Current ads
Jobs
Tenders
Notices
General

Click below

People of Nunavik losing faith in democracy

There have been several letters written in regard to the Makivik Corp. election that was held in March between Adamie Alaku and Mary Simon, who were vying for the Vice President of Economic Development seat.

I will not continue that debate, however, I would like to bring up another matter in regard to the election process. Before I begin, I would like to be clear that this is my own opinion and I was not influenced by anyone. I simply want to practice my right to express my own opinion, since it is allowed by the Charter of Rights of Canada.

It is my opinion that Nunavimmiut have a lack of interest in democracy in Nunavik.

It is evident in the statistics. Out of a possible 5,288 eligible voters, all beneficiaries of the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement, only 2,230 - less than half of the eligible voters - 42 per cent, came out to cast ballots.

The definition in The Oxford Dictionary of Current English of Democracy: (1a) government by the whole population, usually through elected representatives; (1b) a state so governed; (2) a classless and tolerant society, from the Greek, demokratia, rule of the people.

It is my impression that the people of Nunavik have not been given the opportunity for social equality. I believe that unless a majority of the eligible voters are given the chance to rightfully choose a representative, any election with a voter turnout less than 51 per cent must have a re-election, to truthfully know who they elected to represent them.

How else can we restore our faith in democracy?

If we are going to have self-government, then the democratic process must be put into practice. I feel that many people, especially young people, have lost their faith in democracy in Nunavik.

Many seem to be afraid to express their true opinions and in the process have no interest in practicing their electoral rights. We have only been eligible to vote as recognized citizens of Canada for a little more than a quarter of a century. Why is there no interest?

Like everything else, there are rules, proper ways of debating and proper ways of campaigning. Comments that are made during the week of elections must be controlled, especially if they are intended to harm a candidate's character and their chances of winning any election, such as ad hominen attacks.

For example (taken from www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/ad-hominem.html):

Description of Ad Hominem

Translated from Latin to English, "ad hominem" means "against the man" or "against the person."

Ad hominem arguments are a general category of fallacies in which a claim or argument is rejected on the basis of some irrelevant fact about the author or the person presenting the claim or argument. Typically, this fallacy involves two steps.

First, an attack against the character of person making the claim, her circumstances, or her actions is made (or the character, circumstances, or actions of the person reporting the claim).

Second, this attack is taken to be evidence against the claim or argument the person in question is making (or presenting). This type of "argument" has the following form:

1. Person A makes claim X.
2. Person B makes an attack on person A.
3. Therefore A's claim is false.

The reason why an ad hominem argument of any kind is a fallacy is that the character, circumstances, or actions of a person do not (in most cases) have a bearing on the truth or falsity of the claim being made (or the quality of the argument being made.)

Example of Ad Hominem

1. Bill: "I believe that abortion is morally wrong."

Dave: "Of course you would say that, you're a priest."

Bill: "What about the arguments I gave to support my position?"

Dave: "Those don't count. Like I said, you're a priest, so you have to say that abortion is wrong. Further, you are just a lackey to the Pope, so I can't believe what you say."

I realize that we are thrust into two cultures, our own as Natives and that of the qallunaat or non-natives, but if we want to govern ourselves in a modern society, then we should practice the proper ways of having a democratic society.

I am in no way ungrateful for all that is being done to make our self-government a reality.

It must be a difficult task to have all the pressures of the people's needs and try to put them into perspective, nevertheless I still believe that no one should abuse their power for their personal interests.

Christine Nakoolak
Kuujjuaq

GN summer student policy fosters racist attitudes

I wish to comment on the recent reports in the legislative assembly and Nunatsiaq News regarding the difficulty of non-Inuit students finding summer jobs.

It is most disturbing to hear that the Government of Nunavut is treating some citizens different from others. The blatant way that non-Inuit students are being told to wait until all Inuit students have jobs before they can be given summer employment is really against all that we try to teach our children: among other things, we teach them to be fair and honest with all people, regardless of their ethnic origin.

This is a public government, and all citizens should be treated the same. Some university students have been waiting for more than three weeks to begin their summer employment in order to earn enough money to pay their tuition and expenses for the coming year.

In fact, the amount of money available to non-Inuit students through FANS is less than that made available to Inuit students, and that makes it all the more important for these students to earn as much as possible during their summer break.

Because all students sponsored by FANS have gone through a screening process in order to receive that benefit, there is an easy way to facilitate the opportunities for summer employment. Any student receiving FANS meets certain criteria: they are an Inuk, or a long-term northerner who has received a significant amount of their education in the North.

In March, all FANS students could be sent forms asking them to indicate if they require a summer job, and what date they could begin work. Those forms would be returned to the Department of Human Resources who would determine placements for summer students.

Students could then be informed where their summer placement was and what day they should report to work. If there were additional students not sponsored by FANS who applied for a summer job, and if there were job placements available, they too could be offered jobs.

In that way the government could be assured that all Inuit would have jobs as well as other students who are long-time northerners. The government would be providing valuable opportunities to prospective employees and receive much needed help over the summer months.

Many of these non-Inuit students were born in the North or have lived most of their lives in the North and are very proud to be from Nunavut. They are acutely aware of their history and cultural issues. Nunavut is their home too, and they love it.

The present policy concerning summer jobs fosters racist attitudes. We have only to listen to the news to know that there is already too much of that attitude in the world. The Nunavut government promised the citizens of Nunavut that their government, a public government, would treat citizens better than previous governments. Here is an opportunity to show good faith to all its citizens.

A Concerned Citizen
Iqaluit

Newfound Resources did not get BFC quota for 2004

I wish to briefly respond to statements made in a letter in your May 14 edition. The writer, Mr. John Andrews, makes several inaccurate statements which we wish to correct.

