Current ads
Jobs
Tenders
Notices
General

Click below

February 17, 2006

The social safety net’s all torn up

Nearly seven years after its creation, the Nunavut government is still spinning its wheels, unable to serve most residents any better than it served them in 1999.

The best evidence for this is to be found in the growing numbers of people who are allowed or encouraged to slip through what passes for a social safety net in Nunavut. The evidence now seems to show that this “safety net” is so full of holes it hardly catches anyone anymore.

Here are some examples:

• Health care: Some Nunavut residents are now discovering that a Nunavut health card isn’t worth much more than a used Nevada ticket. People unlucky enough to acquire health problems that are too expensive or too inconvenient to treat are either cajoled or coerced into becoming residents of other provinces, and in some extreme cases, denied health care altogether. For Inuit beneficiaries, this is a galling experience. It’s no wonder that the Department of Health and Social Services is now one of the Nunavut government’s most hated institutions.

• Housing: We already know that Nunavut’s longstanding shortage of social housing units is a disaster, and we already know that it makes every other social problem worse. What we don’t know is why the GN cannot rearrange its spending priorities to find enough money for a modest construction program of its own. We also don’t know if the much-blathered-about Kelowna arrangements will actually deliver the housing commitments that leaders bragged about so loudly last December. Nearly three months later, no concrete details have been announced.

• Income support: We also know that the cost of living in Nunavut, especially the cost of food, is rising dramatically, driven by rising energy and transportation costs. The GN has increased the food allowance component of its income support system, but not enough to provide anyone with decent nutrition. The food allowance payment for a single person in Iqaluit, for example, is less than $300 a month. At the same time, the GN shamelessly subtracts federal child tax benefit payments from its clients’ welfare cheques. This is a perversion of a federal program intended to help low-income families.

• Adult education: Basic adult upgrading and vocational training are essential pieces of the social safety net, because they give people essential tools to escape poverty. But, as evidenced by a report recently tabled in the legislative assembly, Arctic College has degenerated into a moribund institution, unable to meet the challenges posed by Nunavut’s needy population.

In its early years, the Nunavut government was able to get away with its social policy failings by blaming them on dysfunctional systems inherited from the Northwest Territories, incompetent planning by the Office of the Interim Commissioner, and the federal government’s stinginess.

But those excuses don’t cut it anymore.

Next week, Nunavut’s finance minister is expected to unveil a budget for the 2006-07 fiscal year that’s likely to exceed the $1 billion mark — so it’s obvious that Ottawa’s annual transfers to Nunavut have improved significantly since 1999. And depending on the outcome of an expert panel that is now studying territorial formula funding, those transfers could improve even further in the future.

This raises a question that Nunavut officials, elected and non-elected, have dodged for years: how much is enough?

It also raises more questions: What is the Nunavut government doing with its money? What are its priorities? Is the GN damaging services by carrying too many unproductive but expensive employees? What is the real cost of decentralization?

Yet another question is policy. Despite the unaccountably large number of employees who bear the job title “policy analyst,” the GN is strangely devoid of actual policies. Without coherent policies, and a system for bringing old policies up to date, new money can be frittered away and wasted. And without policies, reptilian bureaucrats get to wing it when difficult issues land on their desks. As we’ve seen, this can produce devastating consequences for their victims, and acute embarrassment for the government.

As might be expected in an immature, poorly-led institution that’s still unable to stand on its on two feet with confidence, the GN is permeated by fear and distrust. It’s a secretive, paranoid government that fears and distrusts its own employees, its clients, the public, the media, and members of the legislative assembly.

Within such a toxic atmosphere, officials are unlikely to take part in honest discussions aimed at creating policies that make sense. It also makes it next to impossible for officials to talk about making hard political choices about where to spend money and where not to spend. Instead, they’ll keep their heads down and do or say whatever it is that suits their erratic political masters.

So if you want to enjoy life in Nunavut for the forseeable future, make sure that you’re employed, affluent and physically healthy. If you’re poor or sick, your best option is to move to Ontario. JB

February 3, 2006

Guest Editorial

Disabled people are helpless in Nunavut

I am writing to explain my situation and describe how I have been struggling for a very long time as a person with a disability.

I lost my strength in April of 1958, and in those days, planes were very slow. I don’t recall anything even when we arrived south. That is how ill I was, I had no escort, because in those days we used to have no escorts when we travelled for medical reasons.

I was in the hospital for two years. I was back in Iqaluit in 1960 and I stayed there for about three more years. Back then, in 1960, Pangnirtung didn’t have any doctors.

