NNSL Photo/Graphic
 spacer

Subscriber pages
buttonspacer News Desk
buttonspacer Columnists
buttonspacer Sports
buttonspacer Editorial
buttonspacer Readers comment
buttonspacer Tenders

Demo pages
Here's a sample of what only subscribers see

Subscribe now
Subscribe to both hardcopy or internet editions of NNSL publications
Distributed in Northwest Territories and Nunavut Canada

Northern News Services Online

Home page text size buttonsbigger textsmall text Text size Email this articleE-mail this page

Roland's contract to Bell stinks
Yellowknifer - Friday, October 30, 2009

Bob Bromley made an excellent point while grilling Premier Floyd Roland over his decision to award $278,000 worth of sole-source contracts to former cabinet ministers to help his government "build a message."

"When we quickly hire back departing ministers to guide our political directions and policy development, we are usurping the decisions of our voting public," the Weledeh MLA said in the legislative assembly last week.

After all, isn't that why we have elections, to choose quality people to run our government?

Why is Roland rolling back the clock and using former cabinet ministers Brendan Bell and John Todd to create policies and coach his government? Surely he has capable enough people serving with him right now.

For Roland, a four-term MLA with ample cabinet experience before becoming premier, to put these two men on his payroll makes him look weak.

But it's even more troubling for an entirely different reason, at least in respect to Bell – the federal Conservative Party's candidate of record for the Western Arctic since Nov. 8, 2007 and a man who was only 59 days removed as territorial minister of Industry, Tourism and Investment when Roland hired him.

Bell was awarded his first $50,000 contract on Dec. 21, 2007; the second contract – for $130,000 – was awarded Aug. 18, 2008 while the country was gearing up for an election call by Prime Minister Stephen Harper.

In the election on Oct. 14, Bell lost his Western Arctic bid to incumbent NDP MP Dennis Bevington by just 523 votes.

What would Roland have done had Bell won? Would he have ripped up the contract? He couldn't have let a sitting member of Parliament remain on the payroll, could he?

We have to question Roland's judgment in offering a sole-source contract of this magnitude to a candidate seeking a House of Commons seat in the first place.

Ethics rules may not have been broken, but it's very dicey deal nonetheless.

It certainly creates a perception that Roland was using the contract to curry favour with the ruling Conservatives. Is that what Roland meant when, referring to Bell and Todd, he said, "they can help us open doors?"

This is very unseemly for a premier who professes his disdain for party politics and is "consensus to the core."

Likewise, the contract casts a shadow over Bell, who intends to make another try for Bevington's job. Did he use his big, fat GNWT pay cheque to finance his election campaign?

There are many questions that need answering. Bob Bromley and other MLAs have five more days during this current legislative assembly session to press for more answers. Not only do they need an explanation, they need to change the rules. Former MLAs and cabinet ministers should be outlawed from rolling in government money until at least a year passes, not a mere couple of months.


Crossing the line
Editorial Comment
Roxanna Thompson
Deh Cho Drum - Thursday, October 29, 2009

While looking at the destruction of a grave monument, even if it doesn't belong to a relative or a friend, most people would have the same response that Yannick Lapierre recently had.

"Why?"

Standing in the Fort Simpson cemetery on Oct. 22 looking at what had been done to his cousin's grave Yannick wanted to ask those responsible for the damage why they had done it.

Hopefully after reading the article about what happened to the fire truck memorial on Marc Andre Lapierre's grave most residents in Fort Simpson will be asking the same question.

The incident has left some people who are already aware of the damage shaking their heads and questioning how the village has become a place where this sort of thing can happen. The nature of the incident is enough to raise some questions.

Vandalism in Fort Simpson, as in all communities in the North, is nothing new. The most common and noticeable form are the crudely spray-painted messages that appear on the sides of buildings. Schools and businesses are the most common targets.

The appearance of new messages seems to come and go in spurts as people, presumably pre-teens and teenagers, become bored and get their hands on spray paint. For a while last year the word G-Unit, the name of a hip-hop group, was appearing everywhere in Fort Simpson from sidewalks to the sign for Hole 2 on the Seven Spruce Golf Course.

Vandalism can also escalate to breaking windows and damaging empty housing units and other buildings.

What was done to Marc Andre's grave, however, takes vandalism to a different level and crosses into the realm of desecration. The people who destroyed his funeral monument should be ashamed.

