Debates of May 31, 2004 (day 16)

To the motion. Mr. Hawkins.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, I’ll be speaking in favour of the motion. I think what my honourable colleague, Mr. Allen, brought forward is an ambitious idea that probably has been dreamt about for many years, since the origin of the Northwest Territories, which goes back several hundreds of years. Mr. Speaker, I truly believe nothing ventured, nothing gained. I think this is an opportunity to fully get this discussion on the table. It may not be realized by Canada through fruition, yet if we don’t ask the question they can’t say no. So by moving forward with this motion, at least we can deal with the question openly and honestly.

So this is truly, as I see it, the first step towards us taking control, taking management of our territory, versus a bureaucracy or a department managing the Northwest Territories for us. Mr. Speaker, some may say the impacts of us stepping forward as a province would be detrimental. I have to say from my position of being very new to the concept of us stepping forward to become a province, I can’t give you all the answers here today. What I can say is there are provinces out there like Newfoundland. Newfoundland moved forward, they created an Atlantic Accord, they can have control and work with other organizations over their resources. There are other organizations…Mr. Speaker, I’m having difficulty. If you could…

To the motion. Mr. Braden.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I appreciate Mr. Allen and Mr. Yakeleya bringing this topic to the floor of this assembly. I think they’ve done a service for us in the 15th Assembly at this fairly early stage. There are some points that I would like to make, but I should preface first of all by saying that as much as I see this as a necessary and a fascinating part of our work here, I will not be speaking in favour of this particular motion. But I’m certainly interested in the topic and I’d like to address some parts of that.

Mr. Allen in his motion really hit the nail on the head when he indicated that we’re just not getting anywhere in the devolution talks. In the 14th Assembly I was a Member here just starting out and I was very encouraged at the time to hear then Northern Affairs Minister Robert Nault say that we’re going to engage in a process that would see a meaningful relationship through the aboriginal governments, as well as the territorial and federal government, to share in the wealth that we have in our resources. But equally, and, I think, more importantly, to share in the management and the pace and style of how resources are going to be developed.

Well, that was four years ago, a few million dollars out of the federal government’s pocket and a substantial sum out of ours, too, Mr. Speaker, and I don’t know that we really have any more on the table for a devolution deal other than I think a framework document that was released late last year. Not much traffic, Mr. Speaker, toward some kind of a program and progress for the Northwest Territories.

So this is a point that I’ve been looking at and wondering, that is not the only time that we’ve been sandbagged on this particular agenda. I guess I’m very resigned, Mr. Speaker, to the fact that the federal government has now essentially found a way on about a four or five-year cycle to keep knocking the devolution agenda off the table. We’re not going to get anywhere with Ottawa. I really have very little faith in it. We need to find a way, Mr. Speaker, of breaking that cycle of ignorance and avoidance on the part of Ottawa. Somehow I would really like to find a way to get a message into the highest political levels and policy levels -- not just to the government of the day, but all the political parties of Canada who make these kind of decisions -- that it really is time to end this colonialist approach to managing the part of Canada that’s above the 60th parallel. It really is time to get away from what I call the benevolent tyranny of the Northern Affairs shop that is very good at sandbagging and keeping us off balance.

---Applause

Hear, hear. Now, the Premier indicated one of the barriers that’s against us is in the 1982 deal that says two-thirds of the provinces representing half of the population of Canada have to approve of anything that would look like provincial-like powers for a territory. That in itself is going to be very, very difficult. I guess I see the Northwest Territories of the future, Mr. Speaker, as a place that has somehow achieved the balance and the accords between a public government in this institution and those of the self-governments that the First Nations want to achieve and, indeed, are making significant progress. I also see, Mr. Speaker, an equal place at this table of this federation or alliance, whatever it’s going to be, for the communities, for the larger communities that aren’t covered or captured in the self-government and land claim areas. That’s part of what we’re going to look like in the long-term future, Mr. Speaker, from my point of view.

Then we have to look at what this relationship is going to be like with Ottawa. I see it as one that is going to be more autonomous than we have now. It is one, though, that we have somehow wriggled out from under the rock that Northern Affairs is keeping us under, and we have much more direct-line relationships with the departments in Ottawa. In other words, if we want to do something with our highways or our airports here, we don’t have to see if the Minister of Northern Affairs will hold our hand and walk across the block to visit the Minister of Transportation for Canada. That’s what’s holding us back now. Then these two Ministers can say, well, it’s your job, no, it’s your job. They pat us on the head and send us home again. Nothing happens. We have to get around this, what I call, barrier that the Northern Affairs program has created and wants to continue for the Northwest Territories.

So I see a special relationship, not a provincial-type relationship. I think the Premier again has outlined some of the big hurdles that we would have to overcome there. Because of our size as a population and economic area, I think it would be in our best interests to maintain a particularly different relationship with Ottawa from the point of view of our financing, our assistance. But if we don’t pursue or continue to press for something like that, we’re never going to succeed, we’re never going to really reach the levels of autonomy and self-destiny that we should be going for.