Back in those years, from 1960-1997, I used to walk with canes in both arms. But when my doctor got worried about my bones, I started using a wheelchair. I am in a wheelchair now, and it is even harder than before.

I cannot enter any building easily. The only way that I can enter is if they have wheelchair ramps. I cannot go to places when I want to. When you are in this situation, you feel so different that you have to cry your tears away.

It’s even a struggle when I travel on the road in my wheelchair. It is too bumpy and there is snow, so that makes it even harder. It is dangerous too.

For example, in the South, or in Yellowknife, it is very comfortable to go about when you are in a wheelchair. It seems as if you are in a different world, because the roads are so comfortable.

When you are disabled, it is a struggle to use a door, trying to get in and out. In the south, you don’t even have to touch the door to use it.

I am telling you the truth because that is the position I am in right now, that is my living. When I go south, it seems as if I have entered another world altogether. That is what I think, “I am in another world.”

What can we do to be as comfortable here in the Arctic, for those of us who are in wheelchairs? How can the authorities help us disabled people in Nunavut. What can we do to make them believe us?

The Nunavut government should be able to help us to be more contented in our lives. They should assist people with disabilities. People in wheelchairs should be able to get help with transportation.

Another example is that when a person in a wheelchair arrives in Iqaluit, if the person in a wheelchair didn’t go there for hospital and-or medical reasons, he or she is on their own, because there are no means of transportation for disabled people.

There is a vehicle in Iqaluit that can assist people in wheelchairs, but it is only for people going to Iqaluit for medical purposes, but there is not even one taxi that can take people in a wheelchair. When you are taking a cab, even the cab drivers get put off when your wheelchair can’t fit into their cab, because the wheelchair is too big.

I even think, “if I travel to Iqaluit without an escort, without someone to assist me, if I travel alone without bringing someone to push me, and I don’t have anyone during the winter, maybe I am going there to die because I don’t have help with me.” I assume these things will happen to me because Nunavut doesn’t have any means of transportation for people in wheelchairs.

Here in my home town of Pangnirtung, if I go out alone, I am already in death, because without help, I cannot go in my own door by myself and I can’t even go to other houses because I can’t get in alone. We are not getting any support in communities for those of us who have disabilities.

I even assume that people are thinking, “he doesn’t have to be anywhere outside, he can’t even open the door himself, it would be better if he just stayed inside the house all the time.”

I even think that is what the government people think of me, and you can even see it in their faces. When you are disabled, you are very passive and that goes for every disabled person, because they get scared very easily. Even when a person doesn’t speak, you see it in their faces. That is the reason why we need assistance and that is why we voice our concerns as disabled persons. Thank you.

Davidee Arnakak
Pangnirtung

Davidee Arnakak is chair of the Nunavummi Disabilities Makinnasuaqtiit Society.

January 20, 2006

Bathurst caribou decimated by wolves, bears, mines, climate

JOHN KOMAK
Special to Nunatsiaq News

As a former Bathurst Inlet resident, and a hunter and trapper from the area, I can understand why the Bathurst caribou herd has been declining rapidly for the last several years.

During the late 1950s and early 1960s, residents hunted and trapped around the Bathurst Inlet area, where most people hunted and trapped for furs. And they contributed in maintaining healthy numbers of the Bathurst caribou herd. During that time, there was a wolf control program where wolves were hunted year round, and grizzly bears killed for their hides by local Inuit hunters.

Today, there is nobody doing any wolf-hunting in the area, except for a couple of people who still live there. That's why the wolf and grizzly populations have exploded to extremely high levels, which leaves the caribou herd in a state of very high risk.

As a former trapper from the area, I used to go out trapping with my dad around Daniel Moore Bay. I have personally observed the wolf population that follows the Bathurst caribou herd and was surprised how widespread it is.

In the wake of the caribou herd there is not a pack of wolves, but a herd of wolves, following right behind this caribou herd. After the wolves had disappeared towards the caribou, we followed the wolves, and encountered many, many freshly-killed caribou, not even consumed. My late father at that time was nearly killed along with his dog team, by that very large herd of wolves.

A caribou cow only makes one calf per year, but a family of wolves makes a litter of four to six a year, and grizzly bears tend to have one or two cubs a year. An adult wolf probably consumes 30 to 50 caribou a year. Grizzly bears probably consume around 10 to 30 caribou per year.

A family of eight wolves will consume about 400 caribou a year, and when you have a herd of wolves killing caribou in huge amounts, I believe the caribou will be decimated in a very short few years.

