Wednesday, February 16, 2005
A 120-page Canadian Arctic Resources Council (CARC) report has some practical suggestions for getting there. It includes consolidating the octopus of an environmental approval process into a more manageable system that addresses environmental protection and mining company needs.
One of the glaring deficiencies exposed by CARC is the fact there is no legal requirement for mining firms to post security deposits.
Environmental boards have policies that seek funding for reclamation, but that rarely reflects the true cleanup cost: $400,000 deposit in 1990 for Giant mine, $900,000 for Cantung Mine in 2001. Both mines require tens of millions of dollars in cleanup, a cost that's being picked up by taxpayers.
Mining companies reap the profits from the land and should not leave the North with toxic dumps and no money to clean them up.
Government has a sacred trust to safeguard the land with enforceable regulations that reflect reality and still let mining companies get to the resources.
As soon as we hear the words "federal government committee," our stomach gets a queasy feeling.
The new federal building on Franklin Avenue is in need of a name, but a government-appointed committee will whittle down the choices.
Sure, the committee will respect submissions from the general public, but we fear that it's not likely Northerners will see the most popular name win out.
Indeed, the federal minister of public works Scott Brison will make the final selection.
We would hate to discover that Brison has some favourite Northerner in mind already and that the naming process was just window dressing.
The news pages of Yellowknifer are showing what people here want to see. Many have said they have submitted their names to the committee.
Our tax dollars are building the structure and it's we who have to live with the finished product.
Heed well, committee members, the wishes of the people of these territories.
Editorial Comment
Darrell Greer
Kivalliq News
You will have to forgive my rather slanted sense of humour, but tears of laughter were streaming down my face earlier this month as I listened to a bevy of media types trying to get a discernible answer out of the communications folks at Transport Canada concerning the department's suspension of Skyward Aviation Ltd.'s air-operator certificate in Manitoba.
Transport Canada's concerns, apparently, were based on Skyward's ability (read: inability) to exercise operational control.
Now there's a far-reaching spectrum for you.
Operational control can range from the keeping of proper records all the way up to training and, gasp, aircraft maintenance.
Of course, Transport Canada wasn't about to risk legal action from a private company by revealing just what its concerns were at the time.
Excuse them if people who are willing to pay good money to go hurling through the air in a metal cylinder would like to know if their crew is properly trained, or if a mechanic has inspected the plane during the past year.
I've had my suspicions for the past five years that the Nunavut government is actually modelling itself after Transport Canada when it comes to the issuing of information.
The formula is pretty effective if you don't want John Q. Public to know what's going on.
When the questions first start coming, you simply talk for an hour without really saying anything.
You also have a plethora of old standbys to fall back on - can't talk about it while the matter's before the courts, still under investigation, still looking into it, falls under the Privacy Act, a private company is involved, etc., etc.
Then you simply wait until enough time elapses for nobody to remember the questions or care about the answers before you send out a brief fax at 5:05 p.m. on a Friday afternoon.
I will give Transport Canada one slight edge over the Nunavut government.
I have always received official answers to my questions from Transport Canada, albeit a year or two later, while I am still waiting for certain GN ministers and deputy ministers to figure out how that fancy new phone on their desk really works.
Yes, it would all be quite funny - except for the fact nobody's laughing.
Whether it be air-operator certificate suspensions, fuel spills, government issued gag orders, suggestions to stay away from municipal councils, unexplained fatalities, questionable real estate deals or a bad case of gas - there is no humour to be found in this type of silence.
However, if you want a real belly laugh or some top-notch entertainment, sit down with your favourite politician, bureaucrat or "media relations" type and get their take on the public's right to know.
I can feel my cheeks getting wet already!
Editorial Comment
Jason Unrau
Inuvik Drum
Does the territorial government need to spend upwards of $20 million on a new elementary school in Inuvik or would a retrofit at a fraction of the cost be sufficient?
One really has to question the logic of a territorial government already strapped for cash even thinking of building a new facility to replace Sir Alexander Mackenzie school (SAMS).
