Current ads
Jobs
Tenders
Notices
General

Click below

Let the public see and hear

This month, Nunavut residents got to observe one of the great strength's of our non-partisan electoral system - an election where candidates were free to run on their own platforms, unrestrained by political parties.

Next week, Nunavut residents will get to observe the weak side of the consensus system. We'll get to stand around and watch 19 people choose our next government.

The MLAs who were acclaimed or elected on Feb. 16 will gather in Iqaluit March 4-5, to pick a premier and cabinet from among themselves.

Yet again, we will be reminded that we have no direct control over who forms our governments. On the other hand, we will also be reminded that our governments - meaning the premier and cabinet - exist only because the regular members allow them to, and can be easily removed. In theory, that means there's a high degree of accountability.

But it still means we have no control over who gets to be premier - the leader of our government.

For that reason, it's essential that next week's leadership session be conducted in public, as in the past. It's also essential that candidates for premier be not only given a chance to speak, but also be required to field questions from other MLAs, so the public can at least hear what their premiership candidates stand for.

We may not have any power to decide who gets to be premier and who gets to sit in cabinet. But we at least have the right to know what it is that we're in for.

For the most important job in government, that of premier, MLAs will choose between at least two candidates, Paul Okalik and Tagak Curley. Each candidate brings strengths and weaknesses to his candidacy.

Okalik's great strengths are his education (which includes a law degree), his five years' worth of experience in the premier's job, his ability to represent Nunavut to the rest of Canada, his ability to understand and clearly articulate government policy in English and Inuktitut, and his ability to withstand enormous stresses without blowing his stack in public.

Okalik is a confident, well-educated, liberal-minded modernist, living proof that with hard work, and a little education, any Inuk can go out into the world and do great things. He's now well-known across Canada, no mean accomplishment for a politician who represents a small jurisdiction.

These strengths, though, are also weaknesses in the eyes of sizeable numbers of Nunavut residents, especially those who care about the continuing erosion of the Inuit language and culture. They believe that Okalik hasn't done enough to give the Nunavut government an Inuit face, and they aren't impressed by his ability to move easily between Inuit and non-Inuit culture.

Curley's great strengths include his understanding of business and economic development issues. His most lasting accomplishments are mostly in business, not politics, especially the work he did - up until about a year ago - running the Nunavut Construction Corp. He's also worked as an economic development advisor within NTI, and in 1975, he founded the Nunasi Corp.

His weakness is that he sometimes overreacts to public criticism. In the past, he hasn't functioned well when facing the normal public scrutiny that all elected politicians must learn to handle, such as pointed questions from MLAs, reporters, and others. In 1987, after serving in the Northwest Territories cabinet for three years as economic development minister, he was voted out of cabinet for writing a threatening note to another MLA who asked hard questions about a GNWT grant to a Rankin Inlet business.

Another quality, which is both a strength and a weakness, is that Curley is a powerful advocate of Rankin Inlet's interests. That makes him a great voice for the people of Rankin Inlet - but other Nunavut MLAs will want to know about his commitment to the other 24 communities in Nunavut.

As we all know, Okalik supports the protection of gay and lesbian rights contained in Nunavut's human rights act, while Curley opposes it. We hope that they put that disagreement to one side and learn how to work together. Our new legislature will have far more pressing problems to deal with. JB

No more February elections

If there's one thing that many candidates agreed upon during this year's territorial election campaign in Nunavut, it's this: mid-February is a lousy time to hold an election.

It's no surprise that it's election candidates themselves who are most likely to complain. They're the ones who have to trudge door-to-door in -30 weather, in an election campaign that kicks off in the near total darkness of January. They have to beg for campaign donations at a time when everyone in Nunavut has spent every cent they have on Christmas.

So why February? The date for Nunavut's first mid-February election, on Feb. 15, 1999, was understood to be a special, one-shot arrangement. Normally, a territorial election would have been held in the fall of that year. But it was fixed at an earlier date so that Nunavut's first MLAs could be elected, and then given enough time to pick a speaker, premier and cabinet before Nunavut's creation on April 1 that year. No one talked about regular February elections.

It's not still not clear why Nunavut MLAs chose not to hold Nunavut's second election in the fall of 2003 - it's a decision that would have been discussed behind closed doors within caucus. Perhaps it's because they wanted more time to ensure passage of the new wildlife and human rights laws. Or perhaps it's because they wanted to scoop up a few extra months of pay cheques and pension-plan contributions.

