Current ads
Jobs
Tenders
Notices
General

Click below

Northern Canada will miss Clarkson

Governor General Adrienne Clarkson's recent visit to Nunavut is likely to be her last as Canada's head of state.

Her term, which began in October of 1999, has already been extended and will soon expire. A new Governor General is expected to be appointed in the fall of this year.

For residents of Nunavut, Nunavik and Canada's other Arctic regions, Clarkson will be missed. No other Governor General has visited Canada's north as often as she has, and no other Governor General has given as much recognition to the people of Canada's north, and to the other circumpolar countries with which we have so much in common.

As the head of state, and the Queen's representative in Canada, it's part of the Governor General's job to affirm the nation's identity. For Clarkson, that means all of Canada, as she demonstrated in March of 2001, when she visited Nunavik, the first Governor General to do so, and said this to the people of Kuujjuaq: "You are included in the psyche of Canada, and the Governor General is here to say you are."

Clarkson, who also served as patron to the Inuit Circumpolar Conference's 25th anniversary celebrations in Kuujjuaq, held in August of 2002, has carried the same message to the Northwest Territories, the western parts of Nunavut, and other places that don't get much recognition in southern Canada.

But many of her critics never got the point.

In October of 2003, when she led a group of 57 Canadians, including about half a dozen northern residents, on a tour of Iceland, Finland and Russia, many members of Parliament, numerous southern media commentators, and many Canadians balked at the $1 million cost. Members of the House of Commons also raised questions about the budget for the Governor General's office, which at the time stood at about $19 million a year, up from $11 million in 1999. She was also involved in activities funded by other government departments, such as foreign affairs, that cost another $20 million.

As a result, the second leg of Clarkson's circumpolar tour, which would have taken her to Norway, Sweden, Denmark and Greenland in 2004, was cancelled.

That's unfortunate. No one ever considered, apparently, the idea of reducing the scale of the tour, or reducing the number of participants to cut costs. Of course, few people in southern Canada gave any thought anyway to the value of closer economic and cultural ties between Canada and other northern countries.

But it helps to reveal the parochialism and shortsightedness that has led to Greenland, our closest circumpolar neighbour, now enjoying closer ties with the United States than with Nunavut and the rest of Canada. Thanks to a recent agreement between Greenland and the U.S. government, numerous cultural and economic exchanges are taking place between the two countries, many of them paid for by U.S. taxpayers - who aren't complaining at all.

Clarkson's circumpolar tour may have carried a big price tag - but there's also a price to be paid for narrow thinking. Besides, the federal government spends many hundreds of millions of dollars a year on numerous programs that receive no publicity, or any effective public scrutiny. When compared with the federal government's $150 billion annual budget, the $19 million that goes to the Governor General's office every year amounts to a rounding error on an interest payment. As for her salary, the Governor General is paid $110,126 a year - much less than most top public officials in Nunavut, many of whom have mismanaged their organizations into total dysfunction and are rarely held accountable.

Despite what many southerners may believe, northern Canadians received full value from Adrienne Clarkson. JB

NWB's top job pays only $97,000

From the information you were provided recently regarding the affairs of the Nunavut Planning Commission, you derive, in your June 10, 2005 editorial, conclusions on the other institutions of public government.

For example, you state that "the highly-touted board system at the heart of that lie now smells like a whorehouse on a Sunday morning," and "Nunavut's public government management boards may be so disempowered, they don't even have the legal right to control their own employees."

While I am certainly not privy to the situation with the Nunavut Planning Commission and have no authority to comment on it, I am compelled to provide some clarification on the Nunavut Water Board (NWB) - one of several Institutions of Public Government created pursuant to the Nunavut Land Claims Agreement.

In its almost 10 years of existence, the NWB has been actively promoting and implementing a water licensing process that meets the highest degree of transparency and accountability, while being efficient, predictable, timely and fair to all parties.

As per its implementing legislation, Board decisions are final and can only be set aside by the Federal Court of Canada. While the Minister of Indian and Northern Affairs Canada (INAC) approves all "type A" licenses - these are licenses for large projects such as the Jericho Diamond Mine, for example - issued by the NWB, he does not have any authority to change any term or condition imposed by the Board.

If the Minister rejects a type A licence issued by the Board, he must provide written reasons and can only ask the NWB to reconsider its decision. Most licenses issued by the NWB are Type B, over which the Minister of INAC has no authority. Once devolution eventually occurs, the powers of the Minister of INAC will be delegated to the Government of Nunavut, but the NWB will remain self-governing.

