Wednesday, April 29, 1998
The government-to-government model put forth by the Constitutional Working Group's seems to have the most support.
The option is the least drastic change proposed so far: A public government that represents everyone on most fronts and leaves aboriginal affairs to aboriginal governments. The two governments would operate in parallel, neither meddling in the other's affairs, but negotiating transfers of power when it makes sense.
It appears to be the only way to satisfy the largest number of interests, honor existing treaties and land claim agreements and meet the test of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. But a close reading of the Working Group's proposals tells a different story.
According to the Working Group, the government-to-government model would include an option to "guarantee aboriginal people a certain level of representation in the legislative assembly if there were a major change in the population."
While we recognize that the words quoted above are not set in stone, they immediately suggest problems.
Experts involved in the process seem to have a different perspective on what exactly would be guaranteed. It could mean ensuring rural areas, dominated by aboriginal residents, aren't overwhelmed in the future by Yellowknife and other mostly non-aboriginal centres.
But it could just as easily mean specific guarantees for aboriginal people which brings us back to the models of combined government that presents so many problems.
Let's not run the risk of sabotaging a chance to forge a new constitution by including key elements that have already been rejected.
The three combined government models contain provisions for guaranteed representation. Let the government-to-government model stand based upon Canadian democratic principles.
Well done to city councillors Cheryl Best and Peggy Near for raising questions about $245,000 in block funding administration wanted transferred to the major community facility reserve, which is really the arena fund.
We do not fault administration's efforts to move the money nor Mayor Dave Lovell's explanation on the matter. But in the end, council acted properly by putting the money into the general operating fund. Would this have happened without two councillors asking the right questions?
Based upon past experience, the answer is no. Yellowknifers want public discussion and critical analysis from city council. We hope to see more such debate in the future.
It is instructive to look at a globe from the top, with the North Pole as the centre of focus. It becomes clear who Yellowknife's neighbors are.
With that view of the world in mind, it makes perfect sense that the premier would make a trip to Greenland to drum up some business and strengthen the ties with our fellow Northerners.
While our relationship with the South has been colored by profiteering and patronizing condescension, our relationships with our Northern neighbors are built on common interests and common problems.
A recent venture building houses in Russia shows that there is a global market for Northern expertise. Let's put ours to work.
Reform says let Nunavut residents decide
Jennifer Pritchett
Kivalliq News
The leader of the Reform Party wants the people of Nunavut to explore the possibility of choosing their own senator.
Preston Manning made the remarks during debate over amendments to the Nunavut Act in the House of Commons last week, aptly seizing the opportunity to put forward his own party's views on Senate reform.
Even though he failed to realize that the act says that Sen. Willie Adams (as a resident of Rankin Inlet) will become Nunavut's senator and it's the West that will be looking for a new one, Manning does make a good case for elected senators.
Nunavut MP Nancy Karetak-Lindell was quick to criticize Manning's comments, saying he was interfering with the progress of the legislation necessary to bring Nunavut into existence by April 1, 1999. Following his two-hour speech, she complained that Manning had turned a debate on the amendments into a podium for his views on the Senate.
"Yesterday (last Monday) was supposed to be about Nunavut and its creation," she said. "It was supposed to be about the formation of our new government. Instead the people of Nunavut are left disappointed. They feel confused and robbed of their day."
In defence of his remarks, Manning said the formation of the country's newest territory affords Canadians the perfect opportunity to change the way senators are chosen.
"I want to use the opportunity ... to make the case against the Senate in its present form and the case for a reformed Senate to the benefit not only of the people of Nunavut but of all Canadians," he said.
Manning hit on something that has been a point of contention for many Canadians since late last year when the national media drew attention to the absenteeism of Andrew Thompson, who lives in Mexico and attended the Senate only 14 days in the last seven years.
The idea of Senate reform was brought up then and hasn't been debated since. Where is the debate about the effectiveness of Senate appointments? Should they continue? Many Canadians would argue senators have to be elected and held more accountable for the decisions they rubber-stamp in the prestigious position they hold until age 75.
While his timing may have been off, Manning has to be given credit suggesting that the creation of Nunavut could be used to halt the long-standing tradition of appointments in the Senate.
Already the prime minister appoints the Senate, the Supreme Court, and the Governor General and countless other officials. Wouldn't many people in any region of Canada rather decide themselves who their representative in the Senate will be?
The people of Nunavut may have missed out on an opportunity to choose their own senator because the Nunavut Act says the territory already has one. But should Manning's comments ever spark some change on the matter of Senate appointments and the public be allowed one day to choose their own, the birth of Nunavut may be remembered for having a hand in making the process a democratic one.