 | Home page |  | Text size |  | E-mail this page |
Devolution sails through vote Consensus on devolution deal from MLAs: It's not perfect, but it's good enough
Laura Busch
Northern News Services
Published Friday, June 7, 2013
SOMBA K'E/YELLOWKNIFE
A motion to approve the final devolution agreement that will see authority over lands and resources transfer to the territorial government was passed Wednesday in the legislature by a vote of 17 to one.
"It went better than I expected," said Premier Bob McLeod shortly after the vote. "If someone had asked me yesterday, I would have said we would probably get 13 or 14 (votes in favour)."
Several issues and concerns were raised during the debate leading up to the vote, a fact the premier did not shy away from.
"I think the most pressing one was the fact that, and I think it was primarily in Yellowknife, that people felt that they didn't have enough input," said McLeod. "For this time, we were counting on our MLAs to represent the people."
Other concerns, such as the environmental assessment process and the finances of the deal will take more time to resolve, he said.
Although he would have had the legal right to approve devolution regardless of how MLAs voted, McLeod insisted he would never have gone against their wishes if they had voted against it.
"We would have shut everything down on devolution," he said. "We would have gone to our aboriginal government partners and the federal government and told them the deal's off."
If this had happened, the territory would have run the risk of not getting another chance to gain control over resources from the feds, said McLeod, pointing to past failed negotiations for the devolution of fisheries. In 1999, the GNWT walked away from that deal because it felt there was not enough money on the table to fund enforcement and habitat management.
"Right now, if you go around the territory you might be lucky to find four or five fisheries (officers)," said McLeod. "That was the same risk we had here. If we had walked away, who knows if they ever would have come back."
During the debate, the general consensus was that while this is not a perfect deal, it is a good start.
Two MLAs, Frame Lake MLA Wendy Bisaro and Inuvik Twin Lakes MLA Robert C. McLeod, quoted the popular Rolling Stones song You Can't Always Get What You Want.
Before ultimately throwing their support behind the motion and the devolution deal, MLAs outlined what their constituents want that is not part of the deal.
Common concerns - other than a general sense of a lack of public engagement - included the fact the GNWT must adopt an estimated 27 pieces of legislation from the federal government and how and when the legislature can change those laws remains to be seen.
Another concern was over the GNWT's new tag line, "We are open for business." Several MLAs raised concerns over the long-term environmental impacts major non-renewable resource extraction projects will have, and questioned whether the benefits to NWT residents outweigh these risks.
"All we get out of this deal is the ability to permit projects the government has brought forward through its flawed federal environmental review process ... we are left with the mess," said Weledeh MLA Bob Bromley, adding the entire negotiation process looks to him like an "orchestrated resource grab" by the federal government, and said the GNWT has been naive about Canada's intentions throughout this process.
Several MLAs, including Bisaro, Bromley and the sole vote against the motion, Deh Cho MLA Michael Nadli, questioned whether this deal is good for aboriginal governments, and whether or not aboriginal people have been properly consulted.
Perhaps the biggest surprises of the day came from Bisaro and Bromley, who voted to support the motion despite their outspoken criticism of the deal.
"I have never said I was opposed to devolution. I felt and feel that my job as a regular MLA is to bring critical thinking and critical review and accountability to the equation," Bromley explained to Yellowknifer.
"A few (of my constituent) would have voted against it had they been in power themselves, or in the seat themselves, but overall there seemed to be support for it. Just a lot of disappointment in how it's been happening and the lack of ... opportunity to participate," he said.
| 
