Iqaluit land use meeting hears residents’ questions, concerns
QIA to hold interviews as part of land-use study to provide information for possible renewable energy project
Iqalummiut gather to voice their opinions on the Qikiqtani Inuit Association’s Tusaqtavut study, which will gather local knowledge on the land and water around Iqaluit. That study will inform any potential renewable energy project done by Nunavut Nukkiksautiit Corp near Iqaluit. (Photo by David Lochead)
Close to 30 Iqalummiut raised questions and shared their concerns over how renewable energy could be developed near Iqaluit, during a meeting this week at Cadet Hall.
The session focused on Qikiqtani Inuit Association’s Tusaqtavut study, which looks at Inuit use of land and water near the city.
Monday’s meeting was to gather information to be used when considering whether a renewable energy project could be developed near Iqaluit. What form that project could take — if it moves forward — hasn’t been decided, the meeting’s organizer said.
The meeting was hosted by Nunavut Nukkiksautiit Corp., a renewable energy corporation owned by Qikiqtaaluk Corp., and Firelight Group, which is consulting on behalf of QIA.
For the Tusaqtavut study, QIA and Firelight will conduct up to 80 interviews with Iqalummiut — specifically elders and other Inuit who go out on the land.
At the meeting, one resident questioned why previous studies were not being relied on for land use, such as caribou and beluga studies conducted by the Government of Nunavut.
He urged study organizers to do extensive research on renewable energy and to continue consulting the public as the study progresses.
“If a project gets killed it’s usually because of a lack of consultation,” the resident said.
Adamee Itorcheak, the former president of Baffin Fisheries Coalition, said there is a need for more community gatherings to allow different generations to talk together, instead of doing one-on-one interviews.
Itorcheak said Inuit culture believes in operating collectively, not individually.
“If that reflects what people are asking for, then we’re going to explore how to do that,” said Jess Puddister, a stakeholder and regulatory manager for NNC.
She emphasized QIA’s Tusaqtavut study will be completed before NNC develops any renewable energy plan.
“There will definitely be more rights and stakeholder engagement that would happen in the future related to renewable energy development,” Puddister said.
I watched someone almost fall into that stupid new ditch at the four way stop this morning. I’m sure that will only get worse as it snows more. Whose idea was that? It’s like walking through a rural highway intersection in the middle of a capital city.
Total lack of forethought.
The city and the GN.
It’s the City… GN is not responsible for road work.
I wondered how long it would take before that happened, it looked treacherous even before the snow.
So the potholes and water running down the middle of the road is better. My goodness , so if a new building goes up and you always took that path would you walk in one door and out the other. People complain about improvements. I guess it was better getting soaked by passing vehicles.
The new ditches force me to walk closer to the road. When I got back from lunch I had mud spots up to my hip. And that inconvenience is secondary to the edge disappearing under the snow.
This is not an improvement, cities are for people not cars. Many of us walk; not everyone is a sedentary carbrain.
This is interesting stuff, I hope this can be done, the power corp did a half ass job trying to work on a hydro project and we saw how that went.
Get this one done! Get er going!
“Itorcheak said Inuit culture believes in operating collectively, not individually.”
I love these illusory incantations which pretend there is some inherently better process in action, yet it is so plainly obvious that whatever is being done has accomplished nothing of note and never gets us anywhere outside a quagmire of navel gazing
Where did you get your thesaurus?
From your mom
Easy now, don’t feel so threaten! It doesn’t look good on you.
Sah-wing and a miss.
Easy, I take the OP’s point to be, let’s not pretend we are running better software, as nothing at all seems to support that.
Thanks, ‘Give us a break and get real’; and also:
“Adamee Itorcheak, the former president of Baffin Fisheries Coalition, said there is a need for more community gatherings to allow different generations to talk together, instead of doing one-on-one interviews.”
The ‘concensus’ process always generates policy that is ineffective and undemocratic. Concensus is code for groupthink, muffling of opposition, oppression. It is a tribal concept sustained by concepts of inheritance, privilege, and organized classism
Any policy that is derived outside of an adversarial approach is at best undemocratic and most likely, oppressive.
Look no further than Nunavut for classic examples of that for the past four generations. Is it any wonder that organized crime is so rampant and entrenched here?
“Concensus is code for groupthink, muffling of opposition, oppression. It is a tribal concept sustained by concepts of inheritance, privilege, and organized classism”
These are interesting points for consideration. The Asch conformity experiments support your argument.
I think the issue with more traditional models is whether or not they can scale up to larger and arguably more complex social environments.
This should be studied, but I suspect that might be difficult to do for (what should be) obvious reasons.
Either way, I tend to agree with you on the effectiveness of a more adversarial model. At the same time I also wonder if our current political models aren’t also becoming dated and in need of an upscale / upgrade.