Home Page

Text size

E-mail this story

Order a classified ad

Democracy may be for everyone, but leadership isn't.

That's why MLAs should not support chief electoral officer Saundra Arberry's recommendation to amend the territorial nomination process by eliminating the requirement for 15 signatures of support.

The change would mean candidates only require a $200 deposit to run in a territorial election.

The recommendation follows that of a 2001 Elections Canada report, and suggests the signature requirement only increases the administrative burden for both the candidate and the returning officer.

Other jurisdictions in Canada do require a candidate to submit signatures of support - but then, other jurisdictions in Canada have party politics. If you're running with the backing of a political party, it shouldn't be too tough to gather the required signatures.

It's true would-be politicians in the NWT don't have that built-in partisan support.

But it would be a mistake to change the rule requiring 15 signatures of support in order to run. After all, if a candidate can't find 15 people willing to sign a piece of paper endorsing him as a candidate, he can probably take that as a sign he shouldn't run.

Also among the 25 changes to the Elections and Plebiscites Act that Arberry has recommended is reducing the residency requirement for voting or running in a territorial election to three months from one year.

Residency requirements across the country vary from 12 months in Nunavut, the Yukon and the City of Yellowknife, to six months in Alberta and B.C. to none at all for federal elections. In a federal election, the only requirement is to be a Canadian citizen. Canadians living outside the country, for example, Armed Forces personnel posted overseas, can still vote.

Compared to the national standard, three months of residency seems like plenty.

Arberry contends that the three-month waiting period would be in line with other government services like health care, and it would still ensure that only NWT residents, not imported workers who do not maintain a home here, have the right to vote.

Yet one year gives residents more time to understand their new home, aboriginal issues and consensus government. Being immersed in the territory for 12 months can only result in more educated voters.

Let's not make changes just for the sake of change. MLAs should take a close look at each recommendation individually to be sure any amendment to the Elections and Plebiscites Act would be in the best interests of voters, the people who put them in office.

Depending on how you look at it, delegates at the Dehcho First Nations annual assembly in Kakisa either made a monumental decision last week or made a decision that could end up meaning little in the long run.

Among the many decisions delegates faced, the most important was what to do with the Dehcho Process. As an introduction to the issue, delegates listened to presentation by both the federal negotiators and the Dehcho First Nations' negotiating team.

The federal negotiators confirmed the two parties have differing views on Treaties 8 and 11. While DFN view them as friendship treaties that left them in control of the land, Canada sees them as cede, release and surrender treaties through which the Dene gave the land to the Crown. The blunt announcement of this viewpoint immediately put the arbour on edge.

The federal negotiators urged the delegates to allow negotiations about land selection, a concept that's almost a four-letter word for the Deh Cho.

Up next to the microphone, DFN's negotiators gave the assembly five options: negotiating a comprehensive claim; negotiating treaty land entitlement; lobbying Canada to change federal policy; going to court or declaring the Dehcho Nation a self-governing territory; and begin acting as a government.

Although he didn't tell the delegates which option to pick, chief negotiator George Erasmus told the delegates that if they didn't agree to negotiating land selection Canada could stall or stop negotiations on the basis that there's nothing left to discuss.

Added to this was the looming realization by delegates that the interim land withdrawals protecting almost half the Dehcho's territory from development will expire in October and might not be renewed by the federal government if negotiations stop.

Delegates were in a hard spot and struggled with the decision for two days. Discussions went around the arbour one way and back the other as delegates spoke passionately about the bond that the Dene have with the land. That passion left some delegates in tears as they spoke before the crowd. When you truly believe that someone is denying you rights to something that has always been yours it's hard to accept.

In the end, however, the delegates made the right decision by agreeing to continue negotiations that will eventually involve land selection.

On one hand it seems that Dehcho First Nations has compromised itself by agreeing to negotiate something that it has always vehemently rejected.

On the other hand, the reality is that the delegates have only agreed to continue negotiations, not to sign a dotted line giving away their land.

The delegates haven't said they'll accept the terms that are eventually reached by the negotiating parties.

The delegates, although some may still not feel this way, made a responsible decision that will give the Dehcho a way to move forward constructively with negotiations.

Take a walk down by the Perry Building and you'll see that a person named Chad apparently was there this past weekend.

How can you tell that Chad had a good time? Because he left his name all over the wall and dumpster in bright red spraypaint.