First, Mr. Andrews states that our company, Newfound Resources Ltd., has entered into three agreements to catch the entire 4,000 metric tonne turbot quota for the Baffin Fisheries Coalition.

In actual fact, we have been informed by BFC that we will not receive any quota this year and that they have instead accepted a proposal from an Icelandic company. We are obviously very disappointed with this decision, but we remain very interested in working with BFC and other northern groups in the future to harvest turbot or shrimp quotas.

Mr. Andrews also makes general statements about the lack of transparency and makes other flippant remarks about royalties and token jobs as they relate to southern interests. These statements do not reflect our positive experience in Baffin Island.

In recent years, we have conducted considerable business with BFC and Pangnirtung and we have handled all business in a professional and forthright manner. We have had good experiences with Baffin crew members and have confirmed our willingness to hire significantly more Baffin crew in the future. We have offloaded significant quantities of turbot for the Pangnirtung plant and found the service and co-operation from Mr. Nowinski and his staff to be excellent.

Collectively, we have managed to deliver expensive fish at a reasonable price while at the same time generating significant revenues for Baffin stakeholders.

We share Mr. Andrews' disappointment in not receiving turbot allocations, but we suggest that writing false and inflammatory letters is not the solution.

We remain committed to long-term co-operation with Baffin interests. Our 67-metre vessel "Newfound Pioneer" is one of the very few OA vessels that is 100 per cent Canadian-owned and fully Canadian-crewed and we will continue to pursue partnerships with Baffin interests as your fishery continues to grow and expand.

Brian McNamara
President
Newfound Resources Ltd.
St. John's, Nfld.

Too much focus on abused women?

This letter is to reply to your recent article on "Women Plead for Help." We do not help people, especially women, when we speak for them. We do more damage trying to speak for other people when they have the power to speak for themselves. We are only taking their power away from them.

I am a woman who grew up with abuse in my family and have had to deal with emotional pain in my life. I can say now that I have fully dealt with the issues that held me closed for some time in my life.

I really believe that too much focus on women who are abused is not the way to change the existing problem. Belittling the men who are abusive isn't the answer either.

There should be as much emphasis on men as on women. Men are the ones that need the help since they are causing all the problems, according to the message we hear all the time.

By the way, it takes two to get a quarrel going. They both are the problem and they both need help.

Which sex has the highest rate of suicide? Stats show that more men have committed suicide.

This kind of article affects the male children in our society. They are made to think that this is how men are suppose to be and this is how they are seen by other people. I have a son and I do not want him exposed to these kind of comments in articles. This creates an identity issue among young people.

The Status of Women Council should reflect on the Bathurst Mandate and should keep themselves from hating men. The Status of Women Council should have more Inuit women who are influential in their Council. It seems to use the Inuit women to make the public see that yes, we do have Inuit women in the council, but we have tied their hands so we can inject our own agenda into the government system.

Most men aren't abusive, most men are really nice and are good leaders and decision makers in our society.

The feminist movement is old and we have moved on to know how to deal with issues better. If we are just going to be tolerant to these kinds of movements in our land, they will walk all over us. Make a stand!

Woman from Nunavut
(Name withheld by request)
Iqaluit

BFC chair responds to John Andrews' allegations

I wish to respond to the letter published in your May 7, 2004 edition titled, "Is the Baffin Fisheries Coalition ignoring Inuit interests?" Under normal circumstances I would not use the media as a medium to respond.

However, when the information is false, malicious, misleading and is a personal attack on me, then I feel I have no other choice but to defend myself and set the record straight.

In 2001, which was the first year of harvesting 0A turbot, Baffin Fisheries Coalition had its first encounter with Mr. John Andrews. At that point, various operators were interested in fishing 0A turbot, but it was late in the season, therefore we chose to have Mr. Andrews and his associates fish for us. Under the terms of our contract, Mr. Andrews' vessels were to offload in Canadian ports, which was the condition under which we received permission from DFO to use foreign vessels.

However, Mr. Andrews blatantly disobeyed Canadian regulations by allowing the vessel to offload its production in Europe. This created an issue of grave concern for BFC and the fishing industry in general in Atlantic Canada, who believe that if one wishes to operate in Canadian waters, then one must play by Canadian rules and regulations.

In 2002, BFC signed a harvesting contract with Mr. Andrews under the condition that the vessel was to be Canadianized. The conditions were as follows:

1. The vessel indicated has been Canadianized and subject to inspection by Transport Canada and did meet all the requirements necessary to allow it to fish in Canadian waters.
2. The harvesting agreement shall be for one year only, and is done without any future commitments for future supply.
3. The vessel is to meet Transport Canada guidelines by July 15, 2002. Should the vessel not meet Transport Canada conditions then BFC shall at its discretion transfer the allocation made to this vessel to another vessel of its choice."

• On June 19, 2002, Mr. Andrews confirmed that the vessel would be on site by mid-July.
• On July 9, 2002, BFC requested from Mr. Andrews verification as to whether the vessel met Transport Canada's regulations for Canadianization.
• On July 19, 2002 Mr. Andrews advised BFC that they were unable to give assurances that the vessel would be ready, stating: "We therefore are in agreement with BFC assigning the 1,000 tones (earlier assigned to us), to other vessels to catch."

My question to you is this: Is this the kind of company that Nunavut wants to work with, if we truly want to develop Nunavut's fishery?

This is the same individual who partnered with an Icelandic company to purchase a factory-freezer trawler that was built in 1965 with the hopes of joint-venturing with the BFC. At that point the BFC made it very clear to Mr. Andrews that it had no intentions for partnering and or joint-venturing with a company to purchase a vessel that was built in 1965. This type of vessel was not dependable and not accommodating for any crew that fished in northern waters. Is this the type of vessel we want to develop our fisheries? I think not.

It has been BFC's policy to use a variety of harvesting methods to gain the maximum information from harvesting. Our goal was through using various gear types to find the statistics on: size of fish harvested; geographic area fished; depth of water fished; by-catch, etc.

