Current ads
Jobs
Tenders
Notices
General

Click below

Editorial

May 30 , 2003 - An energy policy for Nunavut
May 23, 2003 - Monkey see, monkey do?
May 16 , 2003 - Ignorance reigns, silence pays
May 9, 2003 - Liberal times in Nunavik
May 2, 2003 - Nunavummiut must protect gay rights

May 30, 2003

An energy policy for Nunavut

The recent spat over the Nunavut Power Corp.'s proposal to add a temporary amount to monthly power bills is of obvious concern to business people, especially those who operate power-guzzling restaurants, hotels, and grocery stores.

But if the issue has now degenerated into a confusing muddle, that's because the systems that Nunavut uses to supply and pay for energy are themselves a confusing muddle.

Whether it's diesel fuel for electrical power generation, heating oil for buildings, or gasoline for vehicles, Nunavut's energy supply system is a mish-mash of subsidies, cross-subsidies, revolving stabilization funds and complex rate structures that few ordinary people understand.

Underlying that confusing system there is one harsh and obvious reality: the people of Nunavut are guzzling energy at a skyrocketing rate, eating up growing amounts of public funds. The Nunavut government already spends over $120 million a year on fuel and electricity, close to one-fifth of its entire budget.

At the same time, few Nunavummiut are aware of the real cost of energy in Nunavut — because retail prices for almost all energy products are kept artificially low by subsidies and revolving funds.

But somebody must pay the real cost of energy. In our case, it's the Government of Nunavut, which faces a future in which burgeoning energy costs threaten to siphon public funds away from badly needed social and economic priorities.

And because almost all the energy we consume in Nunavut is supplied by the burning of imported fossil fuels, the Nunavut government has little control over those real costs. Those costs are set by capricious, wildly fluctuating world energy markets, which in turn are influenced by wars, political upheavals, and economic crises affecting energy producing nations.

There are only two ways through which Nunavut might win more control over its rising energy costs. The first is to find cheaper ways of generating energy, especially electrical power. The second is to use less energy.

At least one elected official in Nunavut is getting the message.

After returning from a national municipal leaders' forum on the implementation of the Kyoto Protocol, Keith Irving, an Iqaluit city councillor, suggested that the city of Iqaluit could reduce energy consumption in its buildings by 20 to 50 per cent, and reduce fuel consumption in its fleets of vehicles.

All other municipal governments, along with the Government of Nunavut, must start thinking along these lines. For its part, the Government of Nunavut should develop its own internal energy conservation policy, along with the Nunavut Housing Corp.

But that's not enough. Nunavut must also look at hydroelectric power, wind-power, and even solar energy. Of those three alternatives, hydroelectric is the most promising. Hydroelectric power is cheap, clean and, unlike wind and solar power, it's a proven, highly developed technology.

By the year 2005, one-third of all the fuel burned by the Nunavut Power Corp. to generate electrical power in Nunavut will be burned in the City of Iqaluit.

Iqaluit is located next to a river. Given all that, it would be foolish not to consider the idea of a small hydroelectric generating station on the Sylvia Grinnell River to generate electrical power for Nunavut's capital. It's a project that, by itself, could reduce Nunavut's electrical energy costs by one-third. Nunavut can't afford to ignore the idea, controversial though it may be. The very least the government should do is produce a cost-benefit feasibility study on the idea.

Similarly, Nunavut should re-double its efforts to extend Manitoba Hydro's power grid into the Kivalliq region, a scheme that could lead to hydroelectric stations in that region.

Above all, Nunavut needs a brand-new energy policy, coupled with a strong political commitment to carry it out. Such a policy should emphasize the creation of new energy sources, energy conservation, public education, and a simplification of Nunavut's energy pricing and supply system.

If this doesn't happen, petty squabbles over power rates and fuel prices will occur again and again and again - and they will be the least of the problems that we'll create for ourselves. JB

May 23, 2003

Monkey see, monkey do?

Why is the Government of Nunavut even thinking about spending money on a road from Iqaluit to Kimmirut?