Right now, we have a big safety net there. The Government of Canada isn’t going to let us fail, really. But with the environment that we have now we are not going to be able to succeed. I think that is what we should be trying to do.

I would concur, Mr. Speaker, with I think a couple of comments that have already been made here that this is such a big idea, it is a worthwhile idea, but it is one that needs to be tested very thoroughly with our other partners, with the bigger, broader population of the Northwest Territories. I guess this is principally why I cannot support this motion at this time. It is really something that I would like to see an assembly coming in with a very strong mandate from the electorate, from the leadership of the First Nations and communities, that says yes, go, get this done. Because without that kind of strong signal, we are not going to have a very strong support to take to Ottawa and to the rest of the country for the kind of support we’re going to need.

I hope that this discussion can continue and will continue outside of this assembly. I hope that maybe we’ll hear some of this kind of discussion at the First Nations assemblies that happen every summer, and around municipal tables and those kinds of places. That is really where the support and idea to get behind this will grow. Perhaps, just perhaps, we can see something placed in front of the entire electorate of the NWT in the way of a referendum. Perhaps even in time for the election of the 16th Assembly in another three and a half years or so. That may be one way of putting this question out there and seeing what the appetite is and getting a sense of the strength and the way we should be approaching this.

Again, I would like to compliment Mr. Allen and Mr. Yakeleya for bringing this forward. I hope it’s not the last of this kind of discussion that we have here. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

To the motion. Mr. Menicoche.

Mr. Speaker, thank you very much. To the motion here is that my constituents didn’t indicate any interest in supporting a motion like this and for me I’m not going to be supporting this motion. There are a couple things that are kind of leading me in this direction that are contrary right now to the aim of the claimant groups in my Nahendeh riding. As well, I believe that we are also asking the wrong question with this motion. It’s kind of like what has been happening back home with the change of village to hamlet status. People are saying let’s do this change, but the proper information is not available for the people to make an informed decision. I believe something of this nature is well worth reviewing. People should know about it and must know about it, because what’s going to happen is we’re going to have to waste a lot of time and resources and energy from our government to pursue this, much like a simple thing like the name change that happened at the last Assembly which used up lots of resources and money and it really didn’t get anywhere.

I don’t want to use the resources that our government has pursuing this right now because, as I said, I believe that we asked the wrong question. Perhaps we should be asking if there is a better way to facilitate how our government has relations with the federal government. In that respect, it’s 2004 right now and, yes, we have people in Ottawa who are still suffering from what I like to call colonial hang over. We’re still subjects of the Crown and they’re still treating us that way. Yes, it’s time to change that.

Some of the ways are to look at that relationship. We’re technically a department of the Department of Indian and Northern Development and that has to change. That’s something that our government should be charged with.

I believe that this motion is not going to address that adequately. With that, I’d like to thank Mr. Speaker for the opportunity to speak to this motion. Mahsi cho.

To the motion. Mr. Delorey.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, I’m certainly happy that this issue has hit the floor of the House and I want to thank Mr. Allen and Mr. Yakeleya for bringing it forward. It’s amazing to me when as soon as this topic came up how Members are defending the system that we have with Ottawa right now. For four years I’ve been hearing about how terrible the arrangement that we have with Ottawa right now as to bettering our financial position and being able to have some control over our resources. Now that we’re bringing up a situation where there’s the possibility or notion that we should press the federal government to get provincehood to address those very issues, now we’re saying how great the situation that we have with Ottawa is and how much better off we are than we would be if we had provincehood.

I am more confused by that than I am afraid of this motion that’s before the House. The exact reasons that are being given for not pursuing this are the exact reasons why I think I should support it now. I mean, when the Premier says that one of the biggest obstacles that we would face is that two-thirds of the provinces would have to agree before we could do anything with this, tells me that there must be something good in it if they would ever oppose it. That’s an argument that totally defeats the argument of not pursuing it.

For me to think that we have chosen a path to deal with Ottawa through a devolution process rather than going through provincehood, when we first started talking about devolution that I was involved four years ago I thought it was exactly for that, to get provincehood or very close to provincehood. It would give us a better deal. It would give us more power to go and talk to Ottawa and a better share of our resources.

Yes, I understand that we’re a very small province and we may not get a better share of our resources. That’s a negotiated deal. Every province has done that. As a matter of fact, the provinces all want to reopen that door with Ottawa and talk about their share of resources that they have. Newfoundland and all the provinces as far as I know; none of them are happy except for maybe Alberta with the deal they have with Ottawa. But they want to reopen those negotiations. I don’t think that is something that we have to shy away from.

I think it’s a very interesting circumstance and a very good topic for discussion. I don’t think that passing this motion here is going to guarantee us provincehood, not by any stretch of the imagination. But I do believe that there’s nothing wrong with going and pursuing it with Ottawa. I don’t think, for one thing, our Premier is respected to the extent that he should be when he goes to Ottawa. I don’t think that our Premier is even recognized as a Premier. He’s recognized as a Government House Leader still. That argument can be made, but we hear it called a Government House Leader a lot yet.

