This is page numbers 2617 - 2654 of the Hansard for the 17th Assembly, 4th Session. The original version can be accessed on the Legislative Assembly's website or by contacting the Legislative Assembly Library. The word of the day was work.

Topics

Jane Groenewegen

Jane Groenewegen Hay River South

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I think this is a good thing to look into, to investigate. I think that everybody probably sitting on this side of the House has a different idea of what an adequate emergency response network would look like in the Northwest Territories. I'm sure that some people have an idea about what it should look like that would probably be out of reach, from a financial point of view.

In a community like Hay River where we have many volunteers who are willing to devote their time to being first responders, to taking all the training, to going out on calls, it's a system that needs to be supported and can work well, but if Members have an idea of people who are on a payroll full time in communities waiting for accidents to respond to, I don't think that in this day and age and in our territory with its vast expanses between communities, and its vast miles and miles of highway, I'm rather doubtful that our government could afford something like that. But if it means getting communities together, identifying volunteers, our government supporting them with training and skills, including the ones that already currently exist like I mentioned, the Hay River fire department, offering more service to, I guess, harness the volunteers and the people who are willing to go out and do that, I would totally support that. But I'm not getting a sense, from what Members are saying, exactly what their expectations are here. But if it means moving forward to look into this, I will support that, but I think we also have to be realistic.

The Speaker

The Speaker Jackie Jacobson

Thank you, Mrs. Groenewegen. To the motion. Mr. Yakeleya.

Norman Yakeleya

Norman Yakeleya Sahtu

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Thank you to the Members who have brought this motion forward, Mr. Nadli and the MLA for Range Lake.

This past winter Minister Ramsay and myself travelled over 702 kilometres on the Mackenzie Valley winter road. Mr. Ramsay and I also took turns driving on the Mackenzie Valley winter road, and there were several close calls. Even though the vehicles were going 50 kilometres an hour, the roads were so narrow and so bumpy, and not quite up to the standards where we'd like to see our roads up in the Mackenzie Valley.

I'd like to see if there is some way that this government can put together a comprehensive regional type of emergency rescue protocol. Even the Town of Norman Wells, in the last government, met with me and said we need to know who are the first responders, what's the protocol. Is it the RCMP? Is it the church? Is it the town? Right now there's no territorial coordination to help us with these jurisdictions and authorities.

When we were driving the winter road, Mr. Ramsay and I, there were three or four inches in between the space of a semi-truck and our vehicle, and there was hardly any space to pull aside. I also heard that the communities in my region have said that they've been hit by some of the vehicles. Thank God there have been no serious accidents on our winter roads. We had one in Wrigley that the vehicle went off the road and they had to get some aircraft and helicopters to help this person.

I will be supporting this motion. I look forward to seeing how the Minister can work with the different regions on different flexibilities and see where it makes sense in the Sahtu, what makes sense up in the Beaufort-Delta, Nunakput or down in this area. Everybody has different needs at different times, and certainly, for us, seeing 1,600 to 1,700 trucks coming up in a short period of time. Plus, that's the opportunity for people in the Sahtu to come out to Hay River or Yellowknife or Edmonton, do their shopping, take their children out. They use that road, also, we just need to be a little more coordinated. We know once you get into the communities if there's an accident, who's ready, who's going to go, who to call right now. It's sort of, okay, we have to do this and so let's organize ourselves. I look forward to some leadership, direction and input from these committees as to what we can do.

The Speaker

The Speaker Jackie Jacobson

Thank you, Mr. Yakeleya. To the motion. Mr. Blake.

Frederick Blake Jr.

Frederick Blake Jr. Mackenzie Delta

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I will also be voting in favour of this. I'm hopeful that this also extends to the Mackenzie Delta riding, the Beaufort-Delta. During the summer months, I believe the Dempster is one of the only highways in the Northwest Territories that is all gravel. There is a lot of dust on the road during the summer and there are a lot of accidents also. I do believe the community of Fort McPherson has requested this service a few months back, and I do believe we are working with them, but it is much needed. I'd also suggest that this government work with the Government of the Yukon. As many of you may know, the Dempster Highway connects to the highway in the Yukon. We need to work out some kind of agreement with them to respond to any emergencies that are on that highway and share the costs.