My late younger brother used to work at Lupin Gold Mine on Contwoyto Lake several years back when it was in operation, and it is right in the way of the Bathurst caribou herd migration route. He used to tell me that there were many, many dead caribou around the area.

The reason for this is that the mine dumped arsenic trioxide (used for removing gold) right onto the tundra, with no fencing where caribou were drinking the poison. You could see caribou tracks on this poison water and mud and you wonder why caribou are encountering brucellosis in their limbs. There are more mines proposed for the Bathurst Inlet area where there are no plans for the fencing-in of mine waste-water, which will continue to play havoc with the migrating caribou.

The mild weather, raining and re-freezing of snow may have contributed to the decline of caribou as well. Caribou need a lot of food energy to survive the winters, and snow-cover freezing and thawing may contribute to the starvation of many animals. Open waters in rivers also contribute to drowning of caribou on their migrations as well.

In order for the Bathurst caribou herd population to be back to healthy levels, all levels of government, federal and territorial will have to introduce predation control programs for wolves and grizzly bears.

Also, the regulators will have to have stricter regulations where mining companies proposing to open up mines must have fencing programs for their mine waste-water management.

As an elder, I believe if these programs are in place, the Bathurst caribou herd will once again be back to being 500,000 strong.

Editor's note: It's estimated that the Bathurst caribou herd's population declined from 460,000 in 1986, to 186,000 in 2003. John Komak, former Kitikmeot resident who now lives in Yellowknife, used to live in the Bathurst Inlet area.

Nunavut’s non-debate

The five candidates contesting Nunavut in the Jan. 23 federal election took part in a “forum” this week — at least, that’s how the event was billed.

But with one exception, the three-hour exercise was a utter failure for which the candidates themselves must carry most, if not all of the blame. And it’s what the candidates didn’t say, rather than what they did say, that is the most significant.

Here’s a short list of some of the issues that received little or no discussion:

• Global warming and the Kyoto Accord. For the past two years, this has been presented as a life-and-death issue for the people of the Arctic. Since it involves an international treaty, and other forms of multilateral co-operation, it’s an issue on which the federal government must take the lead. Why was Green Party candidate Feliks Kappi the only federal candidate to say anything about it?

• The devolution of federal control over public lands and resources, with a non-renewable resource revenue-sharing agreement between Nunavut and Ottawa. This is not only a step towards financial independence for the Government of Nunavut; it’s a step towards political independence. But our federal candidates have nothing to say about it.

• The failed implementation contract negotiations between Nunavut Tunngavuk Inc. and the federal government. It may be true that some of the administrative issues dividing the two sides are not relevant to most ordinary people, but there’s one issue that is: the NTI-GN proposal to spend $10 to $20 million of federal money on job training for Inuit. Our federal candidates, however, have nothing to say about this issue.

• A deep-sea port for Iqaluit. Iqaluit City Council worked on this idea all last year, vowing to make it a federal election issue. They succeeded, when Conservative leader Stephen Harper announced in late December that a Conservative government would build a deep-sea port in Iqaluit, for military and civilian use. Such a development would benefit the entire Baffin region, especially south Baffin, and give Nunavut an essential piece of infrastructure. But not even the Conservative candidate, David Aglukark, bothered to mention it during this week’s radio debate, held in a room full of Iqaluit voters.

The highlight of the evening, as it were, was a revelation from Bill Riddell, the NDP candidate.

He produced a Revenue Canada document that appears to contain a bombshell — that all Iqaluit workers living in staff housing must now pay income tax on the value of their rent subsidies, as of 2005. If it’s true, and that’s a big “if” right now, many wage-earners in Iqaluit would end up paying many thousands of dollars more on their income tax bill. And some employers will have to redo their T-4 slips for 2005, an administrative nightmare.

This may well turn out to be a standard-issue bureaucratic screw-up — an error or oversight that will soon be corrected.

But it does point out yet another issue that no candidate has bothered to discuss: the northern tax regime. As the Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami pointed out several years ago, the tax system is an excellent tool, potentially, for helping northern residents cope with living costs that are now unbearable.

The Northern Residents Tax Deduction, worth up to $5,475 a year, hasn’t changed since 1985, when it was introduced to compensate people for the introduction of a policy that brought an end to tax-free northern benefits.

Since then, the cost of living has soared, especially in the eastern Arctic, where the entire Nunavut project has turned sour. A doubling of the northern tax benefit, coupled with a loosening of eligibility for it, would allow wage-earners to keep more of the money they earn. It could effectively eliminate income tax for many low-income people.

