Home page

Text size

E-mail this page

Sometimes resistance really is futile. And harmful.

That's the reality that should be starting to sink in for First Nations refusing to participate in a NWT devolution agreement in principle.

Former premier Floyd Roland signed a framework deal in January 2011 to transfer federal powers over resources and land management from the federal government. He invited First Nations to be partners.

The Inuvialuit and Northwest Territory Metis Nation signed on, but other First Nations opposed it.

Then the Sahtu had a change of heart and became a partner.

The Gwich'in were so offended that they filed a lawsuit. However, the Gwich'in people elected new leadership, Bob McLeod became territorial premier and the lawsuit was withdrawn. The group actually threw its support behind the devolution agreement, which would grant the territory $65 million annually to run transferred programs.

The deal will also result in 50 per cent of resource revenue being turned over from the federal government to the territorial government. Half of that 50 per cent will go to aboriginal groups in the NWT, an estimated $2 million to $3 million per year each - for now. Further development projects could raise that figure dramatically

On the outside, by choice, are the Tlicho, Deh Cho and Akaitcho. The latter two groups do not have a settled land claim.

Deh Cho Grand Chief Herb Norwegian, like his predecessor Samuel Gargan, has been vocal in his opposition to the devolution agreement in principle. Norwegian and Gargan view the deal as a means of empowering the GNWT.

"If we're not careful and we're not moving in the same direction, the whole devolution thing could turn into the devil's solution and I think we need to be very careful about that," Norwegian told his fellow chiefs at a Dene Nations assembly in Dettah late last month. "The devil's in the details. And we have to be very careful and very clear on what it is that we're looking at."

In January 2011, Gargan made a comparison between the devolution deal and the revolution that overthrew the government in Egypt. He said the situations were no different.

Of course the difference was, and still is, the ability to participate in decision-making. Citizens of countries ruled by despotic regimes have no say in governance. The Dehcho First Nations, like all aboriginal groups, is welcome to help craft a final devolution deal.

A better comparison for Norwegian to ponder is when Dehcho First Nations took a similar stance during negotiations on the proposed pipeline from Norman Wells to Zama. Alta. in the mid-1980s. The result of doing nothing then was the pipeline was built anyway, as we see it today.

Where are the revenues or other benefits for the Deh Cho from the oil flowing over Deh Cho land? There are none, as former Liidlii Kue First Nation Chief Jim Antoine pointed out recently. Were any lessons learned from that failed leadership? Apparently not. Antoine is the only Deh Cho leader advising co-operation on the devolution deal.

The same thing happened with the present Mackenzie Valley pipeline proposal. The Dehcho leadership refused to participate and instead filed lawsuits to stop it, frustrating aboriginal neighbours and potential partners with an eye to economic development for their people. The Dehcho, sensing they could not stop the project's momentum, wound up dropping the lawsuits and taking $31.5 million from the federal government in 2005 in return for a commitment not to launch any further court action.

Norwegian is right, the devil is in the details with devolution. For that reason, Dehcho, Akaitcho and Tlicho leaders will be in a better position to understand those details and to modify them by being part of the devolution negotiations process.

Refusing to participate again is futile and robs their people of a chance to become financially and politically self-sufficient.

Another potential tragedy has been averted due to the dedication and bravery of search and rescue personnel, as two Arviat hunters were found safe after a 24-hour search in -30 C temperatures late last month.

In this case, the search didn't have to happen.

These Arviat hunters were experienced and properly prepared to withstand the harsh conditions. However, they were late and their worried community had no course of action other than to rally a search during the tempestuous weather, which lasted an entire day.

What was really missing in this scenario was a SPOT Messenger, a GPS device costing in all about $200 in the first year and much less after that to have a satellite connection.

The SPOT would have given the Arviat hunters the option of sending, with the press of a button, one of three messages via satellite to any number of people and offices: 1. A message saying they were fine and showing exactly where they were on an Internet map. 2. A message asking friends to come, showing on an Internet map exactly where to find them. 3: A message that is sent to the Canadian Coast Guard or RCMP showing exactly where they are and saying come right away for an emergency situation.

A search and rescue database being piloted in Nunavut will identify the primary causes of its searches, and detail of how much time and effort is put in. Every year thousands of hours of volunteer time are spent on searches and the costs once added up are sure to be huge.