I’ll tell you, I am not happy with the arrangement that we have with Ottawa right now when we answer everything to one Minister: the Minister of Indian and Northern Affairs. That’s totally ludicrous. If we’re going to take our place in the Dominion of Canada, I think we should be a province. If it takes us 100 years to get something out of being a province, we’ll have started the process. If we don’t start the process we may never get it. We’ll continue to be lead with our hand out all the time getting a little bit here, a little bit there, with absolutely no jurisdiction to do anything, no power to do anything.

I really welcome this debate and I’m going to support this motion because I think it is a very good topic to go to Ottawa with and I think it’s a good thing to pursue for the Northwest Territories. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

To the motion. Mr. Ramsay.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. To follow up with my colleague from Hay River’s remarks. I’d like to, as well, thank Mr. Allen and Mr. Yakeleya for putting this important motion forward today so we can at least have some discussion on it on the floor of this Assembly. I know the Premier in his remarks and Mr. Braden in his remarks later on, the more you listen to those two gentlemen speak the more you look at this motion and say there are a lot of good reasons in there why we should support this motion. I’d like to thank those two gentlemen for their comments.

The Premier also talked about obstacles. I’ve spoken about this before in this House, that I do believe the biggest obstacle for development in the Northwest Territories is DIAND itself. I know other Members here have talked about the colonial attitude Ottawa has to the Northwest Territories, and I think that has to change. I don’t know whether the Premier wants to deliver that message; by the sounds of it he doesn’t want to deliver that message. But things have to change, Mr. Speaker.

Over the past 17 years we haven’t gotten anywhere -- anywhere -- with devolution, or resource revenue sharing. We’re standing here today talking about the same things we were talking about 17 years ago, 10 years ago, five years ago. It’s the same thing, nothing has changed. As well, I’ve mentioned on the floor of this House the fact that there’s been a Liberal government in place in Ottawa the past 11 years. I know they may laugh, but we haven’t gotten anywhere with the Liberal Government in Ottawa. Nowhere. You want to talk about waste? The Liberal Government felt so kindly about Mr. Peterson’s job at $750,000 a year that they had to give him $1 million a year to work on this file with the Northwest Territories. Every government department has a devolution specialist, devolution advisor. You want to talk about waste? There’s the waste. Let’s get some coordination here. If we are going to talk about devolution and resource revenue sharing, let’s do like we’re doing with the pipeline group. Let’s try to bring everything together. Let’s try to coordinate something. I think this government falls down in its coordination for devolution and resource revenue sharing.

Sure, we’re not going to be a province any time soon, but I think unless we start talking about it -- and that’s what we’re doing today and that’s why I’m going to support this motion -- I don’t think we get anywhere. I think we stand still and we don’t move forward. I think having a motion like this…Again, Mr. Allen and Mr. Yakeleya put it here for us to debate and I think it’s a healthy debate and one we should have. I do support it because I think we have to send a message to Ottawa. We’ve been just spinning our tires the last 17 years and not getting anywhere. I’m glad to see this is here and it has my support. Thank you.

To the Motion. Mr. Hawkins.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. May I seek unanimous consent to finish my comments? Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Hawkins, are you seeking unanimous consent to speak a second time to the motion?

I don’t need to? Okay.

Are you seeking unanimous consent to speak a second time to the motion?

Yes, Mr. Speaker, I’m seeking unanimous consent to speak a second time to the motion. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The Member is seeking unanimous consent to speak a second time to the motion. Are there any nays? There are none. You have unanimous consent.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I thank all of my honourable colleagues in this House of consensus government to allow me to finish my earlier comments. Mr. Speaker, I again will continue to speak in favour of this motion. I haven’t changed while I sat down here and thought about it some more. I just want to be quick in respecting the opportunity to speak the second time to finish my statements.

Mr. Speaker, I really believe this territory, if we become a province, won’t be affected by equalization because other provinces still receive equalization formulas and, therefore, we will still financially be able to be in a position that we are in today. The point I’m making is I don’t think we’ll be worse off.

Mr. Speaker, the concern sometimes is about population. Well, I don’t know if that discussion came up during confederation about PEI’s population. They are a very low populous province and nowadays, when you have provinces like Ontario and Quebec, you have them with gigantic populations and you still have very small provinces with populations. Therefore, if population was a basic necessity to the argument, they would be taking provincehood maybe from other provinces out there. I don’t think population is a good argument. I don’t think it’s truly the key.

In my heart I’ve seen, in my short experience on this world, I’ve seen us do land claims in other provinces. Could that happen if we were a province? Absolutely. I think we could move forward on that. In my opinion, we just need to get that question out there and force them to either decide: are you going to allow us to be a province or not? If they choose not, well, let’s find a new argument to try to convince them another way.

The reality is, I can appreciate the courage of the question and I think we have to ask ourselves why this question hasn’t been put forward sooner. I think we need to see what their answer is now. It reminds me of the case of someone not asking a question because they’re afraid they’re going to say no. If I proceeded my whole life that way, you know, some of us would probably never ask any questions.

