Thank you, Mr. McLeod. To the motion. Mr. Hawkins.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. On October 7, 1897, Frederick Haultain had taken the reins of the Northwest Territories as its first Premier. We lost that dream on September 1, 1905. Then Prime Minister Wilfred Laurier, who happens to be my favourite Prime Minister not because he’s liberal but for a lot of reasons, took away the rights of the Northwest Territories’ people to govern itself. For 109 years we have been waiting for home rule to finally return to the Northwest Territories where it belongs in the hands of the elected people of the Northwest Territories. Home rule has finally come home and it’s time we get on with business. No more negotiations. Let’s get this job done, finally.
Since this idea of a plebiscite has finally risen, I have received three e-mails in support of a plebiscite. Conversely, I have received dozens of e-mails saying, finally, let’s get this job done. Many people are saying we need this done; we need to move forward.
Never before has the future been so promising than it is now before the people of the Northwest Territories. One hundred and nine years it has taken us to finally get our act in order, finally to get the Government of Canada onside and we cannot miss this opportunity.
Every Member of this Assembly has been elected to make decisions, as my colleague Mr. Bouchard has said and several other of my colleagues made reference to. With that, this issue has never been a surprise to anybody in the Northwest Territories that when this deal finally came after 109 years. I’m not talking about the 12 years in the last negotiation round we have had. It has taken us 109 years to get this far. We cannot let this opportunity pass by once again.
I completely agree with the Premier on this, and a few other occasions, that a plebiscite is important, but it’s not the right tool at this particular time. I believe, in my travels as an MLA over almost 10 years, I have used every occasion to remind people how important devolution is and I have used every election to talk about it. I have no doubt every Member, in some form or fashion, of this House, has used the occasion of their election to talk about the opportunities of devolution and finally in the Northwest Territories succeeding to its rightful place as a full partner in this confederation of Canada.
Our language may have come in different forms, but we have all talked about, in some manner, the same message, which is, Northwest Territories is an equal partner in Canada, and a plebiscite, in my view, may be delaying that. I think it sets the public up for the wrong message. I think if we proceed with a plebiscite, it better be succeeded with a clarity act as to what it actually means to make sure we know where we’re going.
I think a plebiscite is a yes or no, but it doesn’t take into account the last 12 years of work required. It doesn’t take the last year and a half’s work into consideration. As I said earlier, it certainly doesn’t take the 109 years into consideration when home rule is finally returning to where it belongs: to the Legislative Assembly for the people of the Northwest Territories.
In closing, I want to point out this: It has been repeated several times in this House, this plebiscite could cost up to $1.8 million. I cannot imagine how we would not consider spending that $1.8 million on programs for nurses in small communities, for addictions and treatment programs, for investment in students at Aurora College. This could go so much further than just a simple question. So I put programs before this vote. I put programs and people and services first. In that sense, there should be no surprise to this House where I stand. I will be voting against this motion. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Thank you, Mr. Hawkins. Order! To the motion. Mr. Miltenberger.
Mr. Speaker, if I may add a few quick comments to this debate. Seventeen Assemblies have come here through the history of the Northwest Territories, a long journey to self-government going back nearly 70 years. It’s 46 years since the planes came north from Ottawa with the Commissioner to get us even closer to that idea of a responsible government.
My colleague Mrs. Groenewegen and I have been part of five of those Assemblies. Every one of those Assemblies that I’ve been in, we’ve been pushing for devolution. We’re on the verge of the removal of the last of the political shackles from Ottawa that bind us and hold us back and it’s time to keep moving. We should not be standing in front of the Commissioner hat in hand, shuffling our feet and tugging our forelock like a humble mendicant asking for a plebiscite. We should be discussing this issue in this Legislative Assembly, where we are elected Members, and deciding on whether we approve, up or down, the devolution motion.