We won't know the complete answer to that question until after the Government of Nunavut releases a consultant's report on the idea. That report, prepared by SNC-Lavalin, is now in their hands. But it won't likely be released until GN officials read it, tweak it, and do other things to make it fit for public consumption. Then the minister will decide when and how to release it, though the normal method would be to table it in the legislative assembly.

Given the slow pace of government, all that could take a while. But that's no reason for the public to refrain from asking serious questions now.

Unlike similar projects proposed for the Kitikmeot and Kivalliq regions, the justification for an Iqaluit-Kimmirut road is not immediately apparent – other than evidence of a monkey-see, monkey-do approach to policy making.

The Bathurst Inlet road and port project, for example, runs through a region whose mineral wealth is well-documented. Real companies are proposing to develop real mines there, promising real economic development and real wealth creation. In time, it is entirely possible that the Kitikmeot region will become Nunavut's economic heartland. The concerns of environmental organizations notwithstanding, the Bathurst Inlet project is surely the most viable of Nunavut's three unrealized transportation schemes.

As for the Kivalliq, it's not a road, but an electrical power transmission line that the GN is proposing for the region. The line would run from Churchill through Arviat and Whale Cove to Rankin Inlet, supplying those communities with low-cost hydro-electric power generated by Manitoba Hydro. It could end up being a stepping-stone to the development of hydro-electric dams in the Kivalliq, which would sell power back to Manitoba.

Either way, it promises to reduce Nunavut's utter dependence on volatile world fossil fuel markets. It could surely provide a source of cheap power to Rankin Inlet's Meliadine gold project – one of the largest undeveloped gold properties in the world. It's not inconceivable that Baker Lake, with its equally promising Meadowbank gold project, could be linked to the power grid at some future date. And perhaps one day, a Kivalliq-Manitoba road might follow the power transmission line. Again, this is a project that makes some economic sense.

But now we turn to the idea of an all-weather road linking Iqaluit with a deep-water port at Kimmirut.

There are no proposed mines between the two communities, despite several years of prospecting and geophysical work. To be fair, some of the area has yet to be explored for minerals. No one is talking about stringing an electrical transmission line between the two communities either, even if the Nunavut Power Corporation goes ahead with a proposal to build a hydro-electrical generating station on the Sylvia Grinnell River.

However, Kimmirut's ice-free season is much longer than Iqaluit's. The GN's thinking, apparently, is that a deep-sea port at Kimmirut could land goods nearly all-year round. Goods would be shipped by road to Iqaluit, providing residents with cheaper consumer goods, presumably, while other supplies would be flown to other points in the Baffin region from the Iqaluit airport.

That appears to be the sole justification for an Iqaluit-Kimmirut road. But would those benefits justify the enormous cost of such a project?

The cost of the Bathurst Inlet road, depending on which version you look at, runs between $165 million and $215 million. That's greater than the GN's entire capital budget for any given year to date – which means the federal government would be required to pay most of the bill.

So an Iqaluit-Kimmirut road, which would traverse about 160 km of rugged, hilly terrain, requiring several bridges over rivers, could be expected to cost between $100 million and $200 million, plus several more tens of millions to construct a deep-sea port at Kimmirut. And then there are the as-yet-uncalculated operation and maintenance costs every year.

Given all the other transportation needs in the Baffin region, the economic benefits of a south Baffin road would have to be enormous to justify such expenditures.

For example, why is the GN not studying the idea of a deep-water port for Pangnirtung? A port there might make it easier for ocean-going trawlers to land their catch. The fish plant there might actually become a profitable, stable business with a larger supply of fish to process. Various other communities want better docks, wharves, breakwaters, and repairs or replacements for airport runways and buildings.

If the Iqaluit-Kimmirut road-port project is to be supported, the GN had better be prepared to supply a strong economic case to justify the enormous amount of money that such a project would cost. If they can't, then they should look at investing in other badly needed transportation projects around the Baffin region. JB

May 16 , 2003

Ignorance reigns, silence pays

About two years ago, Andrew Nikiforuk, an award-winning Canadian journalist who for years has written widely about education, took a look at the Yukon's territorial school system.