With that, I fully support this. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The Speaker

The Speaker Jackie Jacobson

Thank you, Mr. Blake. To the motion. Mr. Hawkins.

Robert Hawkins

Robert Hawkins Yellowknife Centre

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I rise, like my colleagues, to speak in favour of this particular initiative. It's time that this government moves forward on an emergency health services type of act which outlines what we can do and what we will do for our citizens because they're important.

In this day and age, it's a great surprise that we do not have some time of ambulatory act that demonstrates and says that these are the types of services we offer. What we hear today is both the passion and the struggle brought forward by many Members and their communities, where they're almost helpless, stranded by the process by not being able to help good people in certain circumstances. What we get are Good Samaritans running out doing the right thing, but in some cases they may end up causing more harm than good.

If we move forward on a particular act, spurred on by this motion that says ground ambulance services are necessary on our highway, this will stimulate the right type of action and we need to stand by it with the right type of funding.

Health care is such a critical issue amongst all Canadians, not just people in the Northwest Territories, all Canadians. We see the groundswell at every single budget across Canada as it grows and grows and grows because it emphasizes how important health care is.

This is one of the elements in northern health care that cannot be stranded and ignored. These are the types of services that our policies and protocols must address because, in some ways, they are already addressing them. Under MACA, we have the Highway Emergency Ambulance Protocol, which I was trying to get at a couple of days ago, which basically says we had an incident but we didn't follow our protocols. I look forward to the response by the Minister of MACA as to what actually happened in that situation.

But equally, as I balance this issue out, it's tied in with skills as well as tools. Yes, we can fund them, but we have to make sure that we can get behind them so they get the right training. We have to make sure they get the right tools, such as the proper ambulance services, for the right conditions. There are many elements of this particular motion that cannot be forgotten.

By and large, I start off by saying it's time this government comes forward with a health emergency services type of act that addresses ambulances, highways and says how we reach outside of our typical municipalities.

The last area I'll mention, although it's not directly related to the motion, it sort of speaks to the essence of the motion. As we know, the incident a few weeks ago, we could not send a medevac out there to rescue that one person. Timing, as we all know, in incidents can range from we need to respond immediately or some with lesser priority. The way our medevac services are set up, we can't send anyone out to rescue anyone who isn't at a health centre. So where are we left? We're left with motions like this today that say we have to find a way to respond to our people who are in urgent need of help.

This motion I think speaks to that. I applaud the Member for bringing forward this motion. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The Speaker

The Speaker Jackie Jacobson

Thank you, Mr. Hawkins. To the motion. Mr. McLeod.

Robert C. McLeod

Robert C. McLeod Inuvik Twin Lakes

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. We all in here I think appreciate the value of this type of service. However, there are a number of things we need to look at. I think a couple of Members have pointed out some of the challenges we face. One of the therefores in the motion is that we update the Fire Prevention Act. The Fire Prevention Act regulates the investigation, reporting of fire hazards. It does not address ground ambulance or highway rescue in the Northwest Territories. We're working on updating the Fire Prevention Act right now and we need to keep that work going to ensure that that act is... If we were to try combining the two policy initiatives, it may delay the Fire Prevention Act, which we don't want at this point.

I have said in this House on a number of occasions that we have formed a new departmental committee. They're tasked with looking at the overall picture across the Northwest Territories. An important part of the committee's work is going to be dealing with exactly the situation that Mr. Hawkins mentioned yesterday on the Highway Emergency Alerting Protocol. They're going to update that and have a look at that.

Work is going on. I have said that before. We continue to do our work.

Our municipal legislation allows our communities to establish, and deliver, and operate services such as fire rescue and ambulance. It also allows communities to extend fire and ambulance services outside the community boundaries. The point is being made, and is well taken, that we need to do what we can to assist our communities.