In 2003, BFC wanted to decrease the harvest from trawlers and increase the harvest from hook-and-line vessels. BFC, however, through its call for proposals, was unable to attract sufficient proposals from Canadian hook-and-line vessel owners to fish in 0A. As a result of this situation, BFC applied for and received permission from DFO to use two foreign freezer hook-and-line vessels.

BFC was not interested in dealing with Mr. Andrews and the condition of his vessel.

Mr. Andrews indicated that he again submitted a proposal in 2004 and it was ignored, "Mr. Ward did not even respond to our proposal," this is completely false, as verified by the following sequence of events:

• On January 20, 2004 I forwarded a copy of the request for proposal and terms of reference to Mr. Andrews.
• On February 5, 2004 BFC received Mr. Andrews' one-page proposal for 2004.
• On February 6, 2004, I informed Mr. Andrews that his proposal lacked detail and that we required more information.
• On February 7, 2004 I received a two-paragraph response from Mr. Andrews.
• On February 16, 2004 I called Mr. Andrews and requested that we meet to discuss his proposal.
• On February 18, Mr. Andrews and myself met for lunch to discuss his proposal, and at this meeting I told him that his proposal was unacceptable.
• On February 18, 2004 I confirmed in writing the contents of our meeting of the same date.
• On March 8, 2004 Mr. Andrews confirmed to me that his position had not changed from his proposal of February 5, 2004: "Further to our recent luncheon meeting, this is to advise that the royalty per tonne proposed and terms outlined in our February 5, 2000, for turbot caught in area 0A in 2004 will, for the present remain the same, but we remain open to discussion of other options."
• BFC at its recent board meeting discussed Mr. Andrews proposal and it was considered unacceptable.

Because of BFC's dealings with Mr. Andrews in the past, I personally made sure in 2004 (as is evidenced from the above chronological order of events) that he received the information promptly.

With regards to the statement, "Mr. Ward appears to be the greatest colonial interest of all," I wish to remind Mr. Andrews that I am an employee of BFC, with no ownership position whatsoever. I report to the board through the chairman.

With regards to his statements on the Senate report, I did not get the same understanding from the report as Mr. Andrews. There were some positive recommendations from the report and there were some recommendations that we could not agree with. Is this not the nature of most reports?

BFC's objectives over its initial three years were very clear and it has made substantial progress towards implementing these objectives which are as follows:

• Exploratory fishing;
• Development of new inshore fisheries and emerging fisheries;
• Development of offshore fisheries;
• Recruitment and training for current and new jobs in the offshore fishing industry;
• Investment in a Nunavut fishing vessel;
• Lobbying for more access to other fishing quotas including turbot in 0B;
• Encourage scientific research; and
• Administration of the initiative, including preparing calls for proposals.

There is irony in the way in which the Senate committee went about dealing with the issue of quota allocations in Nunavut waters. Why was it that it focused on the exploratory fishery in 0A as compared to the tragedy of the historical allocation of 0B turbot (73% to southern interests) and shrimp in shrimp fishing areas 1, 2 and 3 (74% to southern interests) primarily going to non-adjacent licence holders?

We find it hard to comprehend why the committee focused on southern interests to make presentations on an exploratory 0A turbot fishery, knowing very well that it was their intention to move quickly to try and control this fishery as they had historically done in Nunavut's adjacent waters.

Do you think the Senate committee would have gone out of its way to find Nunavut stakeholders to make presentations to it if it was doing a review of the crab and shrimp allocations in Newfoundland and Labrador's adjacent waters or lobster in PEI's adjacent waters? I do not think so.

BFC shall respond to the southern interests who have questioned the transparency of the BFC. The Nunavut fishery has become more organized, more vocal, more focused, and it must take control of the development of its own fishery in 0A and not allow the marginalization of its adjacent resources, as was the case in the 0B turbot fishery, and in particular the overall shrimp fishery in Nunavut's adjacent waters.

The people of Nunavut can no longer sit idly by and see the fishery resources in its adjacent waters go to southern interests. The injustices of historical allocations in Nunavut's adjacent waters - only 27 per cent of the 0B turbot allocations and less than 26 per cent of the overall shrimp allocation in its adjacent waters - must stop. BFC's harvesting plans of going from harvesting agreements in 2001 to 2003, to charter arrangements in 2004 and 2005, to eventual vessel ownership are steps in the right direction. When you have control of your own resources you can control your own destiny and maximize the benefits to the Inuit of Nunavut.

In conclusion, it is obvious that Mr. Andrews has deliberately misrepresented the facts. I am confident that my credentials and ethics in the past and present can be put up to the test and withstand any scrutiny or testing that Mr. Andrews can administer. Mr. Andrews, can you say the same?

Jerry Ward, CEO
Baffin Fisheries Coalition

NWMB works hard for an Inuit fishery

In his May 7, 2004 letter to Nunatsiaq News, John Andrews of Arctic Harvesters Inc., writing from Newfoundland, makes a number of serious allegations concerning the development of the Division 0A (northern Davis Strait) turbot fishery.

With respect to the Nunavut Wildlife Management Board, Mr. Andrews claims that the NWMB is denying Nunavut Inuit access to their own resource by allocating the entire 0A quota to the Baffin Fisheries Coalition. The BFC, according to Mr. Andrews, no longer represents Nunavut Inuit fisheries interests - since every HTO member of the BFC, except Pond Inlet, will be leaving the coalition by the end of May.

These allegations are false. Since 1994, the NWMB - along with its co-management partners - has devoted itself to the task of increasing access by Nunavut Inuit to their adjacent turbot resource. Although the struggle has been a difficult one, it has yielded impressive results. In just a few years, the Nunavut Inuit share of the Davis Strait turbot fishery has risen from a mere 27 per cent to almost 58 per cent.