For the vandals, it may have been a spur of the moment action caused by boredom and possibly alcohol, but for Marc Andre's family it means the destruction of something that helped keep his memory alive and represented one of his favourite things - fire trucks.

Vandalism in general, no matter what form it takes and what it is aimed at, all comes down to one thing, respect. If vandals respected other people's property, feelings, hard work and their community at large, they would find it a lot harder to inflict damage. Spray-painted messages and damaged graves do nothing but hurt a community's image. Spray paint in particular creates an image of neglect.

While completely stopping cases of vandalism would be impossible, community residents can speak out and let others know that vandalism isn't acceptable.

Hopefully if community pride is built and vandalism is labelled an unacceptable act, no other family will be faced with the task of repairing a loved one's grave.


A fresh slate
Editorial Comment
Andrew Rankin
Inuvik Drum - Thursday, October 29, 2009

To me, the agreement that council struck with Nick Saturnino on Oct. 14 meant that the town would be on the hook for the Inuvik Curling Club's utilities during the current year of operation, which we can assume is based on last year's total will be around $55,000. That's how much the town's reprieve to the club was.

Yes, I know the motion councillors agreed to included the word reprieve, which could be defined as a loan, meaning the club would have to pay it back eventually.

Nick Saturnino, the club's president didn't think he had to pay it back. If council deems it to be a loan, there should have been some talk at the meeting about how and when the money would be paid back. Council decided on Monday that it wants Saturnino to come back to Wednesday's meeting to formally clarify what he interprets the deal to be. He doesn't plan to attend.

Residents for the most part seem OK about giving the club $55,000 this time around. If they weren't, I expect they would have come to the council meetings to voice their opposition, as this discussion between the town and the club started more than a month ago.

There's a lot to this story. But basically until now the club hasn't been in the position where it has had to come up with about $80,000 on its own to sustain itself. They were able to get most of their revenue from a bingo series. It appears they want to hold on to what they've got and see if they can keep going. That's fair enough.

Mayor Derek Lindsay said his understanding of the agreement was that the reprieve would be paid after a year. It's uncertain how the club can solidify itself financially in that timeframe, given that it's already heavily in debt.

Curling has a history in Inuvik. It's brought people from various parts of the country here to participate in various bonspiels throughout the winter. They in turn spend a lot of money in town. Membership is also fairly strong. They should be given that chance to get back on the rails and maintain the facilities they own.

Maybe the town ought to look closer at how it subsidizes other recreational facilities, and apply that model to the curling rink. I know the issue is more complicated than that, but it's a start.

The club might not be able to survive on its own, but it should be given a chance. If residents aren't happy about giving a hand to the club, they should speak out.

I've heard the concern that letting the curling club off the hook for $55,000 will set a bad precedent - that all recreation groups thereafter would be entitled to a hand-out. The only precedent I see here is the opportunity for a rec group to come to council, where members use their good judgment to make a decision that could ultimately strengthen the community as a whole.


Better psychiatric care needed
Wednesday, October 28, 2009

A Dettah man waited an outrageous eight months in jail for a court-ordered psychiatric assessment.

It's just been within the past week - following 23 court appearances and three previous court attempts to get the man a bed at an Alberta health facility - that the accused was finally sent to Edmonton for a 30-day assessment.

At this point the Crown prosecutor on the case admits the man has been in jail longer than the Crown was seeking to have him serve.

Surely there must be better alternatives available for this man, and others like him, who are languishing in jail when they need services from a psychiatric hospital.

Inmates in the NWT who are sent for a psychiatric assessment must wait until a bed becomes available in an Alberta hospital. There are other provinces with appropriate facilities and medical professionals. The government should not view Alberta as the only option when justice and fairness is at stake.

Inmates could be sent to hospitals in Saskatchewan or British Columbia as well. With more hospitals to choose from it would cut down on wait times, which can clearly become excessive.

Another option would be for the GNWT to hire a psychiatrist on contract to come to the territory and give assessments on an as-needed basis.

Something needs to change. Leaving potentially innocent people with possible mental illness to spend lengthy stretches in jail is despicable. Having victims wonder if the person charged in crimes against them will ever come to trial isn't acceptable.

It's a problem that the territorial government must address.


Power corp's crumbling reputation
Wednesday, October 28, 2009

The NWT Power Corporation should have known it had major work to do when it purchased the Bluefish Hydro facility from Miramar Con Mine in 2003.