We will do that. We will vote on this motion in the May session. I think we’re making the right decision here today. I hope it’s clear to the folks that are listening that we have their interests at heart. I haven’t received one call. I haven’t received one e-mail. I ran on devolution in the last election. I have run on it in every election. I think it’s time has come and we know what we have to do. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Miltenberger. To the motion. Mr. Bromley, for closing remarks.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I appreciate hearing from my colleagues today. I heard many comments about cost. I am the first to admit that there is a cost to democracy, and I know that everybody in this House is aware of considerable government wastage that is way beyond the cost and the benefits of a plebiscite.
I’ve heard some comments about time. The Premier waxed loquacious about how this is going to delay everything. The motion itself points out that it’s within his dictated time schedule, so there would be no delay whatsoever from this.
The people don’t want this, people are saying. I didn’t get any e-mails, people are saying. The idea of a plebiscite has been on the books for, what, two or three days here? EKOS research conducted a poll. Have people been consulted? Obviously not. They want a vote. They have spoken overwhelmingly and clearly.
I might mention that this is all the people of the Northwest Territories. More than two-thirds of every people in every riding have spoken and said we want a plebiscite, we want a vote, we want our voice heard.
People have mentioned that they are elected so, therefore, they are the voice of their people, but when people are elected, at least when I’m elected I also hear them saying, but we want you to listen to what we have to say, and we want you to act based on what you’re hearing. Again, the people have spoken, more than two-thirds of the people – Aboriginal, non-Aboriginal, men, women and so on across the Northwest Territories – and they want this to happen. Are we listening, is my question. I think we are, by proposing this plebiscite and approving it today.
The Premier talked about why ask the Commissioner, he is a federal employee. That‘s pretty good semantics there. I’m surprised at the things I’m hearing. It’s almost as if this is threatening. I’m sure it’s not, but I’m very surprised at the tone of these remarks when we’re talking about a democratic tool here. I’m pretty perplexed about that. Obviously, that’s untrue. What we’re doing here is asking the people what their comments are and what their take is on the idea of devolution in a non-binding, constructive, and proven, effective way.
On the other hand, the positive aspects of a plebiscite, of course, is the opportunity it presents to give a formal way to educate, inform and seek input and reflection. It provides a validation. I have no doubt that the Premier would get his validation to this, but in a much more meaningful way. This is a real opportunity for validation.
My colleague from the Deh Cho said, what kind of basis do we want to move forward on. Do we want to move forward on a dictatorial basis or do we want to move forward on a representative, democratic basis where we’re actually listening to the people and responding. We’re engaging, we’re giving them an opportunity for their voice to be heard.
The right action here is, clearly, to get a plebiscite on the table within the Premier’s time frame. The Chief Electoral Officer has provided assurance that this can be done and a good format for a question. Obviously, this doesn’t detract from the accomplishments of devolution, what the Premier talked about. Indeed, it’s a major accomplishment. In fact, it is an important step, just as the Premier said. However, how it’s implemented will actually determine the benefits that the Premier spoke about. That is where we actually could do some real consultation here as opposed to the hollow sorts of things that have been done to date. Again, it is the people that are saying this, not me.
Thank you, Mr. Bromley. The Member asked for a recorded vote. All those in favour, please stand.
Mr. Bromley, Ms. Bisaro.
All those opposed, please stand.
Mr. Yakeleya, Mr. Blake, Mr. Beaulieu, Mr. Abernethy, Mr. Miltenberger, Mr. McLeod – Yellowknife South, Mr. Lafferty, Mr. Ramsay, Mr. McLeod – Inuvik Twin Lakes, Mr. Dolynny, Mr. Nadli, Mr. Hawkins, Mr. Menicoche, Mr. Moses.
All those abstaining, please rise. In favour, two; opposed, 14; abstentions, zero. The motion is defeated.
---Defeated
Mr. Nadli.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I seek unanimous consent to deal with a motion I gave notice of earlier today.