He concluded that the Yukon government has saddled its residents with the "Enron of Canadian school systems," and said so in an interview with CBC North television.

But then, Andrew Nikiforuk never came to Nunavut. Because when it comes to lying, denial and all-round institutional dysfunction, Nunavut's department of education surely leads the nation.

Consider this:

• In September 2002, Nunatsiaq News reported on an Inuktitut literacy test that students in Arctic College's Inuit Studies program conducted at Iqaluit's Inuksuk High School.

The results were predictably pathetic. More than 60 per cent of those tested couldn't answer a set of simple questions aimed at testing how well they understood a short Inuktitut reading exercise.

Did school officials respond with a commitment to improve the quality of Inuktitut instruction in Nunavut schools? No. Did they respond with a commitment to produce better Inuktitut curricula? No.

This is Nunavut, where ignorance reigns and silence pays. Their response was to issue a ban on research at Inuksuk High School.

• More recently, Nunatsiaq News reported on the Let's Visit Nunavut fiasco.

Let's Visit Nunavut is the title of the horribly written and sloppily researched workbook that recently turned up within a Grade 3 classroom at Iqaluit's Joamie School, much to the dismay of the Iqaluit District Education Authority.

The book contains gems like these:

"Most Inuit do not make a living from full-time jobs that pay money."

There's no reference, however, to the fact that 42 per cent of Government of Nunavut workers and about 50 per cent of Nunavut teachers are Inuit. There are various other ethnocentric assumptions and errors of omission that have no place in a book that's intended to educate the young.

No one has explained how this ridiculous workbook – it's been in print for seven years – ended up in Nunavut. The GN says only that it maintains a list of recommended texts, but that schools across Nunavut are allowed to purchase their own materials.

Don't forget, this is Nunavut, where ignorance reigns and silence pays. But no one has explained why Nunavut's schools are allowed to do this in the first place or why no one in the system, at any level, even bothered to read the offensive workbook.

In the end it was a parent who brought it to the attention of the Iqaluit District Education Authority. Thank goodness for parents. They're the only effective education watchdogs we have in Nunavut.

• Nunavut residents caught a glimpse of another fiasco just last week: the lack of any functioning system of educational governance.

Pangnirtung's District Education Authority, without stating why, has "recommended" that a local school principal's contract not be renewed – even though no one in the community has complained about his work and 150 Pangnirtung residents have signed a petition in his favour.

Charles Banfield, the boss of the pretentiously entitled Qikiqtani School Operations, responded with the kind of idiocy that's only possible in Nunavut.

"The DEA is the duly elected representative of the community and we are obliged to respect their recommendations," Banfield said.

Wait a minute. A "recommendation," by definition, is a piece of advice. A recommendation can be accepted, rejected, or changed. No government is bound by any recommendation.

Any government that says otherwise isn't worthy of being called a government.

Now we know that our department of education is capable of dumping an employee without legal cause on the basis of an ill-informed recommendation. And they wonder why employee morale is at a rock-bottom level.

No one has explained why district education authorities – the fancy name for Nunavut's local school advisory committees – are given the power to hire and fire, but are given no administrative or policy support, and no information about basic employment law. But then, this is Nunavut, where ignorance reigns and silence pays.

So what does all this mean?

It means that Nunavut's "education" system is now nothing more than a high-cost daycare system with expensive gymnasiums, a warehousing scheme to keep children and adolescents amused and off the streets for a dozen years or so.

Meanwhile, the intellectual potential of the young just goes to waste, and no one cares. Just look at the reaction to the woeful results produced by Nunavut students in the last national mathematics achievement test. Just eight per cent of 13-year-olds in Nunavut met or exceeded the minimum acceptable level of difficulty.

Instead, the department continued to squander its energies on a poorly drafted education bill that nobody wanted, and MLAs ended up flushing it down the toilet after four years of futility.