There are plenty of reasons why this doesn't make sense but one of the most compelling is that it would force the community daycare, currently housed at SAMS, to seek a new home.
Daycare proponents are talking about the need to raise $1 million to build a new facility if SAMS goes the way of the dodo and many are left wondering where this magic money tree is going to come from to make everything OK again.
The scenario does not have to play out like this.
Take the petition for rent control, for example. Though legislation could be months away, if it comes at all, at least the folks in Yellowknife got the message loud and clear.
Maybe a petition to save SAMS school should be circulated, with an added clause that any money saved by going the route of a retrofit be pumped back into the actual task of educating the town's children.
Almost a full year after the high school foyer roof came crashing down under the weight of accumulated snow, the school has yet to be completely repaired. The facility went through some tough times last year, including a gymnasium fire shortly after the roof incident.
Meanwhile, students attending Samuel Hearne secondary school (SHSS) are without a functioning library more than halfway through their 2004/05 school year.
What's wrong with this picture?
Perhaps it's time once again to let the elected officials know that their responsibility is to take care of the people who elected them and that children's education and safety should not be compromised by the bottom line.
The basic argument for replacing the elementary school is that a new building would outlast a retrofitted one; basically a "more bang for the buck" take.
If the government really wants to get more for its money, it should channel funding towards curriculum and teaching materials rather than nailing up another bland corrugated steel building.
SAMS school has stood for more than 40 years and with the right care and attention it would probably outlast us all.
As well, the school could qualify as an historic site. Most would agree that the town just wouldn't be the same without SAMS.
Unfortunately, we live in a disposable society and this attitude has permeated to the point where the new and shiny most often trump the old but reliable.
And at what cost?
Editorial Comment
Derek Neary
Deh cho Drum
Sometimes perplexing thoughts go through one's mind, other times they're inane. Here are a few examples of what I've pondered lately:
Canadian sports fans' dreams are about to come true with Bell Globemedia, Roger's Communications and CTV being awarded Olympic broadcast rights in 2010 and 2012.
Among the networks, which include TSN and Sportsnet, there will be blanket coverage. That means Canucks can avoid turning to the U.S. stations for programming. We won't have to listen to as much American bias, but instead the more objective - or "slanted the way we prefer it" - commentary from Canadian sportscasters.
The CBC, which has provided fine Olympics broadcasts over the years, came across a little bitter in some news reports of its failed bid. One reporter's perspective made it sound like the private networks ganged up and unfairly spent more money than the CBC could offer (which would have come out of taxpayers' pockets, of course). Apparently the ones offering the more extensive coverage and better product won. Imagine that!
The "Mother Corp." may have some history and tradition in Olympics coverage, but it certainly didn't have a lock on being the official broadcaster of the Olympics 'til the end of time.
Will the Fort Simpson Tsunami swim team change its name in light of the tragedy in southern Asia? I'm not suggesting it should be switched, but most of the team members are children and they will certainly have a negative association with tsunamis now.
The club's name isn't unique; many swim teams use the same or similar nicknames. The monikers aren't really meant to glorify a force of nature that can cause so much death and destruction.
Athletic teams - other than those with historical monikers (the Philadelphia 76ers and San Francisco 49ers immediately come to mind) - commonly project fierce images by adopting meteorological events or predators for nicknames.
There are many examples: the Sacramento Surge, the Carolina and Miami Hurricanes, the Tampa Bay Lightning, the San Jose Storm and so on.
It's just that every once in a while we're reminded of how awesomely powerful and violent those phenomenon can be.
On the other hand, the benign Fort Simpson Flotsam just wouldn't cut it.
Anyone who accuses anyone else of "not thinking outside the box" is a hypocrite. The phrase has become trite. If you want to be truly innovative or creative, come up with a fresh variation of that cliche. Of course that would also qualify me a hypocrite as there are more than a few cliches found on these pages each week.
How is it that expiry dates, or even "best before dates" have come to be so precise? How can a food company actually predict that my salad dressing won't taste so good as of May 18, 2006? Will they eventually narrow that down to the minute?