Thank you, Mr. Nadli. The Member is seeking a recorded vote. All those in favour, please stand.
Mr. Nadli, Mr. Hawkins, Mr. Menicoche, Mr. Moses, Mr. Bromley, Mr. Yakeleya, Mr. Bouchard, Mr. Blake, Mrs. Groenewegen, Mr. Dolynny, Ms. Bisaro.
All those opposed, please stand. All those abstaining, please stand.
Mr. Beaulieu, Mr. Abernethy, Mr. Miltenberger, Mr. McLeod – Yellowknife South, Mr. Lafferty, Mr. Ramsay, Mr. McLeod – Inuvik Twin Lakes.
Thank you. Order! The results for the recorded vote: in favour, 11; opposed, zero; and abstentions, seven. The motion is carried.
---Carried
---Applause
Mr. Bromley.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. First of all I’d like to thank my colleague Ms. Bisaro for assisting with this motion. I’d like to thank the House for the opportunity to bring this proposal for consideration by my colleagues here today.
What is the legal basis for a plebiscite? Our Elections and Plebiscite Act says the Commissioner, on the recommendation of the Legislative Assembly, may, by order, direct that a plebiscite be held on any question that is of importance to the people of the Northwest Territories or to the people of one or more electoral districts. It further says a plebiscite is only for the purpose of collecting information and the results of a plebiscite are not binding. Does the question of devolution and its implementation fit the requirement of the act that plebiscites be staged on “any question that is of importance to the people of the Northwest Territories.” Based on the importance applied to this initiative by successive Premiers and super stressed by our own current Premier, I know this government thinks of this as a very, very big thing.
We have used the mechanism of a plebiscite to support other debate and ask for responsible input from our public before. When it came time to decide whether our former Northwest Territories should be split to create two new jurisdictions, the leaders, who were equally elected at the time, took the question to residents. That plebiscite on division was no more binding than a plebiscite on devolution would be now.
The Premier says, I don’t believe in government by plebiscite. To be clear, a plebiscite is not binding. In fact, it is a proven effective mechanism to get input from our people on an issue that is important to them. The biggest benefits of the division plebiscite was to focus and galvanize public attention on the issue. It gave us all the opportunity to consider the detailed implications of what that decision would mean. It prompted motivated citizens to learn and inform themselves, not only about the division question but the nature and forum of their government. Government chose to listen to the people.
The Premier has promised “an unprecedented level” of public consultation. We have the precedent of a plebiscite on a major issue. So if the Premier is promising to go to unprecedented lengths, a plebiscite would be even less than what he is promising. Is there an expectation that the citizens would turn down the Devolution Agreement? By the Premier’s description, the proposed agreement already enjoys solid, formal support demonstrated by the participation of five of the seven Aboriginal governments in the negotiation process. He said the other day that he has heard no groundswell of opposition.
I’ve been listening closely the last few days and while there have been detractors and opponents, I think we would all estimate the public mood is highly supportive. I have myself a record of critical oversight and comment on devolution. Yet I hope to support the initiative once I become more thoroughly familiar with the draft Final Agreement. People are concerned that the consultation plan will not be meaningful. The Premier has been quoted as saying that this is a done deal and stated his concern that if the plebiscite were turned down, it would be hard to get the federal government to move on this again. Given these statements, I think it’s understandable that people would dismiss the promised consultation as pointless and meaningless. People want their interests accommodated? How about through implementation? A government offer for a public vote on the question itself would provide the proof that the government is listening and looking to respond to public interest.
We have an opportunity to obtain resident validation. The democratic inclusion through a plebiscite is an opportunity too good to miss. So again, the benefit of a plebiscite is not primarily in the answer, but in the offer of partnership and participation. Not only do our residents need to understand the Devolution Final Agreement, but they need and want to understand how things will work in a post-devolution NWT. How the agreement will be implemented is of keen interest to the general public and the general public must have an opportunity for input.
The Premier has said that the public will have full access to information on the agreement. Since the announcement, I’ve asked for a printed copy of the agreement and been directed to the website to print my own. As a Member, I have not even been able to get a printed copy of this 120-page agreement. If I can’t get one, how will our residents get it to read? Even people with computers and the Internet will be hard pressed to print out the 120-page agreement for study. That’s not a good beginning. This points to why the full and detailed review of the agreement would be promoted by the staging of a plebiscite.
People also need to understand what the signing of an agreement would mean in real terms. For the half of our citizens employed by some level of government, full public discussion would clarify these complex issues. We know that voter turnouts are down in general elections. Here is an opportunity to invite our citizens into the workings of their democracy. We shouldn’t shut them out.
This week a poll was conducted by EKOS Research, tabled earlier today, a nationally recognized polling firm. A statistically valid sample weighted to provide representative proportions of Yellowknife versus non-Yellowknife residents, Aboriginal versus non-Aboriginal residents, women versus men residents. The question posed was, “In your opinion, should the NWT government ask NWT residents to vote on whether to accept the proposed devolution deal with Ottawa before the deal is finalized,” and the results, I’m sure most of my colleagues will know by now in the House, was an overwhelming yes – 68 percent said yes. Slightly more for Aboriginal people. Twenty percent said no, 12 percent were uncertain.
Mr. Speaker, the people have spoken. They want a meaningful role in the decision and a real and proven mechanism for providing their input. Overwhelmingly, they want a voice. I did not come up with this idea. We are simply responding here to public demand. A plebiscite is not binding and employing this approach will not negate or prevent a vote in this House by our leadership here. Indeed, it will enhance the basis for a House decision.
The Member for Frame Lake and I seek all Members’ support on this motion and I would welcome the Premier and Cabinet’s recognition of the people’s will. Mr. Speaker, I would like to call for a recorded vote. Mahsi.
Thank you, Mr. Bromley. Motion is in order. The Member has requested a recorded vote. I’ll allow the seconder to speak to the motion. Ms. Bisaro.
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
