Ban it tomorrow, ban it four years from now -- it still boils down to government trying to legislate morality and a healthier lifestyle.

Yellowknife City Council is voting next Monday on a bylaw that will effectively eliminate all smoking in all public places by 2004, rather than 2002 as earlier planned.

This has been quite a controversial bylaw ever since discussion started on it and rightly so.

Even within council, Mayor Dave Lovell had to vote in order to break a three-three tie on whether to extend the bylaw for the extra two years.

Obviously, feelings are mixed here, and why not?

What we have here is a case of government telling us what's right and wrong for us.

Proponents of the ban claim there is overwhelming support for such a ban. Businesspeople and restaurateurs say they can't afford the loss of income such a ban might create.

It seems that the easiest way to find out who's on the right track is to follow a suggestion brought forward by Coun. Dave Ramsay and then, apparently, ignored.

To determine what the public really feels about this bylaw to ban smoking, why not ask the public?

Since we're having a municipal byelection on Oct. 20 anyway, why don't we simply tack on a plebescite line asking people whether smoking should be banned in all public places in Yk?

Otherwise we have a very small group dictating morality and health for all of us. While no-one argues that smoking is unhealthy, you have to ask if that gives anyone the right to dictate to the rest of us what our choices should be.

Ideally, the people who own the businesses should be able to make the decision on whether their establishments are smoking, non-smoking or split. After all, you have to assume those people know what their customers want and non-smokers always have the option of not going into a smoking establishment and vice-versa. Choice -- it's a wonderful thing.

Vaughn del Valle's idea of building a 48-room lodge that would make good use of the waterfront and bring more business to Yellowknife sounds like a good idea.

Unfortunately, del Valle wants to build on a residential lot at the end of quiet road that curves around the shore of Back Bay.

To say that such a development would radically transform the neighbourhood is an understatement and Back Bay residents, a well-organized group of people, have made it abundantly clear they want none of it. We don't blame them.

However, we admire del Valle's vision and if he has the expertise and capital to build and run a successful tourist lodge, the city should help him relocate to a piece of waterfront that can accommodate his ambitions.

Students at Sir John Franklin overreacted with their recent student revolt. About 175 students, cut classes to hold a two-hour demonstration, then disrupted traffic when they marched down Franklin Ave. to the public school board office to hold a sit in.

Apparently, they were upset because a student president candidate, Aziz Ahmed, was excluded from the election after using slogans offering "Free beer on Weekends," and distributing posters stating that Aziz would "Do women right."

Such slogans have no place in schools under any circumstances. Quite properly, the school board listened to what the students had to say. Then the board backed the school's decision to disqualify Ahmed on the basis that his campaign slogans were sexist and inappropriate. Well done.

There's a growing consensus in a number of Kivalliq hamlets that the terms of Article 24, the Land Claims Agreement and the government's Northern Preference Policy are not being adhered to in the spirit they were meant.

There's also a growing sentiment that our Inuit associations are doing precious little to correct the situation.

Baker Lake MLA Glen McLean has expressed his discontent to Public Works Minister Manitok Thompson over the awarding of a $2.5-million contract in his community to upgrade a fuel facility.

Arviat Mayor Ralph King has also added his voice to the discontent, unhappy with the manner in which the Nunavut Construction Corp. (NCC) is conducting business in his hamlet (See next week's Kivalliq News for full story).

McLean and King share more than one important concern with their complaints.

Neither is happy with the number of jobs being provided local Inuit beneficiaries on work projects tendered in their communities.

McLean contends that although the 10 per cent Inuit labour content set out in the Nunavut Final agreement has been met theoretically, there is absolutely no local Inuit content.

King says during the first two years of construction in Arviat, NCC never met the two local hires for every tradesperson on site it originally agreed to, although there was a high percentage of local Inuit hired on.

This year, however, he complains NCC haven't even tried to meet the ratio, with only six local people working.

Both McLean and King also say there are absolutely no local commercial accommodations being utilized by the out-of-town workers.

The crux of this problem is simple, what is the benefit of having work in Baker Lake or Arviat if the vast majority of everyone working is from somewhere else?

Imagine how, for example, the people of Repulse Bay would feel if 100 Inuit were hired as part of a 1,000-member construction team in their community -- and they were all from Rankin Inlet.

The key to this problem may very well rest with ascertaining what, if any, role Inuit associations such as NTI and the KIA are playing in these work projects.

Surely stimulating local economies and working to strengthen local Inuit firms falls under the umbrella of their mandates.

If our Inuit associations are not prepared, or able, to look after the concerns of local Inuit interests, just what are their roles in the development of Nunavut, especially at the regional level?

The answers to the questions being raised now, may go a long way in determining what develops in our region in the future.