Built in 1942, the facility's timber dam, by the corporation's own admission, had a lifespan of 40 years. Earlier this month, 67 years after the construction of the dam, the power corp threatened the Mackenzie Valley Land and Water Board with court action unless it was given immediate permission to build a new dam without the usual regulatory scrutiny. That permission was granted.

Normally, any new construction in waterways around Yellowknife requires approval from the land and water board and may necessitate an environmental impact assessment. The approval process commonly takes at least a year to complete. Instead, the power corporation is riding roughshod over a legal process established by our government in its haste to have a new $17 million dam built.

The power corp should have known from the moment it purchased the facility in 2003 that the dam had to be replaced very soon. "Upgrades" carried out by the owners of Con Mine in 1973 and 1983, and a third carried out by the power corp in 2007 were clearly not enough to extend its life expectancy beyond 60 years.

The power corp obviously needs to improve its inspection process. Critical pieces of infrastructure can't be neglected to the point of crumbling.


Ruling sparks more questions than answers
Editorial Comment
Darrell Greer
Kivalliq News - Wednesday, October 28, 2009

The decision to have the sentence of a Rankin Inlet youth challenged in the Nunavut Court of Appeal has sparked a flurry of debate in the youth's home community.

The youth, who cannot be named, was given 11 months after being convicted of committing 17 break and enters in Rankin over nine months.

The youth's lawyer, Scott Wheildon, wants to know if a young person should be punished for living in an impoverished remote community?

The reasoning behind that sentence was the lack of treatment or counselling to help the youth instead of jail time.

We would be remiss if we did not say there was no violence involved in any of the break-ins and the youth had no previous criminal history.

The Crown also supported the appeal.

We accept the no previous criminal history argument, but the no violence angle, quite conceivably, came about by pure luck.

Any cop can tell you the dangers of fight or flight, which grips criminals of any age when caught in the act.

Had the youth been confronted or stumbled upon by an elder during one of the crimes, this saga could have ended much worse.

Let's not forget people were hurt by these actions in a number of ways.

People lose their confidence and comfort when their private space, whether at work or home, is invaded.

They get angry when stolen from, or when things they've worked hard for are destroyed. And rightly so.

We won't discuss the belief of the majority of Canadians: that laws today are too soft on young offenders. They are what they are.

And we certainly aren't giving up on a person still in their teenage years, especially in a culture where granting a second chance is the rule and not the exception.

But does that mean we should also buy into the idea that failure to understand the difference between right and wrong should not be punished, whether there's an addiction involved or not?

When standing in front of a judge, many offenders, no matter what their age, come up with a reason or an excuse – real or fabricated – to explain their actions in hopes of leniency.

The decision, or, more to the point, the reasons behind the decision to grant an appeal, have people questioning the court's confidence in community justice programs and elder counselling.

Are we to understand from the impoverished community and lack of treatment remarks that the courts, and lawyers on both sides, look at such Northern initiatives as completely ineffective?

Is Iqaluit's young offender's facility really the only place in Nunavut where some of our troubled youth can get the help they need to turn their lives around? And, if so, why?

Is the public wrong to wonder why punishment for a crime seems to always be unacceptable in the face of counselling? Can the two not work together effectively?

In her ruling, Appeal Court Justice Constance Hunt said the case deals with broader issues relating to youth justice.

We certainly give full marks for that one, as the ruling seems to have provided far more questions than answers.


Nothing but a sham
NWT News/North - Monday, October 26, 2009

The conflict of interest inquiry into Premier Floyd Roland's affair with former committee clerk Patricia Russell was a travesty.

Even though his recommendation has yet to be made, it's safe to say adjudicator Ted Hughes failed the public and the assembly by not steadfastly pursuing the truth and ensuring total accountability.

After determining that Roland was in a conflict of interest, Gerald Gerrand, the conflict of interest commissioner called an inquiry to determine the severity of the premier's actions. Unfortunately Hughes did not gather enough information to accurately make that judgment.

Throughout the inquiry it appeared that Hughes and Glenn Tait, the adjudicator's lawyer, were more interested in a speedy conclusion than actually ensuring a just outcome.

Roland, Russell and their lawyer Kathy Peterson breezed through the proceedings. Too many statements made in support of the premier and his girlfriend's innocence went unchallenged.

