As one government funded committee forms to ponder Giant Mine and the formidable task of cleaning it up, another pair of mines a short drive down the Ingraham Trail await a solution.

Giant Mine has long been a source of frustration for the public. In 1999 it's previous owners, Royal Oak, pleaded insolvency, ultimately leaving taxpayers on the hook for the lion's share of millions in future clean-up costs.

Paradoxically, even before Royal Oak flew the coop (bailing on Colomac Mine as well), Ptarmigan and Tom Mines were already gathering dust 10 kilometres east of Giant. But unlike Giant, the company that owned those mines -- Elkhorn Mining -- never claimed bankruptcy.

Instead, the mine simply faded away. It stopped producing gold in 1997, and $245,000 in the form of a security deposit was allowed to lapse, even though technically the company retains ownership to this day.

Coincidentally, DIAND has tabled a mine reclamation policy for the NWT, unveiled by Minister Robert Nault last August.

In light of the continued problems with Ptarmigan and Tom, it seems Nault barely had time to waddle out the drafting room door with policy in hand before falling flat on his face.

The policy "applies to new and existing mines whether operating or not, with clearly identified owners/operators," but "does not cover orphaned or abandoned sites."

Because the mines' owners have not claimed bankruptcy, DIAND doesn't consider Ptarmigan or Tom to be abandoned, even though they are boarded up, their shafts flooded, and hydrocarbon pollutants taint the land around them.

The estimated cost of cleaning up the two mine sites comes to about $350,000 -- chump change compared to Giant. But the bulk of Elkorn's security deposit wasn't used because DIAND was still expecting the company to clean the site up, even though they were warned the company was in perilous financial straits before the security deposit expired in June 2001.

DIAND missed the boat to collect on the security deposit last year, and from what we gather, the mine reclamation policy's reading of "existing mines" is moot if they don't get the cash up front any way.

DIAND would like us to believe this is an isolated incident, but we're not so optimistic.

There have been several failed mining operations in the North over the years that ultimately fell on the shoulders of taxpayers when it came time to clean up.

How is DIAND's new policy suppose to convince us it will work when an "existing mine" bears little difference in appearance from an abandoned one?

Critics were skeptical of DIAND's mine reclamation policy when it was announced, saying "it lacked teeth."

If situations like Ptarmigan and Tom continue to pop up, we could only agree.

Editorial Comment
Darrell Greer
Kivalliq News

We can only hope the Government of Nunavut's decision to take over construction of the Rankin Inlet Regional Health Centre will help expedite the process.

However, that being said, it is time for Kivalliq beneficiaries to start demanding answers from the Kivalliq Inuit Association (KIA) concerning the Sakku Investment Corp.

Beneficiaries have the right to know why the Sakku Investment Corp. could not finalize a deal with the Nunavut government on construction of the new health care facility.

This is your regional health facility being built with your money.

Why, despite its claims to the contrary, can the Sakku Investment Corp. not get its financial house in order?

What are the other "factors" involved in the KIA's decision to replace the entire Sakku Investment Corp.'s board of directors with members of its own board of directors?

Why did it take the KIA so long to intervene in health centre negotiations with the Nunavut government, especially in light of the fact Finance Minister Kelvin Ng had publicly stated the government's patience was wearing thin?

In fact, Ng said on the record had the KIA made this decision a mere 30 days ago, a deal could still have been reached on the health-centre project.

Why has a former Sakku top gun, a key figure in health centre negotiations with the Nunavut government, been placed on leave with pay instead of outright dismissal if the KIA is dissatisfied with his performance?

How much of beneficiaries' money has the Sakku Investment Corp. lost during the past few years?

Are there ANY areas where Sakku is showing a substantial return on its investments?

For too long now the answers to these questions have been denied to the media under the guise of only having to answer to beneficiaries.

If that's the case, it's time for beneficiaries to speak up and demand answers to these questions.

This is your money. It represents a substantial portion of any formula devised to provide future economic prosperity in the Kivalliq region.

Why should Kivalliq beneficiaries be any different than Southern taxpayers when it comes to the right of knowing how their money is being spent?

If you can't get the answers you want from these organizations contact your local MLA, a number of whom in the Kivalliq region are territorial ministers.

They're elected by you to serve you.

It's your land and your money. You have the right to know where it's going.

And, the time for getting those answers is now!

Editorial Comment
John Barker
Inuvik Drum

Inuvik lives for me as a kaleidoscope of snapshots. One of the most vivid that will resonate with me for a long, long time is standing on the shore of the mighty Mackenzie River last Saturday morning, watching a flotilla of small boats head out in miserable weather for Aklavik.