I think we need to step forward and stop hiding behind those little excuses. They may be the right answers, those excuses. They may be the facts that are presented for us, but I want to see them in writing and I want to hear Ottawa say that to me.

Some days I often think about the discussion of Quebec. They always talk about how distinct the society is. Today if we proceed forward with this motion this will truly outline the fact that the Northwest Territories is a distinct society. How many provinces have 11 official languages? Not a single one of them. We have only New Brunswick to credit with two official languages. We are a distinct society here in the Northwest Territories. It’s time we pull our chair up to the provincial table and sit as an equal, not as somebody at the little kids’ table on the side with the other two territories. I’d like to see us on an equal footing with the rest of Canada.

I’d also like to reaffirm, I’d like to see our Premier’s voice echoed across Canada like the rest of the Premiers. I believe my Premier needs the strength from this assembly to reaffirm that we support him and we’d like his voice heard. So I want to see that opportunity happen.

Mr. Speaker, I could go on, but really at the end of the day I really see the way this assembly is being held back is that we’re almost like an adolescent with a trust fund. We have all these resources and opportunities and I truly see us as a have-territory, as has been echoed by our very prestigious Premier of saying we are a have-place. Until we can unlock that trust fund, until we can open the doors of that reality, the question has to be asked and maybe that day we can face and stare Ottawa down and say we dare you to blink. So today, let’s move forward. Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. Again, thank you, honourable colleagues.

To the motion.

Question.

Question has been called. All those in favour? All those opposed? Those abstaining? The motion is defeated.

---Defeated

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

WHEREAS amendments to the Northwest Territories Public Service Act received assent on June 13, 2003;

AND WHEREAS section 40.2. (1) of the amended Public Service Act provides that the Commissioner, on the recommendation of the Legislative Assembly, shall appoint an Equal Pay Commissioner to exercise the powers and perform the duties set out in this act;

AND WHEREAS the Board of Management was tasked with recruiting an Equal Pay Commissioner and has recommended an individual to the Legislative Assembly and the Legislative Assembly is prepared to make a recommendation;

NOW WHEREFORE I MOVE, seconded by the honourable Member for Kam Lake, that Ms. Nitya Iyer be appointed as the Equal Pay Commissioner, in accordance with the Northwest Territories Public Service Act, by the Commissioner of the Northwest Territories as recommended by the Legislative Assembly;

AND FURTHER, that the Speaker be authorized to communicate the effective date of appointment to the Commissioner.

The motion is in order. To the motion.

Question.

Question is being called. All those in favour? All those opposed? The motion is carried unanimously.

---Carried

At this time, I would like to take a 10-minute break before we carry on with motions.

---SHORT RECESS

WHEREAS pursuant to section 61(1) of the Legislative Assembly and Executive Council Act, the Legislative Assembly recommends to the Commissioner the appointment of Members of the Executive Council;

AND WHEREAS pursuant to section 61(2) of the Legislative Assembly and Executive Council Act, the persons appointed hold office during the pleasure of the Legislative Assembly;

AND WHEREAS the assembly, pursuant to these powers has chosen the Honourable Henry Zoe to sit as a Member of the Executive Council;

NOW THEREFORE I MOVE, seconded by the honourable Member for Hay River South, that this assembly formally revoke the pleasure of the assembly from the appointment of the Honourable Henry Zoe as a Member of the Executive Council;

AND FURTHER, that this assembly recommend that a new Member be chosen to be a Member of the Executive Council.

The motion is in order. To the motion. Ms. Lee.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak in support of this motion. Mr. Speaker, I do it with a heavy heart because I am well aware of the personal suffering involved here of our colleague, Mr. Zoe, and his family, his friends, his constituents and his leadership. Mr. Speaker, no matter the outcome of this motion, it is my sincere wish that Mr. Zoe would take necessary decisions and take personal actions to grow positively from this and to achieve personal healing.

For me, Mr. Speaker, my decision on this motion is totally based on the interest of the public that I feel I am here to serve and in my desire and sense of duty to meet the obligations of the people who have put me in this place.

Mr. Speaker, I don’t want to make a long statement. This is difficult for all of us. I just wanted to make it clear where I stand on this motion. Mr. Speaker, I can tell you for the interest of the public, because there are questions being asked about what happened. On the basis of what I know from the conversation with the Premier and the briefings he has given to us outside of this House and the answers to the questions that were brought before this House, I do believe there have been actions on the part of Minister Zoe that have brought disrepute and damages to the integrity and the standard of this assembly that the people have the right to expect from us.

Mr. Speaker, I believe the Minister has engaged in public intoxication, improper conduct towards women, and also abuse of his office in his dealings he said many times, “Do you know who I am? I am a Minister of Cabinet.”

Fourth, I do believe he was engaged in discrimination in an identifiable group, of people which we know as racism.