In 2001, the HTOs of Kimmirut, Iqaluit, Pangnirtung, Qikiqtarjuaq, Clyde River and Pond Inlet, along with five other Inuit organizations, decided to keep the new 0A turbot quota intact and to fish it together. From past experience, they understood that fragmented quotas in Nunavut favour southern interests, reduce negotiating power and invite divide and conquer tactics.

Thus was born the BFC - a 100 per cent Inuit-owned company dedicated to the proper development of adjacent fisheries, and working on behalf of all HTO members in six Baffin communities. Just over three years later, the BFC has produced a considerable record of accomplishments.

As to the announcement that five of the six HTOs on the BFC are leaving in the next couple of weeks, the most recent BFC correspondence received by the NWMB clearly indicates a united coalition busy making significant plans spanning not weeks or even months, but years.

The division 0A turbot fishery is a tremendously good news story for Nunavut Inuit, despite Mr. Andrews' allegations. While much more work still needs to be done, all Nunavummiut should be proud of what Inuit, working together, have accomplished in this fishery to date.

Ben Kovic
Chairperson
Nunavut Wildlife Management Board

Expectations too high for Nunavut fishery?

Re: editorials and letters to you concerning the fishery in Nunavut and in particular in Davis Strait. This fishery has the potential to be a large component of the economy of Nunavut and Baffin Island, but expectations are reaching a level that may not be achievable over time. Claims and counterclaims are being made about who is right and who is wrong in the development of this fishery.

Remember it is still very much a developing fishery. Statements made by companies or organizations about the process deserve to be heard.

But will people actually listen? We talk of the value of the fishery, purchasing freezer trawlers, chartering longliners, and landing fish in various locations. Before too many capital investments are committed for vessels, fish plants and infrastructure, everyone should take a breath and review what they actually have, and need to do to accomplish achievable objectives.

There are available resources to Nunavummiut at a present level of 4,400 tons of Turbot in 0A and an additional tonnage of 1500 tonnes in 0B which has a potential value of $3 million to $3.5 million using royalty fees.

The 0A allocation by itself, which is 100 per cent for Nunavut, has a potential value of between $2.2 million to $2.6 million on a royalty basis. The actual gross value of this fish in the world market pricing is about $23 million. You get the money for no risk. The accumulated benefit over the last number of years must be in excess of $10 million.

John Andrew's concern with process seems to be a valid concern. However some of Mr. Andrews' issues of fairness may ring hollow to other members of the industry who have made financial commitments to license holders.

Some have offered greater amounts but lose out to others who have provided other types of financial incentive to the license holder and/or its managers. What seems fair to one perhaps is not fair to the others.

If license holders wish to continue to receive royalties from their license perhaps there should also be an obligation on their part to enter into joint-ventures for a longer term with a vessel owner or operator who will be the investor and assuming the majority of the risk.

The GN has an even greater obligation and no money to meet the demands placed on them by the population; this is not only in Nunavut but also throughout the North.

Trying to maintain a presence in many of the responsibilities and functions that come along with licenses is an expensive and time-consuming process and if GN and industry members do not keep themselves informed of changes, policy development and species-at-risk developments, they will be left behind. The presence of officials and representatives at these meetings is important and equally important is the respect of others as well as the opinions of others.

None of us will agree with the Senate committee report but there are many valid concerns raised by these members. Criticism by some on others should not be viewed as negative; absorb the positive and move on. Time spent on dealing with criticism is only useful if you create positive action and progress from recommendations. We cannot expect government to solve all of our problems.

The overall value of the fishery will continue to attract a great deal of interest from those not resident in the north. The temptations of large money in the fishing industry have been around for many years and it is now in the North. The possibilities of conflict of interest between companies and people and their membership is very high and needs to be avoided. Some companies have been successful in overcoming the temptations and jealousy of those who have and those who do not have.

The Baffin Fishery Coalition has an opportunity to set a course for the future that may allow for the people to benefit from the fishery, but historically it has been proven that some communities may benefit more than others. They must try and adjust for the common good of the people and the communities.

If even a small percentage of the claims made by Mr. Andrews and statements made by the senate have any credence, then the BFC must act accordingly. Actions should be taken to maintain the HTOs as solid members.

Neil Greig
Kuujjuaq

---

May 21, 2004

Composting diverts 30 per cent of Iqaluit waste

Waste management is a costly and challenging business everywhere, but Iqaluit's relative isolation makes these costs and challenges even more daunting.

We have come a long way over the past three years. The burning of harmful materials has come to an end and many of us have made great efforts to limit the amount of waste being sent to the land-fill by recycling and composting. While these are admirable efforts, our city is still far from having a viable long-term plan to deal with the amount of waste we are generating.

The City's current recycling program will inevitably change to meet cost criteria and the likelihood is that we will not be able to recycle all recyclable material coming into our community for the foreseeable future.

It is however important that the City know that this community is committed to waste reduction and diversion.

The current composting pilot project is an excellent waste survey. Results up to this point show that participants are diverting approximately 30 per cent from Iqaluit's waste stream.

A preliminary waste audit done for the city of Iqaluit by Trow Consulting Engineers in 2002 stated that 70 per cent of Iqaluit's waste stream was either organic or paper waste - 70 per cent!

To quote the aforementioned audit: "If a 50 per cent capture and recovery rate (of these organic and paper materials) were established the annual waste stream could be reduced by up to 1750 tonnes."

So far, the composting pilot has been a success. Eighty-seven families and 111 children of Iqaluit are participating, and already

5,640 pounds of "garbage" have been diverted from the landfill by only 87 families in just seven weeks.

In the coming months we will begin the actual composting process. We hope that this experiment will prove that it is time to stop burying garbage and start making soil.