Whatever the reason, it wasn't their greatest decision. An early October election, with a campaign period starting just after Labour Day in September, makes far more sense. The weather is milder and more reliable, while most people are likely to be off the land and back in their communities.

Please. No more February elections. Let the date for Nunavut's next election be fixed for early October 2008. JB

Don't ignore the losers

After any territorial election, it's natural for the public to fix their attention on the winners. It's the winners, after all, who will soon be wielding power, or, at least what passes for power in Nunavut.

But it's not just the winners who made this week's territorial election such a resounding success in Nunavut. Many of those who lost - and that means the vast majority of those who ran - contributed ideas, raised issues, and did what they could to encourage public debate.

Such talents, and such desires, should not go to waste, as they so often do in Nunavut. We hope the winners will find ways to help the losers continue their participation in Nunavut's public life.

Here are a few examples. They're picked more or less at random, and we acknowledge that there are equally talented people out there whom we have not mentioned:

Rebekah Williams: Williams may have lost to Levi Barnabas in Quttiktuq, but that is no reason why Nunavut should lose the benefit of her talents. As an MLA, she demonstrated a strong interest in justice system and social issues. We hope that she will be able to find another way to contribute in those areas.

John Amagoalik: A longstanding proponent of the Nunavut idea, Amagoalik lost by a wide margin to Ed Picco in Iqaluit West. But that is no excuse for ignoring him. He raised substantive issues and demonstrated a strong desire to get involved in the public government system. Amagoalik should not be shut out of that system, and we hope someone can find another way for him to participate in it.

Kevin O'Brien: O'Brien may have lost badly in this week's election, but it should not be forgotten that he was once the Kivalliq region's most effective MLA. His talents and experience should not go to waste.

Other talented losers include people like Rebecca Kudloo, Mary Ellen Thomas, Mike Courtney, Jerry Ell, Phoebe Palluq Hainnu, Millie Kuliktana, and many others we don't have space to mention. Don't throw them away. Nunavut needs all the talent we can muster. JB

Third party politicking

During this winter's territorial election campaign, Nunavut voters have been exposed to a relatively new phenomenon: third party forces who are working to support or oppose candidates, and to influence the choices that voters make on election day.

By "third parties," we mean groups and organizations that aren't actually running for office themselves - but who work to encourage the election of candidates whose views they support.

In this election, two very different groups, are, in very different ways, attempting to do just that - Nunavut's labour movement, and Nunavut's rapidly growing Christian fundamentalist movement.

The labour movement's approach is the more conventional, using techniques borrowed from the South. Groups like the Northern Territories Federation of Labour, the Public Service Alliance of Canada, and the Nunavut Employees Union are donating money to candidates they favour, and are attempting to survey candidates on their views.

Nunavut's unions aren't just in it for themselves and their members. They're also using the election to talk about social justice and human rights. Strong backers of Nunavut's Human Rights Act, and the words in it that protect gays and lesbians from discrimination, they are, naturally, worried by any suggestion that the next legislative assembly might amend the human rights law to remove such protection.

These are honourable motives for getting involved in the political process.

Unfortunately, the labour movement's actions have been incoherent and confusing. In Iqaluit West, where the cabinet minister behind the humans right act, Paul Okalik, is campaigning for re-election, one of Nunavut's best known union officials, Doug Workman, has chosen to run against him. Granted, Workman is raising other important issues in his campaign, and insists that he's not a "labour" candidate. But the outer walls of the NEU building in Iqaluit are festooned with Doug Workman posters, including one giant poster that's the size of a small billboard.

Is this rational behaviour for an organization that claims to support the human rights act? It's especially confusing when you consider that the labour movement has failed to find anyone willing to run in Rankin Inlet North against Tagak Curley, a prominent opponent of the human rights law who wants to replace Paul Okalik as Nunavut's premier.

In Iqaluit Centre, another well-known labour activist, Mary Ellen Thomas, is also running. She's using her candidacy to mount an articulate campaign that raises a variety of social and economic issues. She's using the NEU office in Iqaluit during her campaign, and appears to have their support.

There's only one problem with that. Her strongest opponent, Hunter Tootoo, was the best, and sometimes the only friend, that the labour movement had within the last legislative assembly, defending union interests during contract talks, and asking numerous questions about staff housing and VTAs - more confusion for the voters.

Perhaps the labour movement will get it right in the next territorial election.