One of the things we're looking at is training opportunities. I think that's first and foremost, and most important is to ensure we have properly trained folks that are running out to respond to any type of emergency. Then part of the committee's work is to work with the communities to identify equipment and maintenance, administration and training. We are doing that. We're undertaking that right now. We're working very closely with Health and Social Services. They are looking at moving forward with developing standards on this particular issue. So we're working closely with them. We're working closely with Transportation.

All the issues that the Members speak of, I think we're doing a lot of the work. Because there is such interest and it's a very important topic, and there's is no denying that, we'll commit to our colleagues that at the first available opportunity, we would like to provide a briefing to committee to share our vision, get their input on a territorial-wide strategy. We look forward to that opportunity. It will give Members some clarity and help provide some direction. We are looking forward to that opportunity.

I would like to assure Members that this is a very important issue and it's one that we take quite seriously. We've already done a lot of the work. Again, the most important part here is to ensure that our community first responders are trained and able to respond to emergencies. I think one Member may have pointed out that, in our desire to be helpful, some people just rush in and help because that's just the way we are. We're Northerners. That's just our nature. But sometimes we may do more harm than good. So we want to make sure that all of our folks are trained.

As this is a direction to Cabinet, we will be abstaining from the motion. Thank you.

The Speaker

The Speaker Jackie Jacobson

Thank you, Mr. McLeod. I'll allow the mover of the motion to speak to final remarks. Mr. Nadli.

Michael Nadli

Michael Nadli Deh Cho

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank all of my colleagues that spoke in favour of this motion. We also have to acknowledge that we're dealing with some very stark realities in the North when we have small communities and large centres. We're kind of living in the North at different levels, but we all make this our home. It's important that we take care of each other. I would like to think, whether we live in Inuvik or Fort Smith or Yellowknife or Fort Providence, we're all there to help each other. I think this motion is in that spirit. I will be seeking a recorded vote. Mahsi.

Recorded Vote
Motions

Page 2639

The Speaker

The Speaker Jackie Jacobson

Thank you, Mr. Nadli. The Member is seeking a recorded vote. All those in favour, please stand.

Recorded Vote
Motions

Page 2639

Deputy Clerk Of The House Mr. Schauerte

Mr. Nadli, Mr. Hawkins, Mr. Menicoche, Mr. Moses, Mr. Bromley, Mr. Yakeleya, Mr. Bouchard, Mr. Blake, Mrs. Groenewegen, Mr. Dolynny, Ms. Bisaro.

Recorded Vote
Motions

Page 2639

The Speaker

The Speaker Jackie Jacobson

All those opposed, please stand. All those abstaining, please stand.

Recorded Vote
Motions

Page 2639

Deputy Clerk Of The House Mr. Schauerte

Mr. Beaulieu, Mr. Abernethy, Mr. Miltenberger, Mr. McLeod - Yellowknife South, Mr. Lafferty, Mr. Ramsay, Mr. McLeod - Inuvik Twin Lakes.

Recorded Vote
Motions

Page 2639

The Speaker

The Speaker Jackie Jacobson

Thank you. Order! The results for the recorded vote: in favour, 11; opposed, zero; and abstentions, seven. The motion is carried.

---Carried

---Applause

Recorded Vote
Motions

Page 2639

The Speaker

The Speaker Jackie Jacobson

Mr. Bromley.

Bob Bromley

Bob Bromley Weledeh

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.

The Speaker

The Speaker Jackie Jacobson

Thank you, Mr. Bromley. To the motion. Mr. Bromley.

Bob Bromley

Bob Bromley Weledeh

To the motion?

The Speaker

The Speaker Jackie Jacobson

I was just going to say that. Motion is in order. To the motion. Mr. Bromley.

Bob Bromley

Bob Bromley Weledeh

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.

The Speaker

The Speaker Jackie Jacobson

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.

Wendy Bisaro

Wendy Bisaro Frame Lake

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.”

The Speaker

The Speaker Jackie Jacobson

Thank you, Ms. Bisaro. To the motion. Mr. Blake.