Nunatsiaq Online
EDITORIAL: Nunavut July 03, 2009 - 9:50 am

Nunavut’s next senator should be elected

NUNATSIAQ NEWS

Most people alive today in Nunavut today were not even born when the former prime minister, Pierre Elliot Trudeau, appointed Willie Adams of Rankin Inlet to the Senate on April 5, 1977.

Between 1977 and 1999, Adams represented the Northwest Territories in the Senate. After 1999, Adams represented Nunavut, while a separate seat, now occupied by Nick Sibbeston, was created for the NWT.

After serving as a national legislator for more than 32 years, Adams retired this past June without ever having to endure the inconvenience of an election campaign. He owes his entire career to an arbitrary political decision made in 1977 by a now-deceased prime minister who left office in 1984.

Prime Minister Stephen Harper must now make a big decision. He must decide not only who to choose as Nunavut’s next senator, but how.

On this issue, the “how” element of the question is far more important than the “who.”

This past week, some people have been thinking out loud on the radio about whether the next Senator should “speak Inuktitut.” Others, such as Mary Simon, the president of Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami, have opined that Harper should choose “an Inuk.” 

All this is irrelevant. The most important attribute that a new Nunavut senator should possess is political legitimacy. To suggest otherwise is an insult to the people of Nunavut.

And in the year 2009, political legitimacy means earning your right to hold office by means of a fair, open election.

Here’s what Stephen Harper said on Oct. 16, 2007, when Bert Brown of Alberta, one of only two elected senators, was inducted into the Red Chamber:

“The mandate to govern, when it is given to you directly by the people, is a great honour and a great responsibility.  It’s the very essence of responsible government, and it is the minimum condition of 21st century democracy.”

Note Harper’s choice of words: “the very essence of responsible government” and “the minimum condition of 21st century democracy.”

A year later, Harper flushed these lofty principles down the toilet when he filled 18 vacant Senate seats with Conservatives by direct appointment and not by election.

But the departure of Willie Adams gives the prime minister another chance to live up to the principles of democratic accountability that he and his Conservative party campaigned on.

Harper’s next conversation on this issue, therefore, should not take place between himself and ITK.

His next conversation on this issue should take place between himself and the two groups whose interests are most affected by it: the Legislative Assembly of Nunavut, and the people of Nunavut.

When Willie Adams vacated his seat, the interests of the legislative assembly were automatically triggered.

This is because it’s part of the Senate’s role to provide representation for regions. In his case, Adams provided federal representation for the same geographic region that the legislative assembly is responsible for.

So before Harper makes any decision on Nunavut’s vacant seat, he must first consult Nunavut’s elected government and legislature.  In turn, Nunavut’s elected government and legislature must demand that they be consulted.

And as part of this conversation, Harper should ask the Nunavut government to consider holding an election next fall to choose a new Nunavut senator.

Such a vote would bring the people of Nunavut into a conversation that until now, has taken place among a remote elite. Elections Nunavut has the capacity to do it. In this case, the federal government ought to help pay the cost of running the Senate election and offer the assistance of Elections Canada, should it be needed.

At the very least, Nunavut’s government and legislature must be given a chance to decide if they want to do this. They are the rightful owners of the issue.

If the Nunavut government decides not to hold a Senate seat election, there’s another option they could consider: choose a Senate appointee by means of a vote among the 19 MLAS. This is a less appealing option than a direct election by all voters, but it would at least give the new Nunavut senator some semblance of political legitimacy.

One thing is certain: if the prime minister accepts only ITK’s advice, Nunavut’s new senator would have no political legitimacy.

As a private ethnic association, ITK has the right to lobby on the behalf of the four private land claim corporations whose interests they represent in Ottawa, and they have the right to express whatever opinions they choose to form on this and any other issue.

But their stated position, so far, rests on inaccurate assumptions. Willie Adams did not represent “Inuit Nunangat.” Before 1999, he represented all the people of the Northwest Territories and after 1999, he represented all the people of Nunavut, regardless of ethnicity.

This means that the most legitimate option for filling his vacant seat is also the most democratic option: an election.  JB

Agree or disagree? Let us know what you think. Send your opinions on this issue to .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) and we’ll publish the best ones in our print edition and post them on our website as letters to the editor.

Email this story to a friend... Print this page... Bookmark and Share Comment on this story...

(7) Comments:

#1. Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 03, 2009

I’ve always hated the appointment systems lets elect them at least we can live with that for good or bad they will answer to the voters

#2. Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 04, 2009

Jim makes a very compelling point….which makes me think: The ITK President should be ELECTED too, dontcha think?

#3. Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 09, 2009

I am sick of the ITK President only having to suck up to three out of four Inuit Assoc. Presidents to get elected.

Pita Adami only wanted to get rid of Mary from running against him in Nunavik so convinced the other three to help him out with their vote for her.

I have watched this insiders club for far too long, it is sickening - no one else even has a chance

Many people would be a stronger President than her: she was a Government diplomat for so many years, not a leader.

Mary making fun of the Chesterfield Inlet Residential School students who genuinely wanted an Inuk on the Truth and Reconciliation Commission as if they were flakes - does she represent anybody well?

You soon figure out the ITK office game - money and white staff, hardly any Inuit - so much of the money stays there, never reaching the north and who supports this lunacy - the NTI’s Kaludjak, IRCs Nellie Cournyea, Pita Adami and the Nunatsiavut President.
What a way to run an Inuit National Organization

#4. Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 10, 2009

I hate it when non-Inuit think they know more about Inuit than the Inuit.

To trash Mary Simon like this is purely delusional and unjustified. She has earned her leadership, she has served Inuit better than ___ .

ITK has issues and I support the democratic process too but to diss and belittle our national leader is rediculous.

My friend Phil Fontain is elected as national cheif in the same way Mary is elected. Get over it.

Let’s get to the issue not trash our side.

Abe

#5. Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 10, 2009

OK Abe, would it be any different if I said it?

Just because it’s “our side”, doesn’t mean it’s immune from accountability, or criticism, or legitimate concern.

And I think it’s worth noting that many First Nations folks have concerns over the way their National Chief is elected too.  It shouldn’t just be about who your friends are.

#6. Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 10, 2009

Ofcourse it would be different if u said it but you didn’t.
Ilaa there is destructive n constructive criticism. It’s ok to criticize that is our right.
There is a process of electing our national Inuit leader, it might not be the best system but it is fare and democratic and any of you are open to try.

I don’t really think the outcome would be any different in a public Inuit vote as Mary is capable of reaching the Inuit electorate and is very popular and known for a very longtime in Inuit country.
But we’re just hypothesizing…

The Prime Minister sees her as our national leader on par with any elected aboriginal leader, that i’m comfortable with.

I took support an elected senator.

#7. Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 12, 2009

The role of government is to represent constituents, to foster a society that provides opportunities for all of its citizens to develop and apply their full potential capability, respecting the cultural values, and rule of law prevalent within that society.

The Senate, as the Upper House in the Canadian governance system is intended to provide sober second thought to legislation passed by Members of Parliament. This thought and consequential decisions should be taken with the benefit of the cultural distinctions and knowledge relevant to the region. An electoral process would determine who represents the people best in securing this objective. Every prime minister understands that the Senate should be elected and that terms should be fixed yet every prime minister also has a difficult time foregoing the benefits a stacked Senate provides in the passage of legislation.

Remember my personal information

Notify me of follow-up comments?

Please enter the word you see in the image below:


 THIS WEEK’S ADS

 ADVERTISING


        


Custom Search