Current ads
Jobs
Tenders
Notices
General

Click below

February 18, 2005

On cruise control

The numerous cruise ships that ply the waters of the Canadian Arctic every summer have persuaded a growing number of affluent tourists to part with large amounts of cash, producing a growing and thriving business for those who own or lease them.

But very little of that cash ends up in the hands of Inuit, who are often unable to make any money from the well-heeled tourists who suddenly show up when cruise ships drop anchor in front of their communities.

The Makivik Corp. has come up with an idea that they think will change all that. On behalf of the Inuit of Nunavik, they’re gone into the cruise business themselves.

Together with Dugald Wells, an Arctic cruise industry veteran, they’ve created a subsidiary called Cruise North Expeditions. The company will lease a small, 66-passenger vessel and launch a series of eight scheduled Arctic cruises this summer.

To make their business more competitive, Makivik is using its 100-per-cent ownership of First Air to beat down their price and make their cruises affordable for larger numbers of customers. Their prices start at $2,490 for a combined seven-day air-sea package. Customers would fly to Kuujjuaq on First Air, board the ship, take their sea-voyage, then fly back to the South after the ship returns to Kuujjuaq.

Even better, Cruise North Expeditions will work with communities to include them in the economic activity that cruise-ship tourists will generate.

If it works, this will provide benefits not only to the Inuit of Nunavik, but also to people in Nunavut. Though their ports of call include many Nunavik communities, their ship will also put in at Kimmirut, Cape Dorset and Pangnirtung. All three of those communities have much to offer tourists, and much to gain from a well-organized approach to tourism.

Those in Nunavut who still believe the territory might one day be able to build a tourism industry ought to take a close look at what Makivik is doing.

Because in addition to the aforementioned benefits, Makivik’s foray into the cruise ship business represents something that Nunavut does not get: investment. Nunavut desperately needs private and public investors willing to put money into the creation of products and services that will give travellers things to do and places to go, along with the services of trained people who know what they’re doing.

Right now, Nunavut does not have a tourism industry, and government officials should stop pretending that there is one. The most popular tourism attraction in Nunavut, Auyittuq National Park, brings just over 400 people a year. Other destinations receive even fewer visitors, not enough to be worthy of the term “industry.”

The vast majority of people who travel to, and within, Nunavut are not tourists. They’re bureaucrats and business people who travel because somebody orders them to travel and pays their way. Or they’re Nunavut residents who travel within Nunavut. In Iqaluit, one tourism operator told us that the majority of his customers last summer were local residents.

A tourist is a person who spends his or her own money to travel for pleasure, or education. Nunavut gets very few visitors who come for those reasons. Only more investment — which these days means private investment — will change that. Most other Arctic jurisdictions, such as Alaska, Yukon, Iceland and Finland spend many tens of millions of dollars a year just on marketing, and tens of millions more on the development of hotels, lodges and attractions. And there’s a pay-off. Tourists who flock to those places are counted in the thousands and in the tens of thousands, not in the hundreds.

Makvik’s creation of Cruise North Expeditions is a modest first step. But it’s a first step in the right direction. Nunavut’s business and political leaders should pay attention. JB

February 11, 2005

Vote your conscience, Nancy

In a thoughtful interview on CBC radio last week, Nancy Karetak-Lindell, the MP for Nunavut, carefully set out the issues she must sort through before deciding whether to vote yes or no to a new federal bill that would legalize same-sex civil marriages.

Irwin Cotler, the federal justice minister, unveiled the bill on Feb. 1, when it received first reading in the House of Commons. It will now go to second reading, and then to a standing committee for discussion. After that, it will come back to the house for third reading, possibly in June.

The bill is simple. It says that “marriage, for civil purposes, is the lawful union of two persons to the exclusion of all others.”

And it contains words stating that no religious official is forced to perform a marriage between two people of the same sex, if to do so would be contrary to their beliefs.

Since freedom of religion is already guaranteed by the Charter of Rights, those words are probably redundant. On Dec. 9, 2004, the Supreme Court found the federal government has the authority to redefine marriage to include same-sex couples, but also said religious officials cannot be compelled to perform marriages that are contrary to their beliefs.

Those words do, however, help to clarify the government’s intent: define civil marriage to include partners of the same sex, while asserting the right of religious groups to define religious marriage in accordance with their various doctrines.

During the interview, Karetak-Lindell said she has not decided how she will vote on the bill. Given that it was introduced only 10 days ago, that’s fair enough. A wise politician knows how and when to keep his or her options open.

But sooner or later, she’ll have to decide. And no one will decide for her. Unlike her experience during many other House of Commons votes, she will be free to make this decision on her own.

That’s because her party leader, Paul Martin, is insisting only cabinet ministers must vote with the government on the marriage bill. All other Liberal members, including Karetak-Lindell, are free to vote as they please.