Another group that's likely to exert some influence over voters is Nunavut's rapidly growing fundamentalist Christian movement, a loosely organized network of like-minded preachers, churches, and bible study groups spread across Nunavut and Nunavik. In recent years, hundreds of people from around the eastern Arctic have flocked to annual bible conferences, building alliances with one another and strengthening each other's faith.

Unlike mainstream Christians, they believe that every single word in the Bible is literally true. They believe that God speaks to them in mystical "signs and visitations." They believe the prophecies about the end of world contained in the Book of Revelations, and believe that we are nearly there. They believe that no other morality but theirs is the right one. Though they say they believe in the separation of church and state, they also honestly believe that it is their duty to infuse the actions of state with their values. Furthermore, they have identified their movement with "traditional" Inuit culture values.

And, as we know, they believe that homosexuality is a moral sickness, not an innate state of being, and that it can be corrected, or "healed," through faith and other means. And so they have risen up to oppose the protection of gay and lesbian rights in the human rights act, and to oppose any suggestion that the Nunavut government should one day sanction same-sex marriages.

This is not an organized movement in the manner of the labour movement, not yet, at least. But a lot of informal politicking is done within bible conferences by groups like Prayer Canada, a southern group that promotes the election of fundamentalist Christians to public office, and by other preachers and pastors opposed to gay rights and same-sex marriage.

Will they make their presence felt at the polling stations this Monday? Only time will tell. And it's also worth noting that many Nunavut voters are pragmatists, uncomfortable with extremist views.

Should Nunavummiut be alarmed at the rise of third-party influences within the political process?

Of course not. It's a sign that Nunavummiut are getting wiser, a sign that elections in Nunavut really are about ideas and fundamental values. It's a sign that elections in Nunavut are serious affairs, and not the trivial popularity contests that some people allege them to be. JB

A northern economic strategy?

Within its 90-minute torrent of pretend sincerity, the Paul Martin government's throne speech this past Tuesday actually contained - surprise, surprise - the odd promise that looked real.

One of them is sure to pique the interest of Nunavut government officials, and their counterparts in Yukon and the NWT: Martin's promise to develop a "northern strategy" on economic development.

The throne-speech statement says the federal government will "develop a Northern strategy, ensuring that economic development related to energy and mining is brought on stream in partnership with Northern Canadians, based on stewardship of our most fragile northern ecosystems."

This is not a complete surprise. At last fall's meeting of northern development ministers in Iqaluit, the former DIAND minister, Bob Nault, said officials from the territories, provinces with northern regions, and the federal government were already talking about such a strategy.

But what's new is that Ottawa has now made a public commitment.

There are, however, unanswered questions. But the only one that matters is this: Will it help Nunavut residents get more jobs, and more business opportunities?

Based on the narrow words contained in the statement, for now, the answer is no. It refers only to "economic development related to energy and mining." And the statement is carefully crafted to avoid any reference to education or social development, areas where Nunavut's needs are great.

On the other hand, the federal government has no coherent northern policies of any kind now. So any effort aimed at clarifying what Ottawa should and should not do in the northern territories is to be welcomed. And any effort that actually commits Ottawa to providing concrete help is even better.

But the federal government needs clear northern development policies that go beyond non-renewable-resource development, important though such development may be. If not, many Nunavummiut will not share its benefits.

The Conference Board of Canada, in its 2001 report on Nunavut's economic outlook, said the development of Nunavut's "human capital" - a fancy term for "people" - is just as important as the development of physical infrastructure, which Nunavut also needs more of.

So any "northern strategy" needs to acknowledge that Nunavut needs help with education, adult training, health care and housing to complement whatever Ottawa does to facilitate resource extraction.

And any northern strategy must also recognize that the three northern territories are all different from one another, and require different approaches from Ottawa. Since 1999, the economy of the Northwest Territories has moved rapidly in the direction of self-sufficiency. People there are even beginning to talk about provincehood in the not-so-distant future. A narrow focus on economic development alone may be sufficient for the NWT.

Nunavut, on the other hand, is as dependent as ever. And any new "northern strategy" should be flexible enough to recognize that Nunavut needs a different approach than the NWT and Yukon.

Federal policy should honestly acknowledge that Nunavut is still a work-in-progress, and that any new northern development policy should deal with a wide range of issues, including social, and even political development.

Social development, after all, is related to political development in a direct way. If the Nunavut government's elected officials cannot deliver new social housing, or better schools and health care, the people of Nunavut will not only turn against them. They will turn against Nunavut itself. JB

TOP

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

More Information