In a just world, Nunavut's senior education officials, along with a large section of the territory's political establishment, would be brought to court and charged with criminal negligence for tolerating such an inexcusable betrayal.

The department of education's sorry record over the past four years even raises the question of whether Nunavut is capable of running a school system. That's an important question, because if the people of Nunavut aren't capable of running their own school system, they aren't capable of running their own territory. JB

May 9, 2003

Liberal times in Nunavik

The new premier of Quebec, Jean Charest, is no stranger to northern Canada.

As federal environment minister in the Tory government led by Brian Mulroney, Charest visited Nunavut several times in the early 1990s, including at least one extended visit with his family. While in that job, he presided over the first federal programs aimed at funding research into persistent organic pollutants in the Arctic.

So while Nunavik residents should know that the new premier of their province is not unfamiliar with Arctic issues, they should also prepare for some changes they may not like.

Charest is a moderate, small "c" conservative. Based on past history, he can be expected to lead a government that will turn its back on the free-spending ways of the Parti Quèbecois.

The most heavily publicized plank in Charest's recent election campaign was a promise to cut taxes by $1 billion over the next five years, and at the same time, spend more on health and education.

It's not clear how he'll do this. But for Nunavik residents, this means that, with the possible exception of health and education, their provincial government is likely to spend much less in the region than they've been used to in recent years. In time, Nunavik residents can expect reduced spending on things like infrastructure, housing and economic development. Unlike the PQ, the Liberals have absolutely no desire to take Quebec out of Canada.

That means Charest's Liberals have no need to busy themselves with grandiose nation-building exercises in northern Quebec, and no need to buy friends from among Quebec's aboriginal leaders.

Above all, it means they have no need to engage in the bribe-and-conquer tactics that PQ governments used so effectively to buy off the Cree and Inuit leadership in northern Quebec. For example, Ted Moses, the grand chief of the James Bay Cree, even announced during the election campaign that he planned to vote PQ, and he urged other Cree to do the same.

Wisely, Pita Aatami, the president of Makivik Corp., took a traditionally neutral stance during the campaign, and didn't endorse any parties or candidates.

But Makivik, along with the Kativik Regional Government, has also benefited from the PQ's generosity. And right now, Nunavik leaders have good reason to be concerned about whether that provincial government generosity will continue.

Many in Nunavik were expecting that Geoff Kelley, the MNA who acted as native affairs critic when the Liberals were in opposition, would end up with the native affairs portfolio within Charest's new government.

Instead, Charest gave the job to Benoit Pelletier, the MNA for Chapleau in western Quebec.

A constitutional lawyer and adjunct professor of law at the University of Ottawa, Pelletier's main portfolio is intergovernmental affairs. That job is likely to take up the bulk of his time for the foreseeable future, since Charest has declared that he wants to work with other provinces to create a new fiscal relationship with Ottawa. This means that the native affairs portfolio may not get the attention that Nunavik residents might like to see.

At the same time, Pierre Corbeil, a dentist from Val d'Or who was elected as MNA for Abitibi-East, has been appointed to serve as the political minister for the northern Quebec region. It remains to be seen if Nunavik leaders can build a relationship with him.

As for Nunavik's new-government negotiations with Quebec City and Ottawa, they will surely be delayed until Pelletier and his officials can familiarize themselves with the file.

Nunavik leaders should use this delay to work on the unnecessary political problems they created for themselves during the long process that led to the creation of a "framework" agreement on Nunavik's proposed regional government.

As part of that, they should develop a public information campaign to tell people about what's going on. Such an initiative should go a long way toward alleviating some of the fear and suspicion that the new government process has provoked among many Nunavimmiut.

They should also learn some basic political courtesies. When faced with critics and people who ask honest questions about the new government proposal, they would do well to memorize certain key phrases to insert into their answers:

"Thank you for your comments."
"Even if we disagree with you, we value your opinion."

