There's a long-standing tradition of binge drinking in the North that's not limited to the drunks who stumble into the streets at closing time.

Taking booze to the limit and beyond has been part of the Northern experience since fur traders showed people how to cook up a batch of moose milk with raisins and water.

Last year RCMP arrested 2,029 drunks on Yellowknife streets. At least three deaths in the capital within the last year were directly related to alcohol abuse. After-hours vandalism by drunken morons costs city merchants thousands.

It's time to get a grip on the situation. The Liquor Licencing Board is trying to do that through a series of public meetings.

In Yellowknife last week, one board member suggested a crackdown on bars that over-serve, but also challenged drinkers to change their attitudes and start taking responsibility for themselves.

Alcohol and responsibility are seldom found in the same room, especially in these parts. It's time to come down with hard boots on bars that make a practice of serving drunks. That's the government's job.

The territorial government netted $17 million last year from booze on gross sales of $33 million. Just over $500,000 was spent on enforcement and licencing board operations -- paying expenses of board members and a handful of inspectors.

The maximum penalty under the territorial liquor law is a $5,000 fine and a 12-month licence suspension. The strongest rebuke in recent memory hit a Hay River bar with back-to-back, 30-day suspensions and $5,000 fines. The discouraged bar owner transferred the licence to a new operator, but the bar was not put out of business.

Maybe that's the next step. If the public and government are serious about reducing public drunkenness, maybe it's time to spend more on policing the problem, especially in downtown Yellowknife, and bringing in even tougher penalties.

The licencing board will be in Inuvik early next month to hear public views on alcohol abuse and then back in Yellowknife for another public meeting. It's an excellent opportunity for concerned citizens to lobby for change.

There is an even better opportunity on Nov. 24 when voters go to the polls in a territorial election. Between now and then candidates should be pressed to say exactly what they intend to do about the alcohol problem in the city.

To say the annual Kivalliq mayors-and-SAOs meeting has become a tad redundant is being polite.

Many see the annual gathering as a complete waste of time and money.

The problem is twofold.

Since the same concerns have been raised for the past four years, one has to surmise the Nunavut government pays very little attention to what goes on at this gathering.

Chester still needs proper docking facilities, Coral wants more work done to its access roads, ditto Rankin Inlet and Whale Cove's desire to see their communities linked, and every community sees its hamlet office as too small and outdated to meet growing needs (notice we're not wasting space with the road to Manitoba or a hydro link to the South).

And, Kivalliq mayors are in complete agreement that medical patients should be allowed to chose the airline they fly South in for treatment.

One bathroom break every two hours can be tough on the most well-disciplined of us, let alone our elders and those suffering from bladder, bowel or kidney problems.

For the annual meeting of our top municipal heads to be effective, our leaders must unify their voice to be heard in the capital.

Funding from the capital is tough to come by these days with our territory's health, education and housing needs having top priority.

To access funding the Kivalliq has to speak as a unified region, not seven separate voices all trying to feather their own little nests. If there's one thing we here in the Kivalliq should be experts at by now, it's forming committees.

It's time for our leaders to form a legitimate action committee to prioritize the needs of the region.

There's not going to be any magic wand sweep across our region and grant all our needs anytime soon.

Let's have our Kivalliq leaders prioritize our needs behind closed doors.

There, our 14 municipal heads can pound their chests and desks away from the public eye until they reach a mutual consensus. The next step is to emerge as a single, unified voice to lobby the GN hard on one or two issues a year.

As each need is met, the next item on the priority list moves up a notch. And, they could review their priority list on an annual basis without having to sit and listen to public cat fights between regional airline carriers.

Better to have one or two needs met each year by a unified voice with some political clout behind it, than for seven separate voices to spend their time trying to shout above one another.

For as loud as their voices may seem to each other, they are obviously falling upon deaf ears in the capital.

Editorial Comment
Terry Halifax
Inuvik Drum

I was glad to get Nellie Cournoyea's letter this week as a rebuttal to Dennis Allen's letter from Aug. 28.

Looking at both of these letters it's quite a contrast to each person's view of the "facts." That's the idea behind these so-called "opinion pieces." It's between these extreme views that we can assume the real facts lie -- somewhere in the middle ground.

It's true, as Nellie says, that many Inuvialuit have enjoyed financial and professional gain from recent development in the ISR and it's also true as Dennis says that many have been shut out.