Mr. Speaker, I do understand that the question “Isn’t his apology enough?” being asked a lot. Mr. Speaker, I understand that we are not perfect. We all have our shortcomings and we do do things wrong from time to time. But in this case, this is not a personal matter. This is about our public duty to the public and we are held to a higher standard.

I understand MLAs’ positions cannot be taken away by anybody else other than the people who have selected him and that’s fine. The Premier has exercised his prerogative to remove the portfolios from Mr. Zoe, and he has done that because that’s within his power to do so. The only thing that I can do here to show that I cannot accept the conduct of the Minister is to say that Mr. Zoe has lost my confidence that was based on my vote to select him to Cabinet.

Mr. Speaker, I want to state once again that this is not easy for me or anyone else, but I do believe that it is important in the world that we live in and the level of cynicism there is for politicians and the practice and values we preach in this House, which is zero tolerance against abuse of alcohol or zero tolerance against violence against women. I cannot in my heart say that’s okay and I will give him another chance, because what will another chance mean?

So, Mr. Speaker, it is the complete and total privilege for one of us to be chosen, not only as a Member of this House by the people, but to have a seat on Cabinet is a complete privilege. It could be taken away at any time. It is a trust that people give us. We have a fiduciary duty for that office and when we miss that, it’s not to say that you are a bad person, it’s just that we do not have confidence in you anymore as a Minister and we do not have confidence in you to represent us and be the face of this government. It’s not the end of the world. As someone said, I do wish Mr. Zoe well. I know it’s been very hard. I know he will do the right thing and to move on and get a positive outcome out of this and he will try to find it. I would like to ask for a recorded vote, Mr. Speaker. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would just like to ask the Members if you could focus your replies to the question at hand and keep it in the context of the motion that is in front of you and don’t drift off into hearsay, but keep our discussions to the motion. To the motion. Mr. Menicoche.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I, too, regret that we have to be deliberating the confidence that the House has in Mr. Zoe. There is a motion on the floor, Mr. Speaker. I am going to go on record that I will not be supporting the motion. I have a few reasons that I will be speaking against this motion.

In this great country of ours, we have a due process of law. There are certain allegations being made and to my mind, Mr. Speaker, they are unsubstantiated. I believe that the punishment that’s been talked about so far, which is the removal of the portfolios, is adequate for now. I believe there should be no further action with regard to Mr. Zoe until it’s fully investigated. In the public eye, the feedback I have been getting, Mr. Speaker, is this happened and the House has decided to do this and it appears to be satisfactory to the people I have been talking with. Mr. Zoe has satisfactorily pleaded in my mind that, yes, he has done this and he will be seeking to correct his behaviour with respect to what has happened in the past. That has happened to many leaders in our North and they have strived and overcome difficulties and became better for it. What had to happen first is they had to have some personal trials and tribulations and then in this case, the whole of the North is watching him. Not just the North, Mr. Speaker, the whole of Canada is aware of what’s been happening here in the past week or so.

Just with that, Mr. Speaker, that’s where I stand today. Thank you very much.

To the motion. Mr. McLeod.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I, too, have given a considerable amount of thought to this issue, as Members have stated here. It’s a difficult one to deal with. It could be so easy to ignore this whole circumstance and not say anything. However, over the weekend, I have had some discussions with my constituents. I have had some calls and e-mails. I have really done some soul searching on this issue. Again, I say it’s difficult because it forces us to do a number of things. First if all, it forces us to look internally at our own conduct, look at the circle of friends that we associate with, places we go to and what type of person we are and what type of character we present.

I guess the hardest thing for me is to stand up here and be judge and jury of one of my peers, one of my colleagues. However, when you enter this forum and this level of politics, there is no other place to go for somebody to pass judgment. That judgment has to be made by ourselves.

I want to be clear that I am not condoning or defending Mr. Zoe’s actions, but I believe everyone makes mistakes and they can learn by their mistakes. In this case, Mr. Zoe has taken ownership of those actions. He has publicly apologized. He has publicly stood up and asked for forgiveness, and he has also stated that he will take necessary action to turn his life around. That doesn’t seem to be enough for many people in this House. Many of us come from similar backgrounds. Many of us come from small communities. Many of us went through the hostel life like Mr. Zoe. All of us have worked hard to get an education. We get a college education and like everyone here, we want to develop a better life for our children and our families. Mr. Zoe was also fortunate to be elected as Minister for the 15th Assembly. However, he also had to move to a larger centre and deal with bigger issues and take on a huge responsibility that comes with being a Minister, the stress level and a real sharp learning curve.

My observation of this whole issue has been that Mr. Zoe, right from the outset of this issue coming forward, has done everything that we’ve asked him to. We’ve asked him to come forward and admit that he’s made a mistake. We’ve asked him to apologize. He’s done all those things. He’s also accepted responsibility for everything that happened. While I support the Premier and Cabinet in terms of their decision to remove Mr. Zoe’s portfolio until we can decide what Mr. Zoe’s future is going to be, I don’t support this motion of non-confidence. I have watched Mr. Zoe. He has worked hard to be a good Minister. He’s dedicated. He’s sincere. Those qualities can’t be ignored. In this House, to all of us, we have programs, we have support systems for people who have drug problems, alcohol problems, family problems, stress, but I don’t see that kicking in and working in this case. In fact, I have to ask the question when do those programs kick in, when you hit rock bottom or when you make a mistake?