The NWB is far from being disempowered when it comes to managing its affairs. The NWB may employ officers and employees and engage the services of advisers and experts as are necessary for the proper conduct of its business, and may fix the terms and conditions of their employment or engagement and pay their remuneration.

The NWB has put in place policies and procedures governing its administration, together with a code of conduct and ethics largely based on national guidelines. On the financial administration side, the NWB meets or exceeds all applicable regulations, policies or guidelines, as demonstrated in its annual audits performed by an independent accounting firm.

With respect to the remuneration of its staff, all salary scales mirror those of the federal public service and can be accessed by the public from the Treasury Board of Canada website.

Its highest paid employee, who has two graduate degrees and over 20 years of experience in the field, of which nine are with the NWB, is classified as EX-1 and had a salary of $97,000 in the 2004-05 fiscal period.

As for the remuneration of the Chair, it varies from year to year depending on workload: it reached a total of $85,838 for the same fiscal period.

The Minister of INAC - or any other federal or territorial minister for that matter - has no authority whatsoever over the conditions of employment and remuneration of NWB officers and employees.

Yes, I am very happy to report that, contrary to your editorial, the board system does not "stink like a whorehouse on a Sunday morning," whatever that means. The NWB is well-managed, and is fully accountable to the public.

Philippe di Pizzo
Executive Director
Nunavut Water Board
Gjoa Haven

Editor's note: This letter was edited for length, but we made every effort to retain its key points.

June 10, 2005

A board without power

In the appalling letter that Bob Lyall, the Nunavut Planning Commission's $148,000-a-year chair and CEO, sent to DIAND minister Andy Scott on May 10, the most pitiable sentence, perhaps, is the one that begins with these words:

"Pending further direction from you including whether or not consultation with NTI and GN is appropriate under these circumstances..."

In the fall of 1992, Nunavut's entire political elite, except for one or two people, took part in a one-sided campaign aimed at persuading the Inuit of Nunavut to vote Yes in a referendum to ratify the Nunavut land claims agreement. Under this agreement, the Inuit of Nunavut surrendered about 82 per cent of their land to the federal government.

In exchange, they received all the things listed in the land claims agreement. That includes a system of environmental management boards called "institutions of public government," such as the Nunavut Wildlife Management Board and the Nunavut Water Board. The Nunavut Planning Commission is also one of those bodies.

When beneficiaries asked how they would control their land after surrendering it to the federal government, negotiators with the Tungavik Federation of Nunavut told them not to worry. They pointed to the system of environmental management boards, and promised beneficiaries that these boards would give Inuit effective control of Nunavut's entire land base.

We now know that this promise was a lie. Thirteen years later, the highly-touted board system at the heart of that lie now smells like a whorehouse on a Sunday morning.

At best, it's a shared management system that allows Inuit, and the public, to be consulted on some issues. At the very worst, it's a system that surrenders effective control of the entire land base, for most environmental issues, to the federal government. The DIAND minister, the federal fisheries minister, other federal cabinet ministers, and sometimes territorial ministers hold veto rights over all management board recommendations. And regardless of who submits their names, it's the federal government, and no one else, that appoints all members of these public government boards.

This explains why Lyall addresses Andy Scott, the DIAND minister, with the sort of words that a junior employee would use to address his boss - seeking "direction." They're the words of a subjugated person addressing his colonial master.

It also explains why he suggests that it's Scott who should decide all on his own if the GN and NTI should be consulted. As co-partners in the Nunavut land claims agreement, we would expect that GN and NTI will be less than pleased about this.

Worst of all, Lyall's May 10 letter to the DIAND minister, and the extreme dysfunction within the NPC, show that Nunavut's public government management boards may be so disempowered, they don't even have the legal right to control their own employees.

In all organizations, whether public or private, boards are supposed to represent the interests of the organization's stakeholders. Management employees work for the board. To carry out their duties to the stakeholders, board members must be able to request, and receive, all information relevant to the organization's work, especially financial information, including staff salaries and benefits. Boards normally have the right to censure, or dismiss with cause, any employee who does not carry out the board's directions.

The NPC is not a private corporation. It's a public body, and we pay for it through our taxes. The biggest stakeholder in the NPC, therefore, is the Canadian public.

But evidence contained in a variety of documents shows that the NPC's board has not been able to protect the public interest, and not for lack of trying. When they became fully aware of their duties after a workshop this past February, the NPC's board tried to do its job. The evidence shows that management resisted them at nearly every turn.

In a healthy system, a board is able, within the law, to meet, discuss such issues, and then vote to discipline or remove its chair.

