNITED NATIONS (1991). General Comment 4 : The Right to Adequate Housing (Art.11(1) of the
Convenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights), [En ligne], http://www.fao.org/righttofood/KC/downloads/vl/docs/AH356.pdf (Page consultée le 21 octobre 2010).
UNITED NATIONS (1966). International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, [En ligne], http://www2.ohchr.org/english/law/cescr.htm, (Page consultée le 21 octobre 2009).
91
Interviews and presentations: BRIEN, Guillaume (2009). Entretien du 18 novembre 2009, Sherbrooke. GÉLINAS, Claude (2010). « Le développement économique du Nord Canadien et son poteniel pour
l’avenir social et culturel des populations autochtones », Présentation donnée lors du Colloque Le territoire du Grand Nord : revendications et dissensions, 3 février 2010, Université de Sherbrooke.
GAGNON, Serge (2010). « Dynamique spatiale d’un site écotouristique et parcours de mise en valeur,
une approche théorique et un cas exemplaire : le Saguenay », présentation lors du séminaire de l’ARUC‐DTC Coopération et prise en charge des communautés. Trois cas de figure : écotourisme, santé et habitation, Québec, 29 janvier 2010.
Pour nous joindre : Alliance de recherche universités-communautés Développement territorial et coopération (ARUC-DTC) Université du Québec à Rimouski 300, allée des Ursulines C.P. 3300, Succ. A Rimouski (Québec) G5L 3A1 (418) 723-1986 poste 1247 aruc-dtc@uqar.ca http://aruc-dtc.uqar.qc.ca
top related