Composting is a form of recycling that we can do right in our community, without the costs of shipping south. If piece by piece we can reduce the necessity to use the landfill we will be saving money.

Recycling can be expensive but the costs of filling up our landfill and building a new one are going to be enormous and the costs of cleaning up after ourselves in years to come will inevitably be astronomical.

Erin Brubacher
Iqaluit Recycling Society

---

May 21, 2004

Kuujjuaq killer gets off with short jail sentence

I am writing this letter today because I feel it is time the world knew about how the criminal justice system works in Nunavik.

I worked as a police officer in the small community of Kuujjuaq in Northern Quebec. After working there, I came to realize that for some reason, the justice system doesn't think that Inuit need to be punished with the same punishments as the rest of Canada. The criminal laws don't apply to Inuit the same way as they do to the other ethnic groups in Canada.

In August of 2002, I was awoken at six in the morning with a phone call from my friend and fellow police officer.

She felt I needed to hear from her that my cousin, Aloupa Watt, 27, had been shot in the head and probably wouldn't make it. And he didn't make it. When I asked her who did it, I wasn't surprised when she said "Elijah Snowball."

A few weeks before this, my partner and I were working together when we had to arrest Elijah Snowball for the third time in approximately three months. The second and third time he got arrested, he was breaching conditions that were given to him by the court.

The conditions were given to him because of the first incident that we arrested him for. The first time, he got drunk while out on the land camping, and after a heated argument with family members, he decided to deal with the situation by taking a 12-gauge shot gun and shooting it in the direction of a tent.

As a result of this shooting, two people were hit with pellets from the shot. (Thankfully, both overcame their injuries.) But after being arrested, Elijah Snowball, then 18, was released, with some conditions, (which he later breached on two separate occasions).

When we arrested Mr. Snowball the third time, I told my partner that the next time, we'd arrest him for murder. Well, he was arrested for murder.

But as I was reading the Nunatsiaq News on May 7, I was outraged to find out that Elijah was convicted of manslaughter, and sentenced to only 12 years in prison! Having served one and a half years to date, he only has eight years left to serve. He'll therefore be back in the community in probably four years.

I don't understand how a person who went out of one building to go home and get a gun, then came back to the first building and shot someone in the head, is not charged with first-degree murder. The Crown attorney's reasoning for only charging him with manslaughter was that the he's still a young boy, and the judge wouldn't give him murder one. How will they know what the judge gives until he gives it?

To top things off, as the judge was rendering his decision in the Kuujjuaq court, he said that this issue - of murder - was not a matter for the courts to solve but rather, that it was a matter for the community to solve! How does a murder, manslaughter or whatever you want to call it, become a community matter?

One thing I have a hard time understanding is this: why didn't he go to jail for the other three arrests? I can tell you from first-hand experience that he should have.

But it should also be known that this is a recurring problem everyday in Nunavik. People commit murders, assaults, rapes, yet they never get the same penalties as other criminals do. Why?

Because they are poor Inuit and they don't know any better. That is the answer we get from the court officials! Personally, I can't accept that. I strongly believe that the only way to bring crime rates down is to give everyone, including Inuit, the same punishments for the crimes they commit. How do the courts expect people to learn from their lessons when all they receive as a lesson is a piece of paper telling them not to do it again? Every criminal in Nunavik knows that if they get this piece of paper, they can keep getting away with their crimes again and again.

My cousin's heart was always in the right place in life and in death. It was one of his wishes, he once told his mother, to donate whatever organs he can when he died. Today, three people are alive because of Aloupa's generosity. So I am sure that his heart is in the right place even today.

Aloupa is no longer with us. His daughter will never see her father again. A young man who is violent and has serious problems took him away. This young man, Elijah Snowball, will be reunited with his son and family in eight and a half years. Aloupa will never be given back to us.

And the only person to blame for this is the justice system in Nunavik. The system is corrupt. The government doesn't want to pay for "poor Inuit" to spend time in jail, so as a solution to this problem, they let the criminals get away with their crimes, or shift the responsibility towards the community.

The police officers in Nunavik have a work over-load, and the justice system does absolutely nothing to help them. People are arrested for their crimes, yet they get released, only to be out committing crimes again, a few days later. What's the point of arresting them? They're going to be released anyway.

Perhaps it's time for the justice system to be examined and corrected! Or maybe they should get rid of the Crown attorneys in Nunavik and hire new, more competent people, who want to do their job properly. The KRPF chief does a lot to get better working conditions for his police officers, but the way the criminals are being treated - like kings and queens - makes his job seem so much harder.

I lost a cousin, and the rest of Nunavik lost a son, father, loved one, and friend. Writing this letter may not get us anywhere, but at least the world can know the truth about the way things are done in Nunavik.

Julie Grenier
Dorval

---

May 14, 2004

A message of consolation

To the parents and those of you who have lost a friend to suicide:

Writing this letter is not easy for me. It took courage to compose these words. I'm writing not for me. I'm writing this letter to the parents who lost their loved one to suicide. I am also writing this letter to those of you who lost a friend to suicide.

I know it's hard for the parents to lose their loved ones, but it can be prevented by talking to their teenagers and having a public meeting with teenagers.

As I said at the beginning of this letter, it wasn't easy for me to write about this because I lost my close friend from suicide a few weeks ago.

Suicide must stop.

My deepest sympathy to parents who lost their loved ones by suicide - all that is left is the good memories that you had, and you two will meet again some day, and there will be good times again.

To everyone all over Nunavut: let's be stronger and stop suicide from happening and let's talk about suicide with teenagers.

Suicide stops here. Our teenagers are our future.

Tommy Taylor Dialla
Pangnirtung

Sakku borrowed only $1.1 million

This is regarding the letter from Johny Mike "KIA business in bad shape," published April 16, 2004.

I wish to comment upon the Mike letter, as I was the president and CEO of Sakku Investments Corp. during much of the period referred to in his letter.

It appears Mr. Mike is either not fully informed of events regarding the Sakku Corp.'s troubled past, or he may have misunderstood what approvals and actions transpired in 2001 regarding help to Sakku.

In the summer of 2001, an interim advance, in the form of loan assistance, pending the results of a full review of Sakku's needs, was approved by the NTI board of directors. This loan was never executed or taken out by Sakku because they wanted a full review completed before any assistance was given. No Inuit money was used.

In the fall of 2001, the NTI board and its annual general meeting approved a loan for Sakku, via KIA, in an amount of $2.2 million, to be drawn in two approximately equal payments, with very strong accountability and audit features built into the loans.

After the first draw of about $1.1 million and a few months of good operational results, it was determined by the Sakku board that the financial turn-around anticipated was in fact complete, and there was no need for the second loan-draw of about $1.1 million. They advised KIA and NTI accordingly.

The "bail-out" as referred to by Mr. Mike and his calculations supposedly totals some $2.9 million of Inuit money.

In fact, only a $1.1 million loan was drawn down to be repaid, together with interest, with the first loan payment to commence in December 2003.

The reference made by Mr. Mike that "an auditing firm found it unable to audit the KIA investment corporation books" is unknown to this writer.

I know that when I went to work at Sakku in late 2000 there was a late audit, which was completed within six weeks of my arrival, and I can safely attest that each of the subsequent audits during my stewardship of Sakku were completed even before the KIA's books, and in some instances before the KIA audit even had begun.

Finally, as to the dismissal of the Sakku board of directors, by KIA, in September 2002, I concur with Mr. Mike that the reasons for that action by KIA are yet unexplained by the KIA, and it is up to the Kivalliq beneficiaries to seek a reasonable explanation.

I hope this clarifies what can be seen as badly misunderstood facts, or use of Inuit money, let alone the political motives contained in the letter.

Paul Landry
Winnipeg

Too much apathy for self-government in Nunavik?

This is to voice a rightful opinion in the face of the ratification of the political accord to form a government in Nunavik.

Although Inuit of the region claim they are ready and that there exist structures that have proven their worth, my conscience questions whether they are aware of the non-existence of a health committee and a community wellness coordinator, as well as a landholding corporation in this village.

We don't have a local council of elders either. We suffer from the disintegration of the recreation committee and the arena committee. At times, the youth committee barely functions. To top it off, the last two municipal elections have barely produced an effective council.

This is not to say our people are not interested in such government matters. However, if today's functions are regarded as excellent track records, we may have difficulty getting effective politicians into the Nunavik Assembly.

What are the reasons for this apparent apathy?

People have suggested that the community's small population simply cannot handle the need for so many different committee members. Indeed we see many people wearing many hats. Others have suggested the honoraria are so small, or non-existent, that it isn't worth becoming a director, councillor, or member of any committee.

The absence of committees has dire consequences. The arena gets vandalized to the point of being useless. Important health issues aren't known and community members become ignorant of them through no fault of their own.

We have a terrible time in keeping accurate records of community members. Employees do extra work they are not required to do.

It's something of a miracle that the community does function as it does at all. That is no thanks to those leaders that come back from meetings from somewhere and then don't share the important issues that were discussed.

The prediction is simple: the Nunavik Assembly will not serve this community as effectively because its representatives will not have much to represent. The local resources are too few or do not exist.

Adamie Kalingo
Ivujivik

GN should help supply soapstone to artists

Soapstone is the lifeblood of a large number of Inuit artists. Without soapstone, many people will be unable to make a living, and families will suffer when the steady flow of cash ceases.

Hundreds of Inuit make their living carving. It is the only industry that makes up the economic base for most communities in Nunavut. Many talented and renowned artists have achieved world recognition with their marvelous art. Without a steady supply of good quality stone, they can't make a living.

In my nearly 50 years as a resident of Iqaluit, I have heard countless arguments over the issue of stone for the artists. In the late 1950s, Ottawa did ship tons of stone to Iqaluit, although it was a soft grey material, not really suitable for carving. At least they recognized the importance of stone to keep people off welfare.

What is needed now is a policy by this fledgling government to support the Inuit artist in a practical and sensible manner, to make it easier for sculptors to access a steady supply of stone.

I am not suggesting a free hand-out.

Currently, a private entrepreneur who owns a vessel makes voyages in the summer to mine soapstone. Without his commitment to the artists, the situation would be much worse. He sells the stone at a reasonable price, which covers his costs and a little profit. In many cases, he grubstakes those who don't have the cash to pay up front. He is obliged to carry a huge inventory all year and supports a lot of people.

Surely, a joint venture between the private sector and the government is needed to help subsidize the cost of gathering the stone. The current price for stone is about $2.50 a pound. Much of the stone is lost in the carving process, so this makes for an expensive commodity.

Some thought should be given to the question of marketing the finished products. As we know, the artists, for the most part, are obliged to hawk their wares door-to-door. A facility is needed where artists could carve and sell their work in a sheltered environment. Many are forced to sit outside at 20 below with the wind howling. Producing a work of art in those conditions is very difficult.

These local artists are not organized. They are not vocal and they don't lobby the Nunavut government. I believe they do have a legitimate cause and should be considered as an important asset. Their work is renowned throughout the world, and the Government of Nunavut must acknowledge their importance.

Bryan Pearson
Iqaluit

Is the Baffin Fisheries Coalition ignoring Inuit interests?

I have read with interest your recent coverage regarding the Baffin Fisheries Coalition.

I would like to put forward my comments about the BFC as I have come to know BFC from my dealings with it and its CEO, Mr. Jerry Ward, over the past three years.

In 2001 after it was determined that there was sufficient biomass of turbot in the Davis Strait, DFO allocated a quota of 2,500 metric tonnes (mt) to the Nunavut Wildlife Management Board and entrusted the NWMB to, in turn, allocate this quota to Nunavut fishing interests.

The NWMB allocated the entire quota in 2001 to BFC, since BFC with its 11 members (HTOs and others), represented the entire Inuit fishing interest in Nunavut at the time. As this quota is so far north and as there are no fish plants on Baffin Island (except the plant in Pangnirtung) to land fresh fish for processing, the quota had to be caught by freezer fishing vessels.

BFC then called for proposals from Canadian fishing vessel owners to fish this quota, in return for paying BFC a royalty (fee per tonne) for every tonne caught. When BFC realized in the fall that the Canadian vessels would not catch all of this quota, BFC approached us and asked if we could help.

We did and arranged for three foreign trawlers to fish this quota and we were successful in catching 70 per cent of the quota caught that year. In addition we paid the BFC over $500,000 in royalties.

In 2002 we made a proposal to harvest turbot in this same area (0A), again using foreign trawlers, but were told by BFC that no foreign vessels would be allowed to fish in these Canadian waters in 2002 and future years.

We were also told that BFC had attracted enough Canadian vessels to catch the entire quota (4,000 mt in 2002). We advised BFC through Mr. Ward that we intended to incorporate a Nunavut company and purchase a trawler (one of the foreign vessels that fished so successfully in 2001) and bring the vessel into Canada and fully Canadianize it and register it in Iqaluit, for the explicit purpose of catching part of this quota each year.

We advised that we expected to have our Iqaluit vessel ready to fish by late 2002. In the fall of 2002, when BFC realized that the Canadian vessels were again not going to catch the entire quota, BFC asked for and received permission from DFO to bring in three foreign fishing vessels to help catch the quota.

BFC did not contact us even though we were then a Nunavut company, to ask if our vessel (still then foreign-registered, but in the process of being Canadianized and a vessel with a sucessful history of fishing turbot in area 0A) was available.

Instead BFC arranged the foreign vessels through another Newfoundland company.

BFC through Mr. Ward called for proposals for the 2003 fishing season by advertising in Newfoundland newspapers… he did not advertise in Nunavut newspapers, and when I asked him why he did not advertise his Call for Proposals in Nunavut publications, his reply was: "nobody down there (Nunavut) would be interested in submitting a proposal."

We again made a proposal to Mr. Ward of BFC for 2003 but this time our proposal included using our newly acquired Iqaluit-registered Canadian trawler "Tuktu."

Mr. Ward did not even respond to our proposal… we can only presume that he threw it in the waste basket. Again BFC entered agreements with southern companies and foreign companies, with foreign vessels, arranged by this same southern company. Again DFO approved the use of these foreign vessels when DFO knew, full well, that our Iqaluit vessel was ready and available.

Note that more importantly, in 2003, other Inuit interests applied for quota and their applications were ignored as well.

As we understand it, it is the mandate of the coalition's CEO, Mr. Ward to get the best deal (most royalty revenue) for BFC.

Why then did BFC not respond to our proposal? Why did they refuse to negotiate with us? We might have been willing to pay BFC a higher royalty then the others he choose to deal with!

On February 7, 2004 BFC again called for proposals (for turbot in 0A) and again we submitted a proposal. Again it was ignored, in that BFC has not to this point come back to us with their indication to negotiate our proposal.

Now the 2004 fishing season is almost upon us and we have heard through the grapevine that BFC has entered into three separate long-term agreements with this same Newfoundland company (Newfound Resources Ltd.), whereby Newfound Resources will be involved in all three companies with which BFC has entered into agreement, for the entire 4,000 mt. quota of turbot in area 0A.

Again Inuit fishing interests have been ignored and non-Inuit Nunavut companies have been ignored... all in favour of a southern company. "Something is rotten in Denmark!"

What is also troubling is the fact (as I understand it today) that all of the HTOs (except Pond Inlet) have given notice that they are pulling out of BFC later this month (May).

The NWMB is aware of this, yet they still are assigning the entire 4,000 mt. quota to BFC, which now no longer represents the Inuit fishing interests of Nunavut. So now the Inuit interests are being ignored in favour of BFC, which no longer represents all Inuit fishing interests, and the BFC has indicated that it intends to assign the entire quota to southern interests, in return to royalties and a few token jobs on board the southern fishing vessels.

In summary, NWMB, through BFC, are denying Inuit fishing interests access to their own resource. Secondly, the NWMB, through BFC, is denying non-Inuit Nunavut companies access to a Nunavut resource. But the NWMB, through the BFC, is allowing access to this Nunavut resource to southern fishing companies and foreign fishing companies.

I understand that Mr. Ward is quoted as saying something to the effect that "we must stop the control of Nunavut's fishery by colonial southern interests." Mr. Ward appears to be the greatest colonial interest of all!

Where is the justice here for the Inuit of Nunavut and the non-Inuit Nunavut interests which have invested heavily in the fishing industry, with the objective of participating in the harvesting of this Nunavut natural resource?

What is more astounding to me is that these very non-transparent arrangements between BFC and a Newfoundland company are allowed to continue, unchecked. This appears to me to have similarities to the sponsorship scandal… in that the federal government assigns resources (money or fish quotas) to a supposedly trusted group and then does not follow-up and oversee the workings and the implementation of their assigned resource.

By such an arrangement the process is possibly quite open to abuse.

Because of the Senate's concern about the fishery in Nunavut, the Senate recently appointed a committee and launched an investigation to specifically determine the benefits of these quotas to the Inuit people and the communities of Nunavut.

The committee discovered and concluded that this Inuit resource is not benefitting the Inuit of Nunavut as it should be and the Inuit's own resource is being transferred from one organization (BFC), to another (southern) without check and without proper tender procedures and without taking Inuit concerns into consideration.

Will the people of Nunavut and their representatives allow this to continue? Only time will tell.

John Andrews
Arctic Harvesters Inc.
St. John's, Nfld.

Editor's note: Readers may find a copy of the Senate fisheries committee's recent report on the Nunavut fishery at this URL. The recommendations are controversial, and not everyone in Nunavut agrees with them: http://www.parl.gc.ca/37/3/parlbus/commbus/senate/com-e/fish-e/rep-e/01apr04-e.pdf

Hans Island belongs to Canadian Inuit

Mr. Kenn Harper's commentary, "Hans Island rightfully belongs to Greenland/ Denmark," was inconsequential, but requires a reply for it was offending and insulting, and comes short of being treasonable, if it isn't so.

Mr. Harper, you are absolutely right that the U.S. traded northern Greenland plus $25 million for the Virgin Islands. Sorry to tell you, that's all the trade was about, just for northern Greenland, no mention of any other islands.

"With that, Denmark extended its sovereignty to all of Greenland. And it has always assumed that Hans Island is part of Greenland." Well, the Danish government can keep dwelling on that assumption for all I care.

And how dare you say, "Canada cannot claim the island on the basis of historic use by Canadian Inuit?" In 1953 and 1955, the federal government of Canada, in a coercive manner, relocated the Amagoaliks, Flaherty's, Nungaqs, Ekalooks, Audlaluks and Sudluviniks, to name a few families from the then-Port Harrison area. And the families of the Idlouts, Kalluks, Akeeagoks, to name a few, from the Pond Inlet area to Resolute Bay.

You failed to mention any of these great Inuit Canadian pioneers who successfully survived, lived, defended and asserted claim of all the High Arctic islands, known as the Queen Elizabeth Islands, including Hans Island, for "Crown and country."

When the first of these great Inuit patriots in 1953 touched the ground of any of these High Arctic islands, that, in itself, became the new basis of historic use by Canadian Inuit, and I dare anyone to tell me otherwise.

If we let one nation take a piece of Nunavut, will not other nations want a piece of the action?

Ross Pudluk
Resolute Bay

Pita Aatami was respectful to Mary Simon

I want to respond to the letter from Sarah Airo of Kuujjuaq that appeared in the April 2, 2004 issue of your newspaper.

I listened to some of the radio-broadcasted portions of Makivik Corporation's annual general meeting, and I too heard the exchange that Ms. Airo refers to, between Makivik's president, Pita Aatami, and Mary Simon, who was running for the seat of vice-president responsible for economic development.

I beg to differ in my reaction to it and in my opinion on the matters she raises in her letter.

First of all: of course it is not in the Inuit tradition to be unwelcoming towards other Inuit. That is a fact.

However, that is not what happened to Mary Simon when she had questions for the Nunavik negotiators at the Makivik AGM. In fact, Mary, in her reaction, obviously perceived that that was what happened and it quickly became evident that she felt she needed to go on the defensive.

I feel that the negotiators, Minnie Grey, Harry Tulugak and Maggie Emudluk, would have had no choice but to allow Pita Aatami, or any other executive member for that matter, to answer self-government questions if Pita feels compelled to do so. He is, after all, the president of the corporation and they work for the corporation. In other words, he is their boss.

I, personally, have not ever heard any elected representative accusing anyone of not wanting self-government. What I have heard are elected representatives telling concerned citizens that they should try and hear the message that they are trying to convey to them instead of insisting on being negative before understanding the entire message.

How do we know everyone will vote at the end? The question, "Do we want self-government?" has already been asked and answered. Makivik, and the Northern Quebec Inuit Association before it, have been striving for it all along. In fact, they have only been trying to replace what was so wrongfully taken from the Inuit not much more than a century ago - self-determination.

Who is talking of surrendering rights once again? That road was already taken. What Makivik is trying to do is exactly to achieve a form of government that welcomes Inuit concerns, comments, discussions and debates.

I, for one, was shocked when Mary Simon, who was a candidate for a position on the Makivik executive and not holding a seat at the table, responded in the manner in which she did to the chair of the meeting, Pita Aatami. He commented on the fact that Mary has not been a resident of Nunavik for many years and he could understand that because of that fact why she would feel compelled to ask the questions she was asking. That was all he said.

Actually, Nunavik Governor Tommy Cain did intervene at that point and told both Pita and Mary that they should remember to keep their comments in perspective.

I don't see how that this showed that the president did not support or respect Mary in running or being elected. Actually, the president has absolutely no say about any eligible candidate running for or being elected to any position. That "say" belongs to the electorate. I also don't see how the exchange interfered with the process.

Actually, that Pita did congratulate Mary for her efforts and accomplishments was gracious on his part, under the circumstances. I don't think that Mary was not welcome anymore; she just lost her election, that's all.

Many comments, and some worse than others, have been made to the president, I'm sure, but again it all comes back to the nature of Qallunaat-originated processes coming into play with traditional Inuit ways, you know?

Kudos, where it's due, to Mary for everything she has achieved and everything she has done for Nunavik. I don't think Mary intended to intimidate. I don't think anyone was intimidated either.

It is unfortunate that Mary got so upset by Pita's comments. Everything he said had validity. It was a little disappointing, even unnerving, to listen to someone with such credibility respond or react in such a manner.

There is no existing way to measure experience. Each person's is unique to themselves. Measuring accomplishments, well, that again is an exercise that does not come naturally with the Inuit since Inuit have not traditionally done such measurements in that way.

I am sorry for your disappointment, since she has done tremendous work. The fact that she is a woman and has dedicated her whole life to Inuit all over the north should not discredit the dedication of all the men who have done the same.

If Mary losing her election has cost us the chance to see what she has to offer us then does that mean that a woman of her credentials will not or cannot find other ways to contribute to or serve for the betterment of the lives of her fellow Inuit?

(Name withheld by request)
Kuujjuaq

TOP

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

More Information