The Gwich'in and Inuvialuit were gathering to bury three of their own: Doug Irish, Larry Semmler and Charlie Meyook. Northerners, aboriginal and non-aboriginal, look after their own.

Hundreds of Gwich'in, Inuvialuit and non-aboriginals travelled by river and by air from Inuvik, from McPherson, from Tsiigehtchic, from the Yukon, from Alaska and from the South for the funerals at All Saints Anglican Church in Aklavik, on the site of the original Anglican Cathedral of the Arctic. The women volunteered to cook the community feast; the men hunted caribou and dug graves, all giving aid and comfort to their brothers and sister in Aklavik.

By the time you read these words, I will have hopped a jet plane and be back doing my usual job as a news editor in our main newsroom in Yellowknife after spending six weeks on the Mackenzie Delta. Five of those weeks were spent working as a reporter and photographer in our News/North bureau here, while the last week has been spent as the acting editor of the Inuvik Drum.

This is a vast and open land, where two of the highest virtues practised are tolerance and respect. I witnessed many examples of both, but the two that come readily to mind occurred on difficult and controversial stories.

My first assignment here was to fly into Tuktoyaktuk for a story involving allegations of police brutality by some officers from the hamlet's RCMP detachment. A number of things struck me. Taking off one's footwear at the hamlet council meeting as a sign of respect (and practicality to keep the floors free of Delta mud), which is also common here in Inuvik.

Nobody tried to "spin" me on the story. The alleged victim and his wife invited me into their home for tea. One of the accused Mounties, knowing this wasn't going to be a good news story, still managed to chat graciously with me later at the airport. Mayor Eddie Dillon, in some ways the man in the middle, offered me a ride to the airport in his pickup with his daughter and grandchildren after the meeting.

I would have a similar experience my last week in Inuvik, covering a joint meeting of the Inuvik Indian Band and Nihtat Gwich'in Council in the wake of critical press coverage by Inuvik Drum of their postponed election. Again, no one tried to "spin" me on the story. No one went behind closed doors. No one asked the press to leave or gave us the cold shoulder.

Chief James Firth, who has shouldered much of the criticism, candidly admitted, "There was a big mistake made. We're here to do it right ... blame me or whatever ... we buggered it up. Let's do it right."

Firth also noted the council's process, while flawed at times, was at least "transparent."

Indeed. There's many lessons, many virtues, practised here that would do well to be practised everywhere.

Mahsi Cho, Inuvik.

Editorial Comment
Derek Neary
Deh Cho Drum

Beth Philipp has a lot of spunk.

She's going to test her mettle at the RCMP training academy in Regina in a few weeks.

Leaving a husband and four children behind for 22 weeks isn't going to be easy, obviously, but it's all relative. Philipp pointed out that she's

in the process of hiring a nanny from the Philippines. The nanny is a mother of five who would temporarily be forsaking her family life to come and work in Fort Providence. Both women will be undergoing life-altering experiences.

These are the types of sacrifices often associated with the difficult choices we have to make in life. However, people usually stick with the status quo. For someone about to turn 38, to drop everything and pursue a long-standing ambition, well, that requires gumption.

Many of us think about what might have been if only we had gone another route, taken another path in life. Beth Philipp won't be asking herself that question anymore. Whether she graduates from the RCMP training program or she packs it in before it's over, she will have quelled a doubt in her mind.

Best of luck, Beth.

Related to the topic of crime and punishment, the story in this week's Drum regarding marijuana found in a van that rolled on the Mackenzie Highway might not be a story at all in the months or years to come. The fact that an accident occurred and the driver and passengers survived holds some news value, but some may argue that the possession of a small quantity of marijuana is negligible.

The signal from the throne speech on Monday is that the federal government is still considering the decriminalization of marijuana. That's short of legalizing it for those 16 and older as a Senate committee recommended earlier this year. The distinction is that decriminalizing marijuana could still warrant a fine for minor possession, whereas legalizing it would put an end to penalties.

This topic will undoubtedly continue to elicit great debate in our democratic nation. There are those who maintain that marijuana is relatively benign, resulting in fewer incidents of violence than alcohol, which is legal. There's also the argument that too much money is being wasted on the "war on drugs," especially for minor possession. People are smoking weed anyway, whether it's legal or not.

On the other side of the coin, some people take the position that cannabis leads to "harder" drugs, like cocaine and heroin. That one is debatable, but what's assured is there is a second-hand smoke issue with marijuana as with cigarettes. More importantly there is scientific evidence that pot temporarily affects smokers' motor skills and their reaction time.

Therefore, if marijuana is to be decriminalized, the laws against smoking up and driving should be unrelenting.