I am going on five years as a Member of this House and I have never seen those programs come forward to assist anybody that I know of anyway. I am not familiar with anybody who has taken advantage of them. Why do we have them? Is it just window dressing? I am not sure. It’s not working in this case.

I believe given the opportunity, Mr. Zoe can clean up problems in his life, some of the things that are affecting his conduct, and he can come back to be a very productive and responsible Minister given the chance. He’s also a leader in his own constituency and in the Dogrib nation, and he also has a lot to offer, which we may not see. I am totally convinced if we pass a vote of non-confidence here today that we will be ending Mr. Zoe’s career in the public eye.

I kind of wonder why we are not supporting him, why we asked him to do a number of things, and he’s done it, and I kind of ask myself, and people have asked me whether he did the right thing by coming forward and being open and being honest and admit that he had done something wrong. Would he have been better off to hire a lawyer and surround himself by advisors, dig in his heals and deny everything that’s happened? I don’t know. Maybe that’s the way to go in this modern day society, is not to admit to anything. I am just wondering what kind of message we are sending out there. I think everybody across the Territories knows by now, it has been in the media what happened with Mr. Zoe at the Legion. I have also heard it on the national news. So it is right across Canada. Some people have decided that we should make an example of Mr. Zoe, and I agree, but I think we should make an example and make it a positive one.

We have to allow people to deal with their personal issues, and come back and take their rightful place in society. I am going to admit -- I’ll be honest -- I don’t know all the details of what happened that night at the Legion, and I may never know, but I do know that the Legion has publicly stated that they accept his apology. I do know that the elders of the Dogrib nation and the leaders have already stated that they will work with Mr. Zoe in trying to develop a path for him to come and recover, and heal. I do know that his family is standing beside him, and I also believe, and I am sure that all the people that he has offended and embarrassed will also find it in their hearts to forgive him once he has turned his lifestyle around.

Mr. Speaker, this vote is about non-confidence. I can’t say I’ve lost confidence in Mr. Zoe, but I can say Mr. Zoe needs some professional assistance. He needs the help of those people, those elders.

I know he has already paid a huge price. This is one lesson he will never forget. So I want all of us -- and I mean all of us in this House -- to give him a second chance to become healthy, and to prove to us that he is still a worthy candidate to be a Cabinet Minister.

Mr. Speaker, voting yes would have been so simple for me to just agree that we’ve lost confidence. The difficult choice was to stand up and say that I’m willing to put faith in a fellow colleague, and one that’s made a serious mistake, but give him a second chance. That was a whole lot harder, and a whole lot more challenging. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

To the motion. Mr. Villeneuve.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I just wanted to reiterate some of the comments my colleagues were speaking about in regard to Mr. Zoe’s actions, and the fact that he did accept the criticism from his peers in the taking away of his portfolios. I think that stands in itself that’s enough to discredit Mr. Zoe of what he has done or what he may have not done. I think with his public apology and his promise for restitution and seeking his own healing, that Mr. Zoe is going in the right direction. I have to agree with Mr. McLeod’s comments that the motion is a non-confidence motion, which I myself have not lost in Mr. Zoe yet. I realize that it is our civic duty, it does require Members to be diligent and responsive to public scrutiny or public opinion. I think Mr. Zoe has taken this task very seriously and honestly, and tackled it head on with his responsiveness to all the scrutiny that has been coming about each day. I believe that we all have to uphold zero tolerance with respect to many issues in regard to being a Member in the actions and the opinions that we make in public. I also believe that we should take zero tolerance with regard to any unsubstantiated comments or hearsay as truth as Members, also.

Because I don’t support the motion does not mean that I condone Mr. Zoe’s actions or comments in the fact that if he violated another person or not, but just to say that as an aboriginal northerner I believe that it is my duty to say that we are faced with the racist comments, actions and just racism in general every day as aboriginal northerners, and I don’t think that any of them should be tolerated no matter who these racist connotations are directed towards or to be taken lightly by any Member of the Legislative Assembly. But I have to say that knowing Mr. Zoe for a number of years, that I also think that he has done an exceptional job as a Minister of the Legislative Assembly, and a Member of the Executive Council to date. One such incident shouldn’t wholly discredit and make Mr. Zoe feel probably very low and very shamed about what he did. I think that would be punishment enough, Mr. Speaker, and for that matter I am not in support of this motion. Thank you.

