Last week on October 31, which could be called the day leading up to Halloween eve, I decided to turn on the community channel to watch the Machiavellian uprising of some ordinary MLAs against not one, but two cabinet ministers.
Once upon a time such an uprising would cause heads to roll, either among the cabinet if successful or among the uprisers if unsuccessful. However, theoretically we are civilized now and they talk these things out, so no one actually loses their head in a literal sense, but there will probably be some repercussions.
I also wanted to see if the unions call to flood the gallery with protesters, worked. The union had threatened to immediately call a strike if provoked by the government, but apparently provoking the government in this way was considered fair. It did seem that there were more people in the gallery than usual, but it was hardly a protesting mob, flood or even a rabble.
I have to say watching the community channel debate was a little eerie because the sound and the video weren’t in sync. The camera would focus in on a person and you would hear a voice speaking without their lips moving, then long after the person had finished speaking It looked like they were just mouthing words. I wondered, if this was some clever metaphor for politics, an attempt for a little comic relief or just poor syncing.
It soon became apparent that the rebels didn’t have enough votes to oust anyone from cabinet, unless of course, the cabinet minister decided to leave on their own accord. So, it soon fizzled into speechifying, rhetoric and grandstanding on some people’s parts.
However, I did find some of the comments interesting. A few of the MLAs from the smaller communities said that they had talked with the elders and leaders of their ridings before they decided which way to vote. Most voted to retain the two ministers. It seemed to illustrate a form of consensus. However, none of the MLAs from the bigger centers made such comments and this got me thinking. It seems to show that they made their decisions basically on their own. But if an MLA, from let’s say Yellowknife, wanted to talk to the leaders, elders or seniors of Yellowknife, who would they talk to. It did shows some of the differences in the way things are done between the smaller and bigger communities.
Yellowknife is by far the biggest community in the NWT with close to 20,000 people or close to half of the NWTs population. Many of its residents moved here from the other communities in the NWT or Nunavut, because the