The time and money spent on searches could be saved by hunters, no matter how experienced or prepared, by grabbing one of the 20 SPOT devices available in each of Nunavut's communities, through local search and rescue groups or at hamlet offices.

Even if you're prepared to weather the most tumultuous of storms for days on end, your friends, family and community will be worried about you if you're late coming home. Every time you go out on the land, things beyond your control can happen. Bring a SPOT device - you'll save everyone a lot of time, money and, perhaps, heartache.

With the injection of $150,000 into airport security in a few Nunavut communities, the Government of Nunavut has taken a much-needed step toward keeping airplane travel safe.

Canadian North planes were broken into five times over two years in Pond Inlet. Residents didn't appreciate bad apples giving their community a bad name and the company was losing money. It was obvious Nunavut airports needed to be made more secure.

This new money is going to Pond Inlet, Cape Dorset, Iglulik, Arviat and Hall Beach, for things such as surveillance cameras and security guards. Though this doesn't cover all airports that may need the cash, it is an important step in the right direction. Airplane travel, so vital in Nunavut, must be kept safe.

When it comes to the Deh Cho Bridge, Joe Handley is right, at least in some respects.

The bridge is done. It is, despite the holdups, cost overruns, and political missteps, a monument of Northern achievement - built without the aid of one dime of federal government money.

Spring breakup and winter freeze up will never concern us again. Traffic can come and go without having to worry about getting held up by low water or a broken rudder on the Merv Hardie ferry.

As well, the bridge's critics are fewer. David Ramsay, for years one of the bridge project's most fervent detractors while seated on the opposition bench, was front and centre at last Friday's opening ceremony. Carrying the title of Transportation minister these days, Ramsay told those assembled he sees the project in a whole new light now that he is in cabinet. Yet for much of its existence this project dwelled in the shadows, from the "public-private" partnership and concession agreement arranged for the failed Deh Cho Bridge Corporation to the questionable deal struck with the bridge's original builder, ATCON Construction of New Brunswick.

For a few hours none of that mattered Friday. Northerners celebrated and braved the cold to be the first to cross the bridge, including our former premier, Handley, who was largely responsible for bringing the Deh Cho Bridge to life, and would like more than anything to have this remembered as his crowning achievement.

The Deh Cho Bridge is Handley's legacy but what must not be tossed down the memory hole are the schemes he instituted to bring this bridge to life, and must never be replicated again if the GNWT wishes to avoid a repeat of the subzero credibility it suffered during the bridge's construction. When Handley announced the then $155-million project in 2007, ATCON, the company Handley went to work for as a consultant nine months after leaving office, was supposed to build the bridge "with a guaranteed maximum price" and it would be complete by 2010. The GNWT - in an arrangement made official three days before the 2007 territorial election - agreed to backstop the bridge should the Deh Cho Bridge Corporation falter, but the government insisted that possibility was remote.

Everything went out the window, of course, when it was revealed that the territorial government didn't even have a design plan or an updated cost-benefit analysis completed before signing the agreement.

At $202 million and two years behind schedule, the Deh Cho Bridge is as much a monument to incompetence as it is to Northern achievement.

In an editorial written in January 2010, Yellowknifer labelled the project the "Mis-Handley Bridge." That's no less true today than it was then. While traffic is now flowing across the one-kilometre span over the Mackenzie River, we should keep these costly lessons in mind whenever the territorial government pitches its next major infrastructure project.

It's a question of what has been gained and what has been lost with the Deh Cho Bridge.

On the face of the issue there are very practical matters. The bridge, as many delegates pointed out during their speeches in Fort Providence on Nov. 30, is a substantial addition to the transportation network in the territory.

No longer will people have to wait at the ferry landing to cross or time their trips to make sure they arrive while the ferry is running. There will also no longer be a twice-yearly period when vehicle transportation is cut off altogether due to ice conditions. With the bridge, residents of the territory have gained a concrete transportation link. It will also mean easier transportation for goods coming in or out of that section of the territory.

Also on the practical side are the positive environmental impacts. The ferry won't be using any more fuel and vehicles won't be burning fuel while idling at the ferry crossings. For Fort Providence there is the opportunity of capitalizing on the increased year-round traffic, possibly through services related to tourism. However, there are also concerns that increased access to the community could result in a corresponding increase in social problems.