To the motion. Mrs. Groenewegen.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, I am the seconder to this motion, and obviously I will be supporting this motion. I was hoping that we would avoid a long protracted debate on this subject here in the House today, but it has been spoken to by a number of Members so I feel that I need to speak to it as well. To me this is quite a simple issue. This is not complex. This is not personal, this is business. The people of the Northwest Territories have asked us as elected leaders to provide them with sober leadership. That is a reasonable request on the part of the people of the Northwest Territories. We have not delivered that in this instance. It is just that simple for me. That is a very reasonable expectation of the people we represent, that we would do so in a way that at least we would be sober. So I am dismayed by some of the comments I have heard here today by other Members. The comments about racism, insinuating that if it was somebody other than an aboriginal person who had done this, that we wouldn’t have any reaction to it. That is preposterous, and I do not accept that. There is no racism involved here.

Mrs. Groenewegen, could you speak to the motion, not insinuate what somebody said or what not. To the motion.

Mr. Speaker, I am not in a position to police Mr. Zoe’s conduct as a Member, to follow him around and see what he is going to do. Yes, there are programs, people need to avail themselves of those programs. But if they don’t want to, it is not my job to ensure that they do. To suggest, Mr. Speaker, that Mr. Zoe’s political career will be ended by sitting on this side of the House is something else that I reject. What do all of us do here in representation of our constituents if this is not an honourable task to perform on behalf of our constituents? So I will be supporting the motion, Mr. Speaker, and, like I said, it is not personal, it is delivering a minimum standard of conduct for the people of the Northwest Territories. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

To the motion. Mr. Dent.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, I have known Mr. Zoe for a while. We served together in the 12th Assembly. Shortly after the election I met with Mr. Zoe, we went for a coffee and talked about our aspirations. He told me at that time that he wanted to be on Cabinet. Mr. Speaker, I told him that things have changed, and that attitudes towards alcohol use had changed significantly, that there was no longer any tolerance for alcohol abuse by Cabinet Members. I told him that I expected to hear from him that he understood that things had changed, and that he could live with these new rules. He told me that day, Mr. Speaker, that he would. I made it clear, Mr. Speaker, what my position would be if he showed that he had a problem with alcohol.

Last week Mr. Zoe admitted that he does have a problem with alcohol. Some people have talked about other things here, but I want to leave it limited to the one issue that Mr. Zoe has talked about. He did admit that he had a problem with alcohol, and that he made unacceptable comments about people from Newfoundland while under the influence of alcohol. So, Mr. Speaker, I warned Mr. Zoe early on what my position would be, and I was clear that he only had one chance in order to prove himself. So I had hoped that we would not get to the situation that we are in today, but, Mr. Speaker, since it has come to pass as a result of a situation that I have warned Mr. Zoe about, I feel that I must support this motion. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

To the motion. Mr. Delorey.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I will try and keep my comments very brief and to the motion. This is a very unfortunate incident that has taken place, but to me it is also a very simple issue that we are dealing with. I look across the Territories and I see every one of us in this House as role models to the Northwest Territories, and especially our youth. I see school policies being set down that are very firm with no second chances involved. You get caught drinking when you are on business and representing a school, and you are suspended. You pay for the crime that you have supposedly committed, and you are dealt with that way. I look at this as nothing personal, strictly a business thing, and I look at any Member across there or here, faced with the same set of circumstances, my values, my principles and what I believe in, and what I think that our job is here in representing the constituents that we do, I would make the same decision that I am making here today. That is I will be supporting this motion. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

To the motion. Mr. Hawkins.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I, as well, had to do a lot of soul searching over this issue, and I thought it would be important for me to speak at least for the record, in all fairness. Therefore, when I vote either way, at least Mr. Zoe would have heard my thoughts.

This has truly been a struggle, as I can’t imagine it hasn’t been for most Members here. Some are pretty cut and dry, and others it really takes quite a challenge to deal with.

I will first clearly say to you, Mr. Speaker, that I like Mr. Zoe personally. I think Mr. Zoe is a pretty darn nice man, I think he has worked hard at the Assembly, and this question here has caused a lot of grief in the sense of trying to make a decision over this. But as far as things are going, Mr. Zoe’s actions have spoken louder than words, I guess. I really appreciate him going and grabbing hold of the reins of the treatment, but my constituents have asked me to proceed forward, and it is causing me a lot of difficulty, but this job came with a lot of stress in a sense that we had to be prepared to make tough choices; some that we don’t even agree with, and some that will bother us for a while. I do respect Mr. Zoe as a person, but unfortunately it has caused me some serious concern in the sense that this has truly been a struggle. So I will have to vote in favour of the motion, and I hope he can respect that and understand maybe someday why I chose that method.

My constituents have come forward to me, they have stopped me on the street, they’ve told me what they think, they’ve told me how they feel. One of the biggest outlining factors is that they would like to see, be if fair or not, that there was zero tolerance taken. Is that fair? Maybe in this particular case that may not be fair. We talked about things not being proven, and you know what, I want them to be cleared up. Maybe this isn’t the assembly to be doing them in, but unfortunately we are confronted with this decision today. I stress it is with a heavy heart that we have to talk about this. I wish we could have dealt with this and be absolutely clear on every single page on what we are doing, but still we are proceeding without being 100 percent clear. So I must stress that in that respect I am left with little choice.