Character assassination may be fun, but in the long run, learning to treat dissidents with dignity and respect is a better tactic. Paranoid defensiveness will not help Nunavik leaders build the support they need for their new government project, especially within the new political environment they are about to enter. JB

May 2, 2003

Nunavummiut must protect gay rights

It's time for the people of Nunavut to confront a reality that the people of Canada, all other provinces, and the people of many other nation states have faced and acknowledged for many years now.

That's the reality presented by gay and lesbian people who live among us – and their own brave assertions of their wish to live and love in a condition of dignity and equality. Two unrelated processes have put these issues on Nunavut's public agenda.

One is the introduction of Nunavut's human rights bill, which would prohibit discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.

The second is an attempt by the federal government to respond to recent court cases that have opened the door to the legal recognition of same-sex conjugal relationships, whether marriage or other legal relationships, such as registered partnerships or civil unions.

The first process, the listing of sexual orientation as a legal ground for discrimination in Nunavut's human rights law, is the simplest issue and by now ought to be beyond debate in Nunavut.

Some people ask whether a majority of people in Nunavut would support this. But that's an irrelevant question.

Human rights, by their very definition, are inherent limitations placed not only on the power of the state, but also on all the other collectivities that make up a society. While governments may acknowledge the existence of human rights and set up legal structures that individual citizens may use to uphold them, governments do not "create" rights. Basic human rights are inherent in all of us at birth.

So if a human right exists, it exists even if the majority refuses to admit it. The very purpose of a human rights law is to protect individuals and minorities from having their rights suppressed or ignored by arrogant majorities. It's a way of using the rule of law to protect the weak against the arbitrary whims of the strong.

That's why it doesn't matter whether a majority of Nunavummiut support the recognition of human rights, including the right of gay and lesbian people to be free from discrimination.

And if it's indeed true that a majority of Nunavummiut are opposed to the idea of protecting gays and lesbians from discrimination, the passage of Nunavut's human rights bill should be made an even more urgent priority. It's certainly no reason to reject it.

Furthermore, if any MLA votes against the human rights bill simply because it reflects the will of their constituents, then they'll simply be demonstrating that they don't understand the nature of human rights in the first place.

As for the issue of same-sex conjugal unions, there are several options that the federal government may choose from. Members of the House of Commons standing committee on justice and human rights have been touring the country seeking views on how Parliament should legalize same-sex unions. The choice seems to between all-out legalization of same-sex marriage and the creation of a new law that would legalize same-sex relationships through either civil unions or domestic partnerships.

Right now, the Netherlands is the only Western country to allow same-sex marriage. But many countries allow the civil registration of same-sex relationships, a status that generally gives same-sex partners the same legal rights enjoyed by conventional married couples.

Many gays and lesbians, however, want more than what's offered by civil unions. They say that only marriage can make their relationships equal to those of married opposite-sex couples, and would extend to them the right to fully participate in society.

The creation of a civil union law is likely the very least that Parliament must do, even if MPs stop short of recognizing full-blown same-sex marriage. If so, Nunavut's justice system will have to start recognizing legalized same-sex unions.

We have heard from those who say that homosexuality violates Inuit culture, and we have heard from those who say that homosexuality violates Christian principles. We have also heard from those who say that Inuit culture and Christianity are one and the same thing.

These opinions are all irrelevant. Culture is about what people do now, not what they imagine their ancestors did back in the uncertain mists of time. There are gay and lesbian Inuit living in many places. That means that homosexuality is part of Inuit culture, just as it is now part of all other cultures. It's also worth noting that elderly Inuit are often more tolerant and accepting of same-sex relationships than younger people.

As for the numerous objections made by religious spokespersons, such people should be reminded that we live in a secular society, not a theocracy.

Religion is a private matter. We are free to believe, or not believe, whatever we wish.

Members of every religious faith also have the right to express their views, and to profess and proselytize their faith. If their faith leads them to believe that homosexuality is morally wrong, they have the right to say and believe that too.

But no religious organization in Canada has the right to dictate government policy, or to limit the application of human rights law. JB

TOP

Advertising
Specs, rates,
& maps
Multi-paper
buying services
About the market
E-mail ad dept

More Information