.
Search
Email this articleE-mail this story  Letter to the EDITORWrite letter to editor  Discuss this articleOrder a classified ad

Rationing reaction

Village council debates need for its own plebiscite

Northern News Services

Fort Simpson (Jan 24/03) - News of the Liidlii Kue First Nation's intention to hold its own liquor rationing plebiscite on June 21 sparked plenty of debate at village council on Monday night.

Coun. Kirby Groat said a plebiscite regarding the lifting of liquor restrictions should be open to all Fort Simpson residents of voting age. The result will affect everyone, he noted. LKFN band members represent approximately 60 per cent of the Fort Simpson's population.

There's nothing stopping the village from holding its own plebiscite, Coun. Andrew Gaule suggested.

Mayor Tom Wilson questioned whether a village plebiscite will be meaningful. He said Finance Minister Joe Handley, who must give ministerial approval to bring an end to liquor rationing, wants input from the LKFN.

Gaule replied, "If we're living in a democracy, I think that (a plebiscite) has to carry some weight with democratically elected ministers."

Coun. Betty Hardisty said village council made a mistake by not consulting the LKFN in the first place.

"To put it bluntly, I think there's nothing we can do about it ... it's out of our hands completely," said Hardisty. "If we do hold our own plebiscite, what's going to happen? There's going to be a big division in this town."

It's imperative, Gaule argued, that the 40 per cent of residents who aren't band members aren't disenfranchised.

"As a public institute, if we don't stand up for the rights of everyone in this community then we don't have a role any more," he said. "We might as well just quit."

Coun. Sean Whelly disagreed with the LKFN labelling those who aren't band members as "transients."

"I've been in the territories for 41 years. I consider myself a resident of the Deh Cho," Whelly said.

Council will be presented with more information on the plebiscite process for the Feb. 3 meeting. A motion is to be discussed further at that time.