Do we give Mr. Zoe another chance? Today I would really like to, I really do, and I mean that. It is not easy standing here saying that; I would really like to. I hope we have an opportunity amongst all Members to give Mr. Zoe a fair second chance. I have quite clearly said that at any time if he wishes to call upon me to talk or whatever is needed, I will be there, and I mean that. It took a lot of thought.

Will this divide us? I really hope it doesn’t. I know this decision is going to have some ripple effects. Let’s be honest; you can’t throw a pebble in a pond without creating a ripple, and this is one big pebble. It is going to be one of those situations that we are all going to have to find mutual respect amongst each other and realize that we are here to perform a task. There is nothing more I can truly add. I don’t want to get into the nature of the comments. I don’t think that is important today. I think what is important today is me at least speaking my views on why I will proceed. It has hurt some of the constituents in my constituency, and I will proceed forward with the utmost respect in this House because I will continue to respect Mr. Zoe as a Member of the Assembly, and he will see that. But unfortunately at this time Executive Council is not where my constituents feel where I can support him in at this time, and I just wanted to be honest and forthright in this assembly. Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

To the motion. Mr. Roland.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, as many have said, it would be easy to sit and vote on it when the call for a vote came up. This is something that I go back to before we elected Members to the Executive Council. It is about your word, Mr. Speaker. It is about when we first meet each other around this table, some of us may know a little bit about each other, especially those who have been in this arena before. Others, we come here and all we know is a name or somebody else telling us about an individual. When we cast that vote we hope to have the opportunity to speak to the individual, and try to find out a little bit more about them before we decide if that individual would be a good Cabinet Minister.

Mr. Speaker, I will say publicly that alcoholism is a bad thing in the Northwest Territories. Mr. Zoe has come clean in saying that he has a problem. Mr. Speaker, it was a concern for a number of Members of this Assembly before it came to this situation. Members had asked Mr. Zoe about his situation and if it would impact on his ability to do his job. Members took his word that it would not interfere. Knowing the situation we are in, he’s gone a long way to address some of the initial concerns that have come forward, and that is tough to do. Mr. Speaker, some of us in this arena have walked through that door ourselves in the past, and have seen the destructive effects it can have. It is unfortunate that we have to have this here, but nobody else can do this except for us, as Mr. McLeod says. It is difficult, but we are the ones who police ourselves. In this assembly, in this arena, all we get to come in with and go out with in a sense of integrity is who you are. When you say something, is your word valid? Are you good for what you say? A lot of this is built around that. If Members cannot trust a Minister when he’s responding to questions or information being provided and always second guessing and wondering if that is true, that does a lot of damage for our system and the way we operate.

I have only known Mr. Zoe for a short time and again it’s one of those things, when you are in the Northwest Territories, it’s a small place. You have baggage you have to deal with and you respond to those when questions are put forward to you. Unfortunately, in this situation when the question was put forward, the answer was it’s not going to be a problem. Well, six months into it, it is a problem. Mr. Speaker, I can speak from experience because I have walked through that door of having to admit I had a problem and had to just about lose it all to finally wake up and say it is a problem. I can’t fix it by tinkering. I have got to fix it by making life choices.

This motion, unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, is one of those events in a person’s life where you could hit rock bottom. I hope Mr. Zoe will come out of this and get that help he said he would get. But when I operate, I have to operate upfront. When I meet with individuals, I tell them this is the way I operate.

Mr. Speaker, the motion that is before us, I would have to support. Your word is your word. Let your yes be your yes, and your no be your no. It can’t be a maybe, not in this arena. So I am sad to say this in this situation, but I will be supporting this motion. Thank you.

To the motion. Mr. Miltenberger.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, I, as well, think I owe the people of the Northwest Territories and my colleague, Mr. Zoe, the respect of him hearing my comments as to where I stand on the situation.

Mr. Speaker, this is not an easy situation, as has been said by many of my colleagues, for any of us. Whether you vote yes or no, it’s still very difficult because we are talking about an individual’s life, his personal life, his family life, his professional life. We are talking about a circumstance where other people were involved and other people were affected, some more acutely than others.

Mr. Speaker, when I had what I thought were all the facts, I had to seriously contemplate this situation. I had hoped we wouldn’t come to this point, but more simply the situation to me is this. With the information that we have, I believe our colleague's, Mr. Zoe, conduct, his words and his actions have placed him in an untenable situation in terms of remaining on Cabinet.

Given all the situations we deal with as a territory, our issues of zero tolerance and the way this situation has unfolded in stages, Mr. Speaker, this is going to have a divisive effect. We are the place of last resort for MLAs. We are the arbiters of the fate of ourselves. This could have taken other routes with the police or other situations, but this is a political situation that has come to pass before us. Now we are called upon as MLAs, as legislators, to pass judgment on one of our own in terms of whether they should remain on Executive Council or not. It is not something I have looked forward to. I would have loved to have made it through this assembly with smooth sailing. Such is not to be.

So today I stand before this House, before you, Mr. Speaker, and before the people of the Northwest Territories for my seat mate, Mr. Zoe, to say that I will be supporting this motion. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.