WHEREAS the Elections and Plebiscites Act provides that the Commissioner may, on the recommendation of the Legislative Assembly, direct that a plebiscite be held on any question that is of importance to the people of the Northwest Territories;
AND WHEREAS the Government of the Northwest Territories signed the Northwest Territories Lands and Resources Devolution Agreement-in-Principle on January 26, 2011;
AND WHEREAS on March 11, 2013, the Prime Minister of Canada announced that consensus on the terms for achieving devolution of lands and resources to the Northwest Territories had been reached;
AND WHEREAS assumption of the authority to manage lands and natural resources is the most significant stage in the political development of the Northwest Territories short of provincehood;
AND WHEREAS a plebiscite would provide a formal and high-profile opportunity for public debate and would increase public awareness and understanding of the meaning of devolution;
AND WHEREAS there has been little opportunity for citizens to express their wishes on the form of the Devolution Agreement and on the resource management regime that would result;
AND WHEREAS providing citizens with the opportunity to participate in this historic decision in advance of ratification of the Final Agreement by the Government of the Northwest Territories would result in a clear demonstration of the public will with respect to devolution of lands and resources to the Northwest Territories;
NOW THEREFORE I MOVE, seconded by the honourable Member for Sahtu, that this Legislative Assembly recommends to the Commissioner that a plebiscite be held in the Northwest Territories on Monday, May 13, 2013, with the following question: “Should the Government of the Northwest Territories sign the Northwest Territories Lands and Resources Devolution Final Agreement?”
Mahsi.
Thank you, Mr. Bromley. To the motion. Mr. Bromley.
To the motion?
I was just going to say that. Motion is in order. To the motion. 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. Speaker. There’s absolutely no question that devolution and its implementation is one of the most important political developments in the history of the NWT. I believe that all residents should be able to be a part of it. We have yet to see any consultation and public engagement plan, as mentioned by Mr. Bromley. As the expression goes, talk is cheap and that’s all we have at the moment. I find that it’s not a surprise and it’s no wonder that people are skeptical about their ability to have input into this Final Devolution Agreement and implementation.
As I said in my statement in the House yesterday, 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 must be discussed with the general public, and the general public must have an opportunity for input. A plebiscite is an opportunity for education and creation of awareness, to provide for an indication of support for the deal from our residents. I would think that the Premier would want to get that concrete validation of his efforts, a positive sign that the NWT believes, as he does, that this devolution deal is good for our territory.
The Premier has stated several times that the Devolution Agreement is a done deal. Holding a plebiscite, if the Premier were to agree, would contradict current public opinion that the upcoming public engagement and consultation is meaningless and a waste of time and money.
I feel very strongly that the Devolution Agreement requires a full public discussion. There needs to be a full analysis of the impacts of the agreement. We need assurances and guarantees from our government that the funds to come from the federal government will be used for the same purposes that they are now, and we have heard none of that. A plebiscite will allow for that, for full disclosure and full dialogue.
People are telling me that they don’t know enough about devolution. They don’t know enough about the agreement, they don’t know enough about its implementation and the impacts that it will have upon them as a resident. This issue concerns everyone, and all residents should have a chance to express their view on this issue. As stated in an e-mail that I received today, and I imagine other Members did as well, “If there ever was a question that needed the input from residents, this is it.” That’s in reference to the question on devolution.
As mentioned by Mr. Bromley, we must consider that about 50 percent of NWT residents work for some order of government: the territorial government, municipal governments, Aboriginal governments, and the federal government. They need to know how implementation of this agreement will affect them and their families. They need to know what changes will result from the Devolution Agreement to their workplace and their community. The plebiscite will provide the opportunity for that discourse to occur for 50 percent of our residents to fully understand how the proposed changes will affect them.
We have to consider students and other NWT residents who are temporarily not resident in our territory. They also should have a say on this important issue.
In conclusion, a plebiscite is not binding, as stated by Mr. Bromley, but it will provide the Premier and Cabinet with a wealth of information about the mindset of our residents. It will garner serious brownie points for the Premier in his relationship with the NWT public if he agrees with this motion.
I don’t understand why Members are so resistant to this plebiscite, to a process and activity that will involve our residents in a truly significant event in their lives. If we are the democratic society that we say we are, then Members will vote to support this motion. A plebiscite is democracy in action.