But whenever a federal election is held, no one bothers to raise the issue. It’s no wonder that voter turnouts are now dropping to the 40-per-cent level. It’s our politicians who are making politics irrelevant. JB

Inuit climate change petition does not seek money

“Our purpose is to educate and to inform”

SHEILA WATT-CLOUTIER

It was good to see the extensive coverage in Nunatsiaq News of the recent Montreal Conference of Parties to the UN climate change convention. More than 10,000 people attended from virtually every country in the world. Many Inuit attended and showed visitors from afar what climate change means in the Arctic and how it affects our culture and economy.

Following more than two years of work and with the support of the Inuit Circumpolar Conference (ICC), I submitted on Dec. 7 a petition to the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights about climate change. Our event at the conference about the petition got worldwide coverage. Along with Arctic Day, where Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami and our regions played a large part, the launching of the petition put the Arctic and Inuit on the map.

The petition — a lengthy and compelling document — names 63 Inuit, including me, from all four regions of northern Canada and northern Alaska who provided supportive testimony. But, of course, the petition is for each and every Inuk, and it draws heavily on traditional knowledge studies completed by ITK and the regional Inuit associations.

What is the petition, what does it say, why have we submitted it, and what’s the process from here?

First, let me say what it is not. We are not suing the Government of the United States. We are not approaching a court of law. We are not seeking damages, compensation, or money.

The 2004 Arctic Climate Impact Assessment, which uses our traditional knowledge, as well as science, says that the Arctic is warming and melting quickly, the rate of change is accelerating, and that emission of greenhouse gases worldwide is the cause. It concludes that marine mammals including polar bear, walrus, some species of seals and some species of marine birds are threatened with extinction by the middle to the end of the century, as is our hunting and food-sharing culture.

Many people in the South think climate change is only an environmental and economic issue. To Inuit, climate change also affects the viability of our hunting-based culture and the future of our families and communities. All that we are and hope to become is affected by climate change. This is why climate change is a human and human rights issue.

The Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, based in Washington, D.C., has jurisdiction over North, Central, and South America. The commission works under the 1948 Declaration of the Rights and Duties of Man, which has been adopted and endorsed by Canada, the United States and other countries. It has dealt with and supported petitions by aboriginal peoples.

Our petition focuses on the United States for two reasons.

The United States emits about 25 per cent of the world’s greenhouse gases, and it refuses to join the global consensus to jointly reduce emissions, using the Kyoto Protocol to the climate change convention. In Montreal, the U.S. even argued against co-ordinated global action when the protocol runs out in 2012.

Deep and absolute reductions in greenhouse gas emissions from the developed and developing worlds are needed to slow and eventually reverse climate change in order to protect the Arctic environment and Inuit culture. This won’t happen unless the United States joins the global consensus, sets an example and shows some leadership. The current reduction of emissions in the United States is not due to the efforts of the administration, but some individual states, enlightened industries, cities, and citizens, many of whom we are working with quite closely.

The petition does not mention Canada because Canada’s greenhouse gas emissions total only three to four per cent of the world’s total, the Government of Canada has ratified the Kyoto Protocol to the climate change convention, and earlier this year Ottawa adopted a plan to honour its Kyoto commitments.

Canada needs to do much more to combat climate change. Although our petition targets the United States, it helps to add pressure to the Government of Canada to walk its talk. Canada’s rhetoric must be matched by deeds and actions.

We have targeted the United States because the petition is also part of our political strategy to influence global decision-making. Targeting Canada would not provide us the political leverage we need, and might have let the United States off the hook.

We have asked the commission to come to the Arctic to meet Inuit and to find out just what climate change means to us. Specifically, we have asked the Commission to declare that the Government of the United States is violating the human rights of Inuit affirmed in the 1948 Declaration and other international human rights instruments.

We submitted the petition not in a spirit of confrontation but as a means of inviting the United States to talk with us. Our purpose is to educate and to inform. I made these points with the Ambassador of the United States to Canada when he visited Iqaluit some weeks ago. I reminded him that American as well as Canadian Inuit were using the petition to change the attitude and policy of his government.

As we petitioned the commission I thought of the future of my eight-year old grandson and the grandchildren of many. This petition is a gift. It is an act of generosity, respect, and responsibility on our part to our children and grandchildren who will live through the projections of the Arctic Climate Impact Assessment unless we act now and stand up for our rights.

Sheila Watt-Cloutier is the elected Chair of the Inuit Circumpolar Conference.

TOP

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

More Information