In a way the bridge symbolizes the end at Fort Providence of an exciting, uniquely Northern way of travel.

On the same day the bridge opened the Merv Hardie ferry made its last voyage on the Mackenzie River at Fort Providence. Many people at the bridge ceremony talked about how emotional the closing was. The ferry has been part of travelling in the territory for decades.

Keeping an eye on water levels while planning trips and facing delays at the ferry aren't fun for most, but they are the sorts of things that add colour to travel stories later. Many stories include the line, "Do you remember that one time at the ferry?"

The same goes for the ice crossing at Fort Providence. With the bridge in place it is a thing of the past. It was however, an amazing way to cross a river, especially when sunlight streamed through the water that was being shot by pumps into the air to build up the ice or when a raven would fly alongside a vehicle in a slow-motion race.

The opening of the bridge brings with it many benefits to Fort Providence and the territory, but it also takes away some of the expected adventure and traditions that have been built up around travelling in the North.

The doors of Canada's courtrooms are open to anyone who wants to watch justice being carried out, yet the average person rarely goes. Perhaps it's because they are busy at work, or the quiet, sterile environment just seems too uninviting.

Who knows?

Whatever the reason, justice can't be done in the dark. Society has to ensure that proceedings are carried out fairly and honestly.

Enter the press.

Were it not for reporters, few Canadians would be aware of court decisions or the reasons behind them. That's why Inuvik Drum endeavours to inform Northerners about any civil and criminal cases that are of significance and public concern, particularly when an individual in a position of trust is involved such as elected politicians, priests, teachers, or police officers.

We cannot report on every case, so editors consider a number of factors before determining what is to be covered. They look at the severity of the offence, any unusual circumstances, who is involved and whether the case would be of interest to the public.

When a public official is accused of an offence, it's sure to be something people want to know about. Those in power need to be held accountable for their actions and the public should be made aware of any misdeeds in cases where guilt is found.

That said, not everyone charged is convicted, which is why we make sure to follow the cases we cover through to their conclusion. If we do not report on a case before the verdict, we generally do not report the charges at all if the person is found innocent.

Persons considered young offenders, including adults who committed an offence when they were considered young offenders, cannot by law be named.

Additionally, Inuvik Drum generally does not name victims so as not to cause further harm to the person. In some instances, we will not report the name of the person charged if identifying them will identify the victim.

In short, a lot of thought is put into deciding what cases are reported and if we should identity the parties involved. I've only given you the summarized version of the process, but ultimately the question that gets asked is, should readers know about this?

Our aim is not to embarrass or hurt people. We don't do it to fill papers. We do it because we feel strongly it is in the interest of the public.

The most important ingredients for a healthy education program are student safety and the trust of parents.

A recent conflict between a mother and her son's play school has created a discussion about what policies schools should have in place to protect children with severe nut allergies.

Three-year-old Colin Leung has a severe allergy to peanuts and other nuts which, combined with his asthma, can result in a potentially fatal reaction if he comes into contact with the common food, according to his mom, Natasha Leung. Natasha recently told Yellowknifer the Yellowknife Playschool Association briefly stored baked goods containing nuts on its premises in advance of a fundraiser, despite touting a no-nut policy on its website. She said she does not feel safe leaving her child at an institution where nuts are permitted.

It seems this dispute was resolved after Natasha enrolled her son at Montessori School, which, along with J.H. Sissons School, is among the few schools in Yellowknife to maintain a strict nut-free policy.

Although the Department of Health and Social Services does not track the number of residents who have severe nut allergies, these schools are taking a proactive approach to make their learning environments safe in anticipation of more students with nut allergies enrolling in the future.

Other schools ought to learn from their example, out of respect for the health of students and to ensure parents trust they are sending their children to a learning environment that looks out for their children's health needs.

To avoid future anxious arguments about how to respect the needs of students with severe nut allergies, educators and concerned parents should work collaboratively to create more nut-free child-care and learning environments, and make sure those rules are strictly enforced.

Providing the NWT with low cost and environmentally friendly energy is working its way, it seems, into a top priority for the territorial government.