Oh, it would be rude if I didn't acknowledge the anti-police message tagged on the trash bin as well.

Vandalism is nothing new to this community, but I thought it was a thing of the past.

I've seen plenty of buildings hit by vandals, but never, and I mean never, has someone had the gall to tag on the fruit man's truck trailer.

When I saw that red paint on the side of that truck, I went on a 10-minute tirade about the future of our town and how bad it's looking.

I see that as an attack on someone's personal property.

He drives that truck across the nation and doesn't deserve to be disrespected.

In previous editorials, I've gone on record to shame the youth for spray painting the skate park.

The Perry Building was not made to be written on.

Maybe we should be blaming the way that vandal was educated.

Maybe, as well as lacking grammar and presentation lessons, this youth wasn't taught that walls are not notebooks.

Maybe if these vandals would start spray painting their homework on walls, we might not be as mad.

It just feels so passe to see sprayed words on a wall. It reminds me of a bad '80s movie with gangs of kids walking the streets, marking their territory.

Well, sorry Junior, you aren't a dog and there is no need to mark territory.

Vandalism costs business owners and landlords thousands of dollars in damages.

Speaking with many people about vandalism, the same question comes up: Do we still have a curfew?

Every time I hear someone remark about the curfew not working and the police not doing a good enough job, I have to speak my mind.

The curfew means the authorities can pick up youth and keep them off the streets if they pose a risk.

If this Chad kid is seen out walking around, the police can pick him up before he gets the great idea to write his name before he forgets it again.

The curfew is meant to keep bad kids away from the places they like to damage, such as building walls, windows and so on.

Maybe that is why this Chad kid was out on the streets in the first place. His parents had to kick him out so they could wash their walls clean of his practice tagging.

In the end, it's just stupid and ridiculous.

We spend countless hours cleaning our community to make it look good for visitors, only to have some rogue brat come along and spray his hate.

I'd sure hate to be the parent of the vandal who thought it would be cool to spray paint all over the downtown core.

To the parents of any spray can-using youth named Chad: check his fingertips, because you might be able to catch him red-handed.

In their obsession with everything in the south, those who sit in the legislative assembly in Iqaluit are, no doubt, keeping a close eye on Ontario Premier Dalton McGuinty's attempts to fine parents who smoke with children in their car.

This is being done due to the effect second-hand smoke may have on the kids.

If you're yawning now and thinking this is just about smokers - think again!

This is about people's rights as parents and the government's ability to force itself into their private lives.

Rebecca Walberg is a social-policy analyst at the Frontier Centre for Public Policy - an independent think tank on a mission to broaden the debate on our future through public-policy research and education.

Walberg recently raised the question that if it's appropriate for government to use its coercive powers to prevent poor parenting, why stop with smokers?

Watching too much TV is proven to have a negative impact on children, and we all pay the costs associated with overweight and poorly socialized kids.

So while many people may simply shrug their shoulders over the latest attack on Canada's most ostracized group of citizens, their indifference may end quickly if the government decides to flex its muscles in other directions.

Canadian youngsters watch, on average, 2.5 hours of TV per day.

And as Walberg so correctly points out, a child's risk of developing attention deficit hyperactivity disorder increases an astounding 10 per cent for every hour of TV they watch daily.

Can it be much longer before parents are forced to install devices on their TVs to prohibit such an unnecessary risk to their children's health?

How about cameras in your living room so you can't allow your kids to watch too much TV?

Research also shows that child obesity is out of control in Canada.

Is it not time for a poundage tax to be imposed to punish parents who allow their children to become overweight?

And how can the government sit idly by while unmarried people have children and married couples divorce after having babies?

Research shows us the negative impact such actions can have on children emotionally and academically.

Should fines not be imposed on parents who split or on people who have children and don't marry or cohabit?

Anyone who believes the government should be allowed to involve itself in such punitive action is hopelessly out of touch with the concept of freedom.

Neglect and abuse are the only areas the government should concern itself with in regards to parenting skills.

You'd be naive to think it will end with smokers in cars if McGuinty's action takes root and becomes a staple of anti-smoking law in Canada.

It may take the public humiliation of a uniformed stranger writing them a ticket for buying their child a cheeseburger for some to realize how dangerous allowing government action like this truly is.

But when it comes to the government sticking its nose into your private life, take it from a smoker - something wicked this way comes.