---Unanimous consent granted
WHEREAS nine Canadian provinces and Yukon have parliamentary ombudsman offices;
AND WHEREAS Yukon, a smaller jurisdiction than the Northwest Territories, has combined the offices of the Information and Privacy Commissioner with that of an ombudsman;
AND WHEREAS the Government of Yukon recently commissioned a report on the operations of Yukon’s combined ombudsman/Information and Privacy Commissioner, which in February 2013 recommended that the office be made a full-time position, citing pending health privacy and whistleblower legislation which are expected to increase the workload in the position;
AND WHEREAS the Northwest Territories’ current Information and Privacy Commissioner has also noted that her workload will expand should new health privacy legislation and whistleblower legislation be enacted;
AND WHEREAS the Government of the Northwest Territories has undertaken a review of current practices which identified more than two dozen pieces of territorial legislation which establish statutory appeal mechanisms;
AND WHEREAS Members of the NWT Legislative Assembly have frequently raised the need for a territorial ombudsman in debate in this House, most recently in Motion 9-17(3), carried on June 8, 2012;
AND WHEREAS the Standing Committee on Government Operations wrote to the Premier on November 7, 2012, to state the committee’s interest in the concept of an ombudsman’s office for the NWT, combined with that of another statutory officer or officers such as the Information and Privacy Commissioner;
AND WHEREAS such an office could assist the Legislative Assembly and standing committees in their role in upholding standards of government accountability;
AND WHEREAS further research, analysis and review are required in order to determine the potential need for an NWT ombudsman, whether stand-alone or combined with another office;
NOW THEREFORE I MOVE, seconded by the honourable Member for Frame Lake, that the potential role of an NWT ombudsman, whether stand-alone or combined with another statutory office, and options for implementing such an office, be referred to the Standing Committee on Government Operations for research, review and analysis, and that the committee report its findings back to this House at the earliest opportunity;
AND FURTHER, that the Standing Committee on Government Operations shall be provided, through appropriations of the Legislative Assembly of the Northwest Territories, with the necessary financial support to carry out its assigned responsibilities as they relate to this review.
Thank you, Mr. Nadli. To the motion. Mr. Nadli.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. As the chair of the Assembly’s Standing Committee on Government Operations, I’m pleased to move this motion. Committee members have a keen interest in any measures that could improve government accountability, administrative fairness and responsiveness. The matter of a territorial ombudsman, which could be just such a measure, has often been discussed in this House. There is support from this Assembly for the concept, as shown by the passage of Motion 9-17(3) last June.
The Standing Committee on Government Operations took the initiative to write to the Premier to state our interest in the possibility of an ombudsman combined with one or more of the existing part-time statutory officers. I would like to thank the government for reviewing our concerns and cataloguing the current statutory appeals processes. This is a hopeful start, but more information is, clearly, needed. The present motion will authorize the Standing Committee on Government Operations to conduct independent research and analysis to explore the need for a territorial ombudsman and the potential role of such an officer.
From my own point of view, as an MLA representing small communities, I will want to make sure that such an office can benefit all of our residents. Practical, cost-effective options for implementation should also breed research. The standing committee will be very pleased to undertake this work on referral by the Assembly, and report back to the House at an early date.
I’d like to thank the deputy chair of the Standing Committee on Government Operations, Ms. Wendy Bisaro, for seconding this motion and for her long-standing leadership on this issue. Finally, thank you, colleagues. I hope you will support this motion in the interest in full and fair consideration of the need for a territorial ombudsman.
Thank you, Mr. Nadli. To the motion. Ms. Bisaro.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. As the seconder of the motion and deputy chair of the Standing Committee on Government Operations, I would like to speak briefly about committee’s reason for bringing this forward. As my colleague Mr. Nadli has mentioned, the need for a territorial ombudsman has been discussed in this House for many years and I have been pushing it over the last few years that I’ve been here.
