Home page

Text size

E-mail this page

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!

When is the right time to do an environmental assessment of an oil or gas project?

MGM Energy insists the wrong time is at the exploration stage, before the economic basis of any potential project has been determined.

That view is not shared by the Sahtu Land and Water Board, which has triggered an environmental assessment of MGM's application to drill an exploratory horizontal well on one of its Sahtu properties.

Nor is it the view of a wide range of organizations that reviewed the application, from the Tulita Dene Band Council to the National Energy Board, 29 in all.

The environmental assessment referral now pushes the application into that black hole known as the Mackenzie Valley Environmental Impact Review Board. That's a red tape jungle where only the most patient with deepest pockets do not fear to tread, essentially multi-national resource development companies that can withstand the organic mix of politics and science undefined by either timelines or commitment to any particular process.

MGM, not surprisingly, has said thanks but no thanks and has withdrawn the application. That must have hurt, especially since Shell Canada had agreed to pick up the tab for the work had the horizontal drilling been approved.

This comes on the heels of the recently granted application for the exploratory well MGM is working on this winter. Not a voice was raised in objection to the drilling, no environmental assessment requested.

What's the difference between the two applications? Intervenors were more concerned about the fracking process and the territory's lack of experience with a similar project. Fracking involves cracking the rock with pressurized water or other fluids to get at the gas or oil.

Yes, fracking is the bugaboo of the oil and gas world. It has been blamed for everything from killing cows and poisoning towns' water supplies to triggering earthquakes, horror stories which may or may not be true.

Yet the much touted energy independence of the United States by 2020 is greatly dependent upon fracking, so it is being done everywhere it is economically viable and the environmental damage is being managed.

We are not suggesting fracking should be given the green light in the Sahtu without delay or scrutiny. But it is clear from the comments of the organizations reviewing MGM's application that what's lacking is fundamental baseline data on the potential negative effects of fracking on Sahtu lands and water.

MGM admits as much, but argues such an exploratory horizontal well would provide relevant information. We agree.

MGM vice-president of exploration John Hogg also acknowledged to News/North that not only is there a great need for more such information, but that it should be presented, if not researched by, independent third parties such as territorial or federal government agencies. He frankly admitted people might well suspect the credibility of industry-supplied information.

We agree again. In fact, if governments wore moccasins instead of lead boots, they would view the MGM/Shell horizontal/fracking drilling proposal as a fact-finding opportunity and grant a special experimental drilling licence.

The GNWT knows how critical oil and gas development is to the future of the Sahtu, the NWT and Canada, not to forget primarily Norman Wells. Territorial energy Minister David Ramsay took Sahtu MLA Norman Yakeleya and Yellowknife Centre MLA Robert Hawkins to Calgary in August on a hydraulic fracturing fact-finding mission.

That's a good start. It's not enough to accept business as usual and rely on regulatory boards alone to decide the fate of development opportunities. It's time to get involved and take charge. That's what devolution is all about.

A company hoping to further explore for uranium in the Thelon Basin straddling the Nunavut/NWT border is abandoning a property due to regulatory scrutiny, but it should have been prepared to weather the storm.

Uravan Minerals' CEO says an environmental review on an exploration company is too onerous - it will add too much time and, in the mining business, time is money. A year or two of consultations, reviews and reports is beyond the company's threshold.

Larry Lahusen, the CEO in question, paints a picture of Uravan stepping into a minefield without being told a landmine exists.

Uravan isn't new to Nunavut. The company has had high hopes of proving a substantial uranium deposit at Garry Lake for several years, at least since 2004. By 2009 Lahusen said Uravan was reconsidering its prospects due to regulatory obstacles.

At the time, it was known to the company that it was proposing to do exploratory work on the calving grounds of the Beverly caribou herd, close to 250 km northwest of Baker Lake.

Garry Lake consists of more than 335,553 hectares, and its effects on the caribou herd are uncertain. Actually, much remains a mystery about the herd's status.

The outcome of a population survey done this summer won't be known until at least January. The last survey, close to 18 years ago, showed an estimated 276,000 animals but field counts have indicated a decline.

While Lahusen puts a priority on mining, he underestimates Inuit and Dene reliance on hunting caribou meat. The fate of the Beverly herd means a great deal to them and, in fact, the rest of the world.

Mining projects have gone ahead in Nunavut: Jericho and Meadowbank, while Mary River is heading in that direction. It only takes a few to maximize jobs and contracts that Inuit can fulfil. And, as a member of the regulatory review board pointed out, despite Uravan's protests over the environmental red tape in Nunavut, the territory is reaping the rewards of enormous amounts of money sunk into exploration, an estimated $568 million this year.

In a Fraser Institute survey of global mining destinations, Nunavut ranked 36th out of 93 locations in 2012, better than the NWT's 48th. While the regulatory regime stands to improve, our territory at least lacks the corrupt government, violent guerrillas and natural disasters that plague other countries around the world.

Finally, uranium prices spiked to $136 per pound in 2007, but stand at under $42 per pound now. Where will prices be in five years? We don't know, but if it's high enough another company will be interested in Garry Lake, and if that company has the money and the patience maybe it will get the prize.

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