Two weeks ago the GNWT sponsored an energy conference in Yellowknife with a goal of developing an NWT energy strategy for 2013. Today the legislative assembly's standing committee on government operations is holding a meeting to discuss a carbon tax for the NWT.

Energy concerns continue to bedevil the territory as they do elsewhere in the world. Climate change remains ever-worrisome to environmentalists inside and outside of government. But how can the GNWT respond to it in a way that isn't pointless and destructive to the economy?

B.C. introduced a carbon tax in 2008 but it remains uncertain whether the tax is having the desired effect. Greenhouse gas emissions there have fallen 4.5 per cent since 2007 but the Canadian average - including other jurisdictions with far less stringent regulations on carbon consumption - has fallen 6.5 per cent since 2005, according to Statistics Canada.

In Yellowknife, meanwhile, talk of alternative energy remains just that. The memorandum between the city and B.C.-based Corix Utilities for a downtown district energy system remains unfulfilled. Biomass, solar power and wind power are touted often but have yet to reach the realm of practicality on a large scale. A $700,000 solar power project in Fort Simpson, spanning the length of an NFL football field, is producing just enough power to turn off the town's diesel generators for 2.5 days a year.

It would seem to make more sense to double down on the vast hydro power available in the North. According to Statistics Canada, in Quebec, which is also blessed with an abundance of shield country rivers, 68 per cent of households use electricity for space heating and 90 per cent of that electricity comes from hydro, which has a very affordable starting residential rate of 5.32 cents per kilowatt hour. In Yellowknife the rate is 23.72 cents per kilowatt hour - far too high at present to replace home heating fuel.

Our relatively low population, underdeveloped infrastructure, and enormous territory make it extremely difficult to come up with practical solutions. Floating trendy trial balloons that appeal to our environmental conscience is easy, but coming up with achievable and meaningful goals will be a tough job for the GNWT.

A number of conversations I had during the past week left me feeling a bona-fide member of an ever-shrinking minority -- and it had nothing to do with the colour of my skin.

The talks revolved around censorship; sparked by my editorial on Nov. 28 (GN's social media ban should be shot down) concerning the Government of Nunavut's (GN) blocking of social-media sites in our schools.

For the record, those I spoke with supported the piece, but that had nothing to do with their opinions other than the fact I voiced a topic they were already decided upon.

They, as well as others who e-mailed me, let me know not only sites like Facebook and YouTube were blocked, but (gasp!) Kivalliq News as well.

They're subscribers, and, although they can view a very limited number of stories through a portal, they're blocked from accessing a PDF of any edition.

Their opinion is it's a form of censorship, and it doesn't sit well with them.

I tend to agree, especially since (as much as it chagrins me) I can't see thousands of students hogging GN bandwidth every week by continuously downloading copies of the newspaper.

Yet, censorship comes in many forms. One such form is telling people only what you think they want to hear or, even worse, only what you want them to hear.

That particular form of censorship is rampant, and our schools are no different. As a journalist, I could pen 99 positive stories in a row about any school project in the region, and, in doing so, I'm just doing my job and rarely receive any feedback.

But, if number 100 is negative, you can bet your month's paycheque I'm going to hear about it and be told, in no uncertain terms, they like to keep everything positive.

The same can be said of our government agencies, regional Inuit associations, sporting organizations; whatever the case may be.

Make no mistake about it, that, too, is censorship.

Somewhere along the way truth has joined transparency and accountability in the bad habits section of what many in power decide the public should know, and have been replaced with illusion.

Rather ironic, when you consider people in power also decided it's improper to wish anyone a merry Christmas during the "holiday" season.

That, too, is illusion, but I digress.

The bottom line is, these things won't change unless people are willing to speak up and, yes, that comes with some heat.

Surely we haven't regressed so far in our ability to distinguish right from wrong that it's now more acceptable to create illusion rather than face a bit of criticism.

Does constructive criticism no longer exist?

Have we reached the point where only our opinions matter, and there is no longer any advantage to weighing the thoughts of others?

Have our votes given the government the power to deny access to a regional publication which may, on occasion, offer varying points of view to what the GN wants accepted at face value?

If so, illusion has certainly replaced reality in that this should never be accepted.

Is it Our Land or Our Land as you're told to see it?

Illusion won't allow it to work both ways!

We welcome your opinions. Click here to e-mail a letter to the editor.