Lastly, I must post a recent Twitter question for people to mull over: “What’s the downside of a plebiscite? If it’s worth having it,” – meaning the Devolution Agreement – “it should be worth engaging and defending it with the public.”
Thank you, Ms. Bisaro. To the motion. Mr. Blake.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I rise today not in support of this motion. I do not believe we need a plebiscite to make this decision. The cost for this plebiscite is anywhere from $400,000 to $1 million and, as you said, it’s not binding. What is the need for this plebiscite?
We have signatories that signed on to this agreement. I have all the faith in the signatories and this government to follow through with devolution. We’ve waited decades for this government to get to this position. We need to move forward.
Thank you, Mr. Blake. To the motion. Mr. Dolynny.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I rise today and I’d like to thank the mover, Mr. Bromley, and the seconder, Ms. Bisaro. The motion speaks to a plebiscite on devolution to be held. In essence, I believe the motion is asking Northerners to put devolution to a vote. The elected Members of this House gathered together some 17 months ago and agreed collectively on the priorities of this 17th Legislative Assembly. One of those priorities was to build a strong and sustainable future for our territory by strengthening our relationships with Aboriginal and other northern governments, negotiating and implementing a Devolution Final Agreement. My support to this priority has not diminished.
Now, I’m all for debate as this is the moral fabric to which we aspire to as legislators, and from what I’ve seen here as an elected official for Range Lake, and after discussing this motion with many residents of my riding, the concept of putting devolution to a vote is not in the best interest of moving forward and works against the priorities of this Assembly.
Citizen participation can take on many forms of getting issues on the floor of this House and I would suggest that citizens choose all means necessary to exercise this right. The devolution bus has left the station and we need to support its journey for the betterment of all Northerners.
It is with utmost respect to the mover and seconder and those Members who may be voting in favour of this motion, I do respect their positions; however, after careful consideration of the wording of this motion and the ask of this motion, I cannot support the motion in its current format.
Thank you, Mr. Dolynny. To the motion. Mr. Yakeleya.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Democracy means many things to many different people. Democracy is certainly a form of government where people rule through their elected MLAs. The people are the absolute and supreme form of political authority. As we, as legislators, from time to time vote on behalf of our people, such as the budget process or the motions brought up in this Assembly, we are the people’s voice. We were put here by the very fact that we will represent our people in these legislative halls of government.
We stand today on new ground with the old ways of doing things. We achieved a new deal with Ottawa. Much of the leadership under our Premier and past governments, to them we owe our appreciation. We value our democratic process and the importance to let our people speak through a vote. A vote to choose, a vote to say yes or no through a simple question, a question that will be affecting them for the rest of their lives and their children’s children.
We’re still a consensus government and passing our budget shows it’s alive and well and it can work if we work it. We have regional votes. It’s been done in the past with our land claims and it works. This is the price of democracy. Power to the people. We need to believe in our people.
With a plebiscite vote the stakes are high. I’m not too sure about the timing, but we as government must ensure that all residents know the details of the Devolution Agreement. More importantly, the people need to know the possibilities and opportunities that are here for them.
We must inspire each individual to pick up the Devolution Agreement, read it, study it, talk about it, and not listen to other’s opinions about it. This is true responsibility for their lives. We need to respect the Devolution Agreement and the collective ownership of it. This devolution will stop us from asking for permission from Ottawa if we can do this or that.
We have become the adults today. Now we must learn the rules of the adult world and we need to live by them as responsible adults with Canada.
We value the people’s right to decide, and every four years we allow that to happen. It’s a privilege to be here, not a right.
Once again, I say from our leadership in the Sahtu, have faith in our leaders. As Mr. Blake said, have faith in our people. We will decide amongst ourselves in our own way if we’re going to look at the Devolution Agreement and accept it. We have a process. I’m going to work with my people. My people are going to do this in a way that is good for the Sahtu people. I would say let them have their own way of saying yes to me and I will vote according to my people. In this poll thing, I will not be supporting this motion.
Thank you, Mr. Yakeleya. To the motion. Mr. Bouchard.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I rise today to say that I will not be supporting this motion as well. As my colleagues have said, this has been a process 20 years in the making and a priority of this Assembly. We are moving forward with the process. The mover and seconder talk about democracy, and the democracy that happened was when we were elected to make decisions for this territory. I think it’s in our hands to make the decisions and to go forward.
To have a plebiscite would be a costly venture, anywhere from $400,000 to $500,000 are the numbers I have heard. The government is in the process of doing a consultation. It will be debated on the floor of this House. I think it’s in our hands to make a good decision for the territory and I believe that’s where it is. The plebiscite is too costly and I don’t believe it is an effective way. It wouldn’t be binding anyway, so it’s not being very effective. I will not be supporting this motion.
Thank you, Mr. Bouchard. To the motion. Mr. Menicoche.
Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. The job of an MLA is to be here front and centre and make decisions. Often you have to look at both sides of the issues and often the decisions have to come quick.
We’ve discussed devolution when we got elected into the Assembly, like Mr. Dolynny pointed out. We had many briefings with the government. They have informed us about the plan. We have looked at the whole Northwest Territories, and to say that the people haven’t been consulted I think is not true. There have been many public consultations throughout the past 18 months and I think as part of the signing, the Premier indicated there will be even more consultations.
I believe there are other ways than a plebiscite to gauge public support and public opinion as we move forward on big issues. If we start looking at plebiscites, why didn’t we do it for the bridge or the Inuvik-Tuk initiatives, which have huge impacts on our government and budgets in the future? I don’t believe that we’re doing ourselves a service by going down the road of a plebiscite. With that, I will not be supporting and will be voting against this motion.
Thank you, Mr. Menicoche. To the motion. Mr. Moses.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. You’ve heard a lot of good comments here in the House today. As elected officials, people put us in this position. A lot of us have talked to our constituents and, actually, two of the groups that I represent back home in the Beaufort-Delta region and in Inuvik have signed off as signatories to the Devolution Agreement. We also have to respect all the hard work of the people that we elected to the Executive Council that have been doing a lot of negotiating with the federal government as well as the Aboriginal organizations and governments to get them on board and consult with them and work with them.
In terms of consultation, I think it has been done. What happened earlier this week in the House with the signing on Monday, with that signing I know government is going to go out and do a good job in consulting with all the communities and Aboriginal groups and with those who haven’t signed on yet as well. We have to respect the hard work that’s been put into this file, both from our government, our staff, and our Aboriginal organizations. It’s about building relationships, building relationships with the federal government and the Aboriginal groups.
With that said and with the other elected officials in my region that are supporting this, I will be voting against the motion today.
Thank you, Mr. Moses. To the motion. Mr. Nadli.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. One thing that I’ve really been thinking about lots is devolution, obviously. What’s fairly significant is the statement from the Premier that this is a done deal and that there are five out of the seven Aboriginal groups that have signed on. One of the regions that hasn’t signed on is the Deh Cho. I understand there are talks to try to perhaps identify some common ground in terms of building consensus and partnerships and the level of collaboration.
What really concerns me is, in terms of trying to build partnerships, we need to trust each other. I think I’ve built my political ground in terms of building that trust and having integrity and respecting people’s differences. At the same time, we have to be very up front with each other, and trust is very critical in terms of negotiations at this point. If there’s ever a time that that comes to task, this is the moment where we are at a juncture of either jumping all in one canoe or else leaving some people behind and then shooting the rapids. Hopefully that doesn’t happen, but at the same time, there are discussions going on that I feel, perhaps, could create an opportunity for at least some matters to be resolved and make it possible for the regions that remain outstanding on the outer perimeter to, perhaps, consider the confederation that has resulted, in terms of going forward into the future.
For those reasons, I will not be supporting this motion.
Thank you, Mr. Nadli. To the motion. Mrs. Groenewegen.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I think I’ve already spoken to this issue of the plebiscite in the House before, but just to be on the public record for this particular vote and this particular motion, I will not be supporting the motion.
A plebiscite is a costly thing. It is an opinion poll. I do applaud the Premier’s efforts in getting the signatories that have come to the table already on devolution. I know that that did not happen by waving a magic wand. That took hard work. That took visits to all of the regions. It took a lot of consultation out there. We know some of the work that quietly went on behind the scenes to canvass Aboriginal governments and canvass people in the public.
I think that I would rather see the money that would be spent on a plebiscite go into an awareness campaign whereby communities or regions or organizations, schools, could make a request to this government to have a presentation made to them on what devolution is. It’s a complex subject, and it isn’t just something we’ve been working on or talking to people about in the last 18 months. Try the last 18 years. Try the last four years. I mean, it’s something that’s been around for a long time and talked about, and now we have a draft final agreement, we have a, well, a final agreement, and I think the money and time could be better spent to respond to people’s requests who would like to know more and be informed of how this is going to affect them.
I know in Hay River, we’d probably like to know how devolution is going to affect us on many different fronts. I don’t think that we should go out on a campaign, though, and hold public hearings and meetings, and all kinds of things that people may or may not choose to show up. I mean, devolution is a complex thing. It’s something that a lot of people are probably interested it, but it’s something that a lot of other people aren’t that interested in. I think that if we set up some kind of a presentation team and we could do it by request, by community, by region, by intuition, I think that would be money and time extremely well spent, and I would support that, but not a plebiscite.
Thank you, Mrs. Groenewegen. To the motion. Mr. McLeod
Mr. Speaker, the Northwest Territories Lands and Resources Final Agreement represents an important step forward for the Northwest Territories and the people we serve through this Assembly.
As I have stated before, devolution of lands and resources will provide tremendous benefits to the people of the Northwest Territories. Devolution means that decisions made over public lands and resources in the Northwest Territories will be made here, by a more accessible, accountable and responsive government. Devolution means, finally, a direct benefit in the form of resource revenues will flow to the Northwest Territories and not just to Ottawa. Devolution also means that we will have the opportunity to work more closely and collaboratively with our partners, Aboriginal governments, in matters related to land and resources.
Devolution, once realized, will be a huge accomplishment and significant achievement. It is of such importance that this government will ensure that all residents of the Northwest Territories are informed of it. That is why, prior to the signing of the final agreement, we will undertake extensive public engagement unlike any we have done for previous devolutions.
While negotiations have been concluded, prior to deciding on whether to sign the Final NWT Lands and Resources Devolution Agreement, this Assembly will have the benefit of hearing the public views on devolution. Prior devolutions were negotiated and signed with very little community engagement. Indeed, all previous devolutions in the Northwest Territories were done without the participation of Aboriginal governments and made effective through program transfer agreements approved by the executive branches of government alone.
This devolution has been the subject of comprehensive negotiations over a dozen years. This devolution, unlike others, also included an agreement-in-principle that has been widely publicized and reviewed. Most importantly and most uniquely, this Devolution Agreement will be put before this Assembly where the elected representatives of all of the residents of the Northwest Territories will be asked to consider and approve it. We did not do that for the devolution of health, of airports, of highways, of forestry, or any previous devolution.
In light of the fact that this Devolution Agreement will be presented to the people of the Northwest Territories, who will have opportunity to comment on it through public information sessions and it will be put before this Assembly for approval, I see no reason to entertain the idea of a plebiscite.
The Government of the Northwest Territories will be asking the Members of this Assembly to participate in the public meetings held in their ridings so that Members can also hear directly from their constituents. It also makes no sense to ask the Commissioner to hold a plebiscite when we are already committed to having the elected representatives sitting in this House vote on the Devolution Agreement.
We are trying to reduce our dependence on Ottawa and take control of our own lands and resources. With all due respect, why would we ask the Commissioner, who is a federal appointee, to intervene in business that we want to see conducted in this Legislative Assembly?
Plebiscites are not binding. They are simply tools used to gauge public support. They are not the only tool to do that, and they certainly are not the most cost effective. Previous estimates for the cost of a plebiscite were approximately $1.8 million, and we know a significant amount of work and time with Elections Northwest Territories would be required. A plebiscite would delay the potential approval of this agreement, and a delay in approval could delay the potential transfer date. Each month of delay represents approximately $10 million in lost funding the Government of the Northwest Territories would receive under the agreement we have negotiated. We cannot afford to not move ahead.
As I mentioned, a plebiscite is not binding, so it does not relieve this government from having to make a decision. One of the great strengths of our government, and one of the reasons devolution will result in better land management, is that we are a small jurisdiction with a very accessible representative government. We can meet with, and work with, our constituents at a scale that other jurisdictions simply cannot do. Each Member of this Assembly holds a responsibility to do the work of considering the Devolution Agreement and weighing the views of the people they represent, and ultimately, each of us will be asked whether or not we support this Devolution Agreement. I invite all Members to join the Government of the Northwest Territories as we provide information sessions throughout the territory.
As I have stated, the Members of this Legislative Assembly will be asked to make a decision on devolution. We do not need a plebiscite in order to make such a decision, and for this reason, Cabinet cannot support the motion. Cabinet will be voting against this motion.
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.
