Hostile premier rejects &#39c;onsultation; with NAM

Keith Peterson, the MLA for Cambridge Bay, helped Premier Paul Okalik pick a freshly-formed scab from an old sore last week: the premier's hostile relationship with the Nunavut Association of Municipalities.

Peterson asked Okalik Nov. 8 if the transfer of John Lamb from the devolution office to Finance Minister David Simailak's political staff means devolution is now a dead issue.

Lamb, the GN's director of devolution, replaced Chris Lalande as Simailak's executive assistant last week. Lalande's sudden dismissal Nov. 7 followed the tabling of the auditor general's embarrassing dissection of the Nunavut Business Credit Corp.

Okalik replied by saying he's still waiting for Ottawa to respond to his government's request that devolution negotiations begin – and that Lamb will serve as Simailak's executive assistant on an "interim" basis.

Peterson seemed less than fully convinced.

"I'm proud to hear the devolution negotiations are still going on, although it must be kind of quiet over there if they can allow their director to take their leave of absence to work elsewhere in the government," Peterson said.

Peterson, a former mayor of Cambridge Bay and president of NAM, then asked Okalik when the government will consult the territorial municipal organization on devolution issues.

His voice rising, Okalik replied by saying the territorial government alone will handle devolution talks, and downplayed the need to talk to other players outside the government.

"I'm not focused on who I talked to or what… I want to make progress," Okalik said.

And he repeated an oft-stated assertion: that he doesn't want municipalities horning in on any aspect of devolution.

Peterson reminded Okalik that NAM has never asked for a seat at the negotiating table but only want to be consulted, then asked if the GN supports NAM's efforts to seek funding to help prepare for such consultations. Okalik said that's a non-starter for the GN.

"The last thing I want to see is to splinter as a territory – this group wants this, this other group wants that," Okalik said.

The premier got even more defensive when Peterson asked if the GN will continue to consult with NAM on issues that affect communities.

"Last I checked, I was elected to govern the affairs of our territory, and hopefully, that will include managing mineral resources in the future and getting royalties for our resources," Okalik snapped.

In 2006, the NAM applied to the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development for funding to help municipalities prepare for the impact of resources development. But the GN torpedoed NAM's application, telling northern affairs officials they don't want the NAM involved in devolution.

The conflict between Okalik and NAM boiled over this past summer, when Okalik, at a business gathering in Labrador, referred to NAM's executive director, Lynda Gunn, as a "f–ing bitch."

After he issued a series of groveling apologies, Okalik was censured by MLAs at a special sitting in September.

Meanwhile, it's not clear when Nunavut and Ottawa will start actual devolution negotiations.

In a report issued earlier this year, Paul Mayer, Ottawa's special representative on devolution, said Nunavut suffers from serious capacity problems. He recommended a slow step-by-step approach to the devolution of new responsibilities to the GN.

It's unlikely that last week's NBCC fiasco will help Nunavut convince Ottawa that's it capable of handling more responsibility.

Under a devolution agreement, the GN would control the management of public lands and natural resources and get a share of natural resource royalty revenue. This would likely require transferring at least 120 northern affairs, natural resources and environment jobs to the GN.