First Peterson told the adjudicator of an unnamed MLA who her clients claimed was actually responsible for leaking committee information to the premier. The intent was to take Russell off the hook as the suspected informant, during the months when she and Roland were quietly involved in a secret affair.

Later, Roland and Russell brought forward information - which they described as precedent-setting - regarding a relationship between former premier Joe Handley's executive assistant and a former clerk of committees.

In both instances, neither Tait nor Hughes chose to challenge Roland or Russell on their statements. In fact, Hughes went so far as to state he was not interested in knowing who the mystery MLA informant was.

Obviously, he was also not interested in knowing whether Russell's and Roland's assertion that a previous relationship in the halls of the legislature was similar enough to be considered a precedent and would excuse their actions.

David Inch, the former committee clerk that Russell and Roland were referring to, wrote a letter disputing that his relationship with Handley's assistant was in any way similar to Roland's and Russell's affair. But Inch was ignored.

At no time was any effort made to ensure the accuracy of statements made by the premier or Russell.

Tait and Hughes took a kid gloves approach to the inquiry, comparable to a criminal lawyer accepting at face value that a witness had an alibi.

Opponents who called the inquiry a waste of time and money were right, but for the wrong reasons. Both Hughes and Tait wasted taxpayers dollars by failing to ask the hard questions and by not challenging the premier to actually prove he did not compromise the integrity of the legislative assembly.

Instead, they provided Roland and Russell a forum to freely assert their innocence and deflect blame.

Did Hughes and Tait make up their minds prior to the start of proceedings? Were they trying to save Roland and Russell the embarrassment of a thorough cross-examination?

Either way, the inquiry failed to shed any light on how severe Roland's breach of public trust was, begging the question: Why were public tax dollars wasted to simply reiterate what was already widely known?


Giving birth at home
Nunavut News/North - Monday, October 26, 2009

Given Nunavut's birth rate - the highest in the country - opening birth centres close to home makes logistical and financial sense.

Many have questioned the practice of sending expectant mothers to hospitals outside their communities a few weeks before their due dates. They lodge with other outpatients in a strange city and give birth among strangers, sometimes without family present, and then fly home a few days later.

In addition, non-Inuit Nunavummiut are expected to find their own lodging and pay out of pocket for those weeks away from home for a hospital birth.

Giving birth is dangerous - often the most risky medical event in a woman's life - which is why pregnancy comes with a long list of precautions to minimize risks for the mother and child.

Midwives receive extensive training in pregnancy care, childbirth and post-natal care, and they can handle uncomplicated deliveries. They are also trained in identifying high risk pregnancies and deliveries and refer these to hospital care.

It's possible expectant mothers will get more continuous care and establish better rapport with a community-based team of midwives than they can bouncing from community health centre to flight nurse to big-city hospital to obstetrician-on-call.

Nunavut mothers need and deserve better maternal care. The territory has high rates of low birth weight babies and fetal alcohol syndrome. Many of its mothers are young and need medical staff who can spend more time with them, giving advice, guidance and reassurance.

If implemented properly, with enough staff and funding, midwife-staffed birthing centres may provide the best maternal care possible in Northern communities.


Prospects look good
Nunavut News/North - Monday, October 26, 2009

If there's one thing Nunavut has a lot of, it's rocks.

So learning to identify types of rocks and their mineral compositions is a handy skill to have for anyone who spends time on the land.

Fossils and meteorites are valuable for scientific research, and Nunavut is also rich in mineral resources.

Few of these resources have been explored, making it a prime area for prospecting.

The lure of prospecting is that a chance find could lead to a windfall of profit for the lucky man or woman who uncovers it.

Many outsiders come North to prospect for minerals and have no stake in the territory or its communities, other than as a source of labour.

Nunavummiut should take advantage of prospecting training because they know and respect the land and they have the greatest stake in our territory's future.


Corrections

Incorrect information appeared in last Friday's Yellowknifer ("GNWT won't look at cell phone ban," Oct. 23). There were 861 traffic accidents reported in the NWT in 2008.

The movie review in the Oct. 28 edition of Yellowknifer contained an error. Capitalism: A Love Story opens Nov. 13 at Capitol Theatre. Yellowknifer apologizes for any confusion these errors may have caused.

We welcome your opinions on these editorials. Click to e-mail a letter to the editor.