I’m sure that all of us believe in commonly accepted principles of administrative fairness, and these include:
the right to be treated with respect and dignity;
the right to speak on your own behalf or to have an advocate speak for you or with you;
the right to be heard;
the right to participate in decisions that affect you;
the right to receive clear, complete and appropriate reasons for a decision;
the right to obtain all information that led to the initial decision or that is being considered in an appeal;
the right to an impartial review of a decision that affects you, a review that is accessible, flexible, timely and easy to use; and
the right to an appeal procedure that has a built-in mechanism to protect against retribution.
The Northwest Territories has numerous appeals and complaints processes set up through both policy and legislation, processes which help protect our citizens’ rights to administrative fairness. In many jurisdictions, however, there is an ombudsman who generally oversees the administrative actions of government and determines their administrative fairness. An ombudsman may investigate complaints from the public or, in some cases, conduct investigations on his or her own initiative or by referral from a committee or a Minister. An ombudsman may consult with authorities and make recommendations to resolve issues of unfairness and improve administrative practices. The ombudsman can be a source of information and advice about administrative fairness.
In the Northwest Territories, an ombudsman could do many things. He or she could provide an information and referral service or recommend efficiencies in our processes or identify gaps in existing complaint and appeal processes, as well as dealing directly with any complaints and concerns that do not fall under an existing process. These are only some of the possibilities that could be investigated.
This motion will allow the Standing Committee on Government Operations to conduct research and analysis and thoroughly review all the options, including combining the ombudsman’s office with that of an existing statutory officer, such as the Information and Privacy Commissioner or the Language Commissioner.
The committee would be pleased to undertake this study with a focus on the efficiency, effectiveness and usefulness of an ombudsman in the context of northern realities. I urge all my colleagues to support this motion and let the committee get to work.
Thank you, Ms. Bisaro. To the motion.
Question.
Question has been called.
---Carried
I move, seconded by the honourable Member for Tu Nedhe, that Bill 5, Supplementary Appropriation Act (Infrastructure Expenditures), No. 3, 2012-2013, be read for the first time.
Bill 5, Supplementary Appropriation Act (Infrastructure Expenditures), No. 3, 2012-2013, has had first reading.
---Carried
Mr. Miltenberger.
I move, seconded by the honourable Member for Great Slave, that Bill 6, Supplementary Appropriation Act (Infrastructure Expenditures), No. 1, 2013-2014, be read for the first time. Thank you.
Bill 6, Supplementary Appropriation Act (Infrastructure Expenditures), No. 1, 2013-2014, has had first reading.
---Carried
Mr. Miltenberger.
I move, seconded by the honourable Member for Yellowknife South, that Bill 7, Supplementary Appropriation Act (Infrastructure Expenditures), No. 4, 2011-2012, be read for the first time.
Bill 7, Supplementary Appropriation Act (Infrastructure Expenditures), No. 4, 2011-2012, has had first reading.
---Carried
Mr. Miltenberger.
Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the honourable Member for Monfwi, that Bill 8, Supplementary Appropriation Act (Operations Expenditures), No. 4, 2011-2012, be read for the first time.
Bill 8, Supplementary Appropriation Act (Operations Expenditures), No. 4, 2011-2012, has had first reading.
---Carried
Mr. Miltenberger.
Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the honourable Member for Kam Lake, that Bill 9, Supplementary Appropriation Act (Operations Expenditures), No. 3, 2012-2013, be read for the first time.
Bill 9, Supplementary Appropriation Act (Operations Expenditures), No. 3, 2012-2013, has had first reading.
---Carried
Mr. Miltenberger.
Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the honourable Member for Inuvik Twin Lakes, that Bill 10, Supplementary Appropriation Act (Operations Expenditures), No. 1, 2013-2014, be read for the first time.
Bill 10, Supplementary Appropriation Act (Operations Expenditures), No. 1, 2013-2014, has had first reading.
---Carried
I move, seconded by the honourable Member for Tu Nedhe, that Bill 5, Supplementary Appropriation Act (Infrastructure Expenditures), No. 3, 2012-2013, be read for the second time.
This bill makes supplementary appropriations for infrastructure expenditures for the Government of the Northwest Territories for the 2012-2013 fiscal year.