Martin’s predecessor, Jean Chrétien, never gave his caucus that kind of freedom. Just ask Jack Anawak, who was vilified in Nunavut for voting in favour of the Chrétien government’s hated gun control bill. Had he voted otherwise, Anawak would have lost his parliamentary secretary job and been kicked out of the Liberal caucus.

Thankfully, Nunavut’s MP doesn’t have to worry about that kind of coercion. So if she is entirely free to vote as she wishes, how should she cast her vote on the civil marriage bill? How can she best carry out her duty to her constituents?

Our answer is this: she should do precisely what her party leader has allowed her to do: vote according to her conscience.

By “conscience,” we mean her own best judgment of what is good for the country, based on what she knows and believes. In making this decision, Karetak-Lindell must act as a trustee for the public good, not a mere delegate. Her greatest obligation to her constituents is to give them her best judgement.

So if Nunavut’s MP believes, in her best judgment, that the civil marriage bill is not good for the country, she must vote against it. If she believes, in her best judgment, that it is good for the country, then she must vote for it.

This means, of course, that she cannot rely on her constituents to make the decision for her. By all means, she should listen to them. But in the end, Karetak-Lindell must not allow her constituents to dictate her vote. As a trustee of the public good, her vote is hers, not theirs. JB

February 4, 2005

A different kind of fishing derby

Based on what members of Qikiqtarjuaq's Nattivak Hunters and Trappers Association had to say afterward, it's fair to say that a recent "peace mission" to their community, led by Nunavut Tunngavik Inc. and the Baffin Fisheries Coalition, was a failure.

The purpose of the trip was to persuade the group to climb back aboard the Baffin Fisheries Coalition. Though Nattivak says their board won't make a final decision until after they look at nine options that the BFC gave them, it looks highly unlikely that they will come back.

If you have any doubt about that assertion, just consider this excerpt from a letter that Nattivak sent to Nunatsiaq News this week.

"This is our fish and Inuit need to protect it from interests like the BFC who want to take as much as they can and leave us eventually with nothing. Sadly, this has been the history for Inuit for years and we need to take a stand and stop it now..."

This is an astounding statement. And for those who still believe in the promise of the Nunavut land claim agreement, and in the legitimacy of its institutions, it ought to be an alarming one.

Follow their logic to its inevitable conclusion. The hunters of Qikiqtarjuaq have, in effect, taken a good hard look at the institutions of the Nunavut land claim agreement and decided that, in the case of the BFC, those institutions are conspiring to do lasting damage to the economic interests of Inuit. They say the BFC is a force from which the Inuit need protection: "This is our fish and Inuit need to protect it from interests like the BFC..."

The Baffin Fisheries Coalition isn't some heartless corporation run by Bay Street bankers and stock promoters. It's a creation of three organizations that owe their existence to the Nunavut land claims agreement: Nunavut Tunngavik Inc., the Nunavut Wildlife Management Board, and the Government of Nunavut.

NTI, of course, is the voice of Nunavut Inuit. The NWMB is supposed to give Inuit a voice in wildlife conservation that is equal to that of government. The GN represents majority-rule self-government for Inuit; it guarantees that Inuit voters may elect an overwhelming majority of those who govern them.

Together, these three organizations fostered the creation of the Baffin Fisheries Coalition about four years ago, through an informal "fisheries working group." This is not an unreasonable thing to do. All three bodies are supposed to provide Inuit with forms of political and economic power they did not have before the signing of the land claim agreement. It's in that spirit that they threw their support behind the BFC.

At least, that's the theory. But the hunters of Qikiqtarjuaq, or a majority at least, aren't buying what the land claim elite are trying to sell them.

And if you stand back and try to look at the issue through their eyes, you can't blame them. They honestly believe that the net-dragging trawlers used by the BFC and other companies will one day destroy the turbot stocks of Davis Strait, in the same way that industrial fishing techniques destroyed Newfoundland's cod fishery. And they honestly believe that their way, using longliners instead of trawlers, is better for the environment and will give them more jobs.

Right now, it's impossible to say whether the Masiliit deal will work. Many brave new business ventures, begun with the best of intentions, often fail in northern Canada. Then again, there's no guarantee that the BFC will survive either.

But all this creates a big problem for NTI and the GN, who have put a lot of hard work into fighting the federal government for a bigger share of fishing quotas in waters adjacent to Nunavut. It's no wonder that Paul Kaludjak, the president of NTI, takes the issue so seriously, and led a fairly large group of officials into Qikiqtarjuaq last month.

Unfortunately for them, however, the hunters of Qikiqtarjuaq appear unwilling to go back on their plan to go it alone. That fact alone will make it much harder for NTI and the GN to convince Ottawa officials that Nunavut's officially sanctioned fishing company, the BFC, is handling Nunavut's quota well. JB

TOP

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

More Information