I've spoken to many land claim beneficiaries (both Inuvialuit and Gwich'in) who feel left out of the race because their business doesn't fall under the umbrella of the corporation.

This is a philosophical difference in doing business that needs to be addressed with open discourse rather than potshots fired in the paper or whispered over beer glasses.

There was, and still is a need for these development corporations, but in my talk with Richard Nerysoo today, I came to realize that the dev corps need to be relaxed a bit to leave way and even encourage the growth of small business.

There are a great many people who are content with working for the government and for the corporation, but the ones who want to stride out into the world of small business on their own, should be applauded, not stifled. This mindset of "working for the man" harkens back to the days when the primary employer here was government.

Punching the clock

Generations have grown up working within that womb and have grown accustomed to punching a clock and taking home a paycheque, but it's not necessarily going to make for a strong economy or a proud community.

These land claims were written for people, not corporations. It is the right of these people to win or lose on their own terms and by their own rules. They shouldn't have to compete against their own corporation to build a business. Success in their own, by their own and for their own will build a sense of pride and purpose and, more importantly, give future generations something to shoot for.

For students growing up in the shadow of these corporations, they don't see the individual effort that has gone into building the empire, they see a building with a lot of parents scurrying in and out of. I think it would be infinitely more beneficial if they grew up in the shadow of a thousand corporations owned by Bobby's dad the carpenter and Sally's mom the seismologist and on and on.

Rather than a single billion-dollar corporation, imagine 1,000 million-dollar corporations, owned by a thousand individuals with faces. Faces the kids could look up to and aspire to be just like.

Editorial Comment
Derek Neary
Deh Cho Drum

The nominations are closed.

Three people with mayoral experience are running for Fort Simpson's top municipal seat. Another 13 are vying for eight spots on village council. Ten individuals are seeking election to the district education authority.

Thank goodness there are people willing to do these jobs.

Sometimes you have to wonder why anyone would want to face the grief and hassle of being a mayor or councillor. The pats on the back and the expressions of gratitude in the street won't be fulfilling in themselves because they happen so rarely, if at all.

Practically everybody has a gripe over the way council botched this decision or that one. Precious few stop to commend councillors for the work they do.

There is a widespread misconception that some councillors are only in it for the honorarium.

Seriously, it's highly unlikely that anybody on council is that desperate for $135 per meeting (slightly higher for the mayor and deputy mayor). That drops to $60 across the board for committee sessions and there's a whole lot of work, time and responsibility involved.

It is definitely a thankless job. In local circles, there is sometimes loose talk of self-interest among councillors in other forms, but the conflict of interest guidelines keep that in check.

There may be those who get involved in the game to indirectly help themselves but those people are, at the same time, likely aiming to help the community as a whole.

Defending their record

The current council is regularly criticized by some members of the public, the last one was as well. It's true, our elected officials haven't done everything right. In retrospect, there have been some poor decisions and blunders. At the same time there have been some accomplishments. Those won't be trumpeted here, but rest assured, those seeking re-election will be quick to point out the positives in defending their record over the past three years.

The current council has also had to deal with some difficult circumstances, skyrocketing insurance rates primary among them. Yes, it's quite possible that another mayor and council may have made better choices. If voters feel so strongly about that, there will be plenty of new faces after Oct. 20. But with all the turnover in this council and the previous one, one would think the right mix of people would have been in office at some point. But the disparagement never stopped. Why is it that a reputable community member so often ends up perceived as one of the "idiots" when he or she earns a council seat?

These are everyday people -- people who by and large are trying to guide Fort Simpson to a better future. They're not punching bags. The nature of politics is to condemn the opposition, and lambaste the incumbents. We've heard plenty of that over the past several years. Be sure to vote on Oct. 20. And for a change, regardless of who is elected, let's try giving them their due and offering constructive criticism, or none at all.

A story in the Sept. 12, 2003, Yellowknifer headlined 'They don't have anything', contained inaccurate information regarding the legal action being taken against Walter Lothar Ebke by the government of Germany. In fact, Ebke is facing three charges in Germany for alleged activities which translate into 10 charges in Canada. Also, while Ebke is accused of involvement in bombing and shootings, there is no evidence he drove any getaway car or rented a cellar for explosives. Yellowknifer apologizes for any embarrassment the errors may have caused Ebke.