But this is a sick system. The chair of the NPC is appointed by the minister of DIAND, not the board. Even though the chair of the NPC appears to have lost the confidence of his board, the board has no legal right to remove him. Lyall has the legal right to prevent the board from meeting. And Lyall even has the legal right to ask his colonial master, Andy Scott, to protect him from a board that is trying to do its duty on behalf of the public, the Inuit of Nunavut, and the GN.

This outrageous situation, could, theoretically, occur in any of the other public government management boards in Nunavut. Given the innate corruptibility of most human beings, it probably will - all because the Inuit of Nunavut voted Yes to a lie. JB

Culture is no excuse for violent crime

LISA KOPERQUALUK and MINNIE GREY

Aukkautik lost his mind and became a violent man, as we hear in the song about Aukkautialuk, whose son was accidentally killed in a hunting trip, resulting in Aukkautik going on a killing rampage.

He was from the Hudson coast of Nunavik, and Inuit of that region heard of him far and wide, and out of fear for their lives immigrated to the Ungava region. This story is known Nunavik-wide, since the elders of the communities today remember their long migration walks as children and remain related to those on the opposite coast.

How to react to violence? Isolate the violent individual, remove him or yourself from the locality of violence, until the person repents or dies. In Aukkautik's case, he was stabbed to death by another Inuk man, Kumainnaq, before he could cause further pain.

Violence in our communities has become a very serious issue, since it is now touching many individuals and causing endless pain and grief. There is an incredible need to reduce, and if possible, eliminate this phenomenon of rising violence in our communities. Very often, victims of violence do not feel justice is served with the justice system that is in place. Even perpetrators are seen to receive light sentences compared to the crimes they commit. Add to that the fact that the justice system originates from a non-Inuit system, which appears to make the doling out of justice in our communities a complex affair.

This complexity was raised by Jean Fortier, a Montreal journalist with the Montreal-based news magazine, Derniere Heure, who, in an article published Sept. 4, 2004, expressed his viewpoint on the challenges of doling out justice in Nunavik.

One of the challenges was that a southern investigator from Montreal must first travel by small airplane to the 14 Inuit communities in Nunavik that each have small airstrips, except Kuujjuaq, and that air travel is often dependent on the weather forecast of the day. There are delays of arrival and departure, but as we know, for those living in the North, this is just part of the day-to-day fact of living in the Arctic.

More important, however, was the other point raised by the journalist: that the investigation of a crime in Nunavik is influenced by cultural tradition. "Conducting an investigation in an Inuit community is not the same as conducting an investigation in a large city. It's an entirely different culture. Their lifestyle and traditions are not the same as ours and they are respectful of their customs."

This was the explanation of how Nuluki Kaitak was charged with involuntary manslaughter in the fatal shooting his of baby sister and that "Before reaching this point, the SQ (Sûreté du Québec), had to respect the requirements of the community."

What does this mean? The requirements of the community reduced the charge to involuntary manslaughter? In this case, what were the requirements of the community? There was no statement explaining what the procedure of "respecting the requirements of the community" was.

Never mind the grief of his mother, in the loss of her child and the violence of her son. Does she not obtain relief? Where will she obtain justice? Is it possible that the community requirements are taken into account but not the individual's, the victim's?

To use cultural difference as an excuse to influence the doling out of justice is an injustice itself and is discriminatory - Inuit do not live in a cultural straitjacket. As if because we are Inuit, we condone violence!

Imagine the murders, the rapes, the children sexually assaulted, the violence, and the perpetrators of all these crimes receiving light sentences year after year after year. What is the result? More and more violence, a very sad culture.

All people, Inuit or not, should face justice for the harm they do to their victims regardless of tradition. Otherwise it is violence that becomes tradition, the epidemic of violence.

Then there is the influence of Christianity. When we as Inuit were Christianized, we were told that "Thou shalt not kill," as one of the commandments of being a Christian, and many Inuit are "Christian." Yet, when a murder has been committed, there are those who insist on forgiving because they are Christian.

We believe that this kind of forgiving is too extreme and is yet another way of reducing the seriousness of a crime such as murder, by "forgiving" the murderer, however unintentional. Forgiving and silence enable violence to continue unchecked in our communities.

Today, we cannot do like Kumainnaq did. But we have seen in our own history: violence is not acceptable. When someone commits a horrible crime, it is not the time to feel sorry for them, and to forgive them. It is time to stop them and to make sure they do not cause harm again.

Editor's note: Lisa Koperqualuk and Minnie Grey are Nunavimmiut who reside in Montreal. As victims of violence, they wrote this guest editorial in response to the recent series of homicides and other violent incidents in Nunavik, and to Derniere Heure.

TOP

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

More Information