June
18, 2004
The voters' choice
It seems likely now that
Conservative leader Stephen Harper will become the next prime minister of Canada,
as the head of a shaky, and perhaps short-lived minority government.
Though much can change
between now and June 28, opinion polls show that Canadians are turning away
in droves from the hapless Paul Martin's scandal-battered Liberal party. In
Quebec, they're flocking to the Bloc, and in Ontario and the West, they're flocking
to the Tories and the NDP. Some people are even choosing the tiny Green party.
These opinion polls suggest
that the Conservatives will win the most seats, but not the 155 they would need
to form a majority within the 308-seat House of Commons. But it's Stephen Harper
who will get to choose the cabinet ministers who will run the many federal departments
and agencies that are crucial to Nunavut's welfare, such as the Department of
Indian and Northern Affairs, the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, the Department
of Finance, the Department of the Environment, Health Canada, Industry Canada,
the Department of Canadian Heritage, and HRDC.
All of those departments
spend money and wield power in Nunavut - and so will the new Conservative cabinet
ministers who Harper will appoint to serve in his government.
This gives Nunavut voters
much to think about.
Since 1993, Liberal party
supporters in Nunavut have offered one compelling reason for electing a Liberal
candidate. Elect a Liberal, they say, and you will have a member with influence
in the governing party. Elect a Liberal, they say, and Nunavut will get things
that we could not get were we represented by an opposition member.
Now that the Liberals are
about to be thrown out, that argument carries no weight - if it ever did.
But does that mean that
Nunavut residents should now vote strategically, and cast their ballots in favour
of Conservative candidate Duncan Cunningham?
As a former administrator
with Inuit organizations and with the Government of Nunavut, Cunningham knows
Nunavut's issues. He's certainly capable of providing a knowledgeable voice
within a Conservative caucus which is anything but knowledgeable.
Cunningham also reminds
us that it was the old Progressive Conservative party that negotiated the agreements
that brought Nunavut into being, while accusing the Liberal government of failing
to carry out the promises that the Tories made on behalf of Canada in 1992 and
1993. So why not vote Tory?
Cunningham, however, does
not acknowledge that his Conservative party is now a very different organization,
dominated by former Reform and Canadian Alliance activists, some of whom question
the very existence of aboriginal rights. Maybe Cunningham can educate his colleagues
- or maybe not.
And the Conservative party's
fiscal policies will not win much support in Nunavut. If Stephen Harper becomes
prime minister, we can forget about getting an economic development agreement
with Ottawa, or more money for social housing.
For Nunavut residents who
consider the Tories to be too great a risk for Nunavut, the other two obvious
choices are the incumbent, Nancy Karetak-Lindell, and the NDP candidate, Bill
Riddell. Those who want to register their displeasure with the Liberal government's
lack of support for social housing and its underfunding of the Nunavut government
may find Riddell the best choice for Nunavut.
But despite her party's
misfortunes nationally, Karetak-Lindell is still the likely front-runner in
Nunavut. For those who feel that in these uncertain times Nunavut needs a seasoned,
Inuktitut-speaking political veteran who knows their way around Parliament Hill,
Karetak-Lindell may be the best choice.
As for the two fringe candidates,
independent Manitok Thompson and Nedd Kenney of the Greens, any ballots cast
for them will be wasted votes - especially if you wish to vote strategically.
Nunavut voters will have
a tough decision to make on June 28. But not as tough as the decision that the
cash-strapped Nunavut government may have to make if the Harper government survives
long enough to bring in its first budget. - JB
June 11, 2004
Extreme disclosures
Premier Paul Okalik and
his seat mates in the legislative assembly set a higher standard not so long
ago for the disclosure of embarrassing information by MLAs and cabinet ministers.
As a result of ex-Speaker
Kevin O'Brien being charged, convicted and fined $215 on a minor Liquor Act
offence without telling anyone about it, MLAs must now report the sordid news
immediately should they, too, run afoul of any law.
Fair enough. It's their
playground. They have the right to say who gets to sit on the swings and who
gets to run whimpering home to mommy. The legislative assembly is a self-regulating
institution, with wide-ranging authority over the conduct of its members, within
the limits set by the Legislative Assembly and Executive Council Act of course.
And even MLAs know that lawmakers shouldn't break the law.
On top of that, Okalik
set an even higher standard of disclosure for senior civil servants, with the
"resignation" of Nora Sanders, the ex-deputy minister of justice.
The talented and widely-respected Sanders got to play scapegoat, apparently
because she didn't tell any elected officials about O'Brien's liquor charge,
though there's little evidence in the public domain to suggest she even knew
about it.
Thankfully, the curtains
have now fallen on Kevin O'Brien's farcical fall from grace. May he live long
and prosper in the kind of wet community he should have lived in all along,
preferably served by a well-stocked beer store.
But guess what? MLAs now
have a new disclosure issue to ponder.
This time, it's Environment
Minister Olayuk Akesuk, the MLA for Baffin South, who's been caught withholding
embarrassing information he's required to make public. Under the Integrity Act,
all newly-elected MLAs and cabinet ministers must write down what they own and
what they owe in a publicly-available disclosure statement, for the sake of
transparency and to avoid conflict of interest.
In a story broadcast earlier
this week, Patricia Bell of CBC Iqaluit reported that Akesuk, in his latest
disclosure statement, failed to mention $10,000 he owes the Cape Dorset Housing
Association.
Akesuk, now a home owner,
has been carrying that debt since before 1999. Shortly after Nunavut's first
election, Akesuk listed it in his first disclosure statement. Nunavut's media
- brutal sadists that we are - made much of it at the time. That likely explains
the reason he gave for withholding the information this time around: to avoid
embarrassment. Give him credit, at least, for being honest.
This, however, creates
a big problem for Okalik, and for the legislative assembly. Having set their
disclosure standards as high as they possibly can, what do they do now with
Akesuk? Boot him out of cabinet? Boot him out of his seat?
After all, Nora Sanders
didn't break any laws, and she lost her job. Why shouldn't Akesuk, who violated
the terms of the Integrity Act, lose his job too? That isn't our logic - it's
the legislative assembly's.
We hope, however, that
this time MLAs display some flexibility. They beat up on Kevin O'Brien long
after it made any sense to do so. His political career was a bloated, decaying
corpse long before they ever got to him. Now it's time to show a touch of human
kindness. And Akesuk, still a young man with a promising career, is a pretty
good cabinet minister by Nunavut standards.
A vote of censure, with
a stern warning attached, ought to suffice. Akesuk should keep his job. JB
June 4, 2004
Have they got the guts?
There's no getting around it: The Nunavut Power Corporation does not receive
enough revenue to cover the rising cost of providing electrical power to Nunavut
residents.
That simple fact is repeated several times in Auditor General Sheila Fraser's
recent Nunavut report, which devotes two chapters to financial bungling within
the NPC and other Crown corporations between 2001 and 2003.
Understandably, the public have focused on what went wrong during those years:
the inaccurate budgeting, the absence of timely financial information, the messed-up
power bills, the cost overruns, and the extravagant bonuses that senior staff
paid themselves.
The Nunavut government, however, is well on its way to fixing those problems.
They've cleared out the senior staff who were in command at the time and replaced
them, they've hired three new financial workers for the corporation's head office,
and they've set up a cabinet committee to keep an eye on Crown corporations.
Despite those improvements, there's something else the power corporation badly
needs - more money.
Nunavut's power rates haven't changed since 1997. Since then, fuel, labour,
and other overhead costs have all risen sharply - so even a well-managed NPC
is set up to lose money right now. In her report, Sheila Fraser says the power
corporation must raise its rates, and also impose a "fuel rider" to
cover the rising costs of the diesel fuel that's burned to generate electricity.
In the last legislative assembly, neither the cabinet nor the regular members
caucus had the guts to support either a fuel rider or a new rate system. Maybe
it was because they were too scared to face the voters in last February's election
after having jacked-up their power bills, or maybe it's because a lack of clear
information kept them from seeing the true state of the corporation's finances.
But will they have the guts now?
If the government were to combine rate increases with subsidies to protect
consumers, including businesses and municipal governments, it could be relatively
painless. Keep in mind that 84 per cent of the money the corporation gets from
selling power is paid either by the territorial government, or by organizations
funded by the government. Businesses and consumers pay the rest - so it should
be possible to come up with a system that protects vulnerable customers from
the shock of higher rates.
If they don't come up with something soon, they may end up presiding over a
spectacular bankruptcy. JB
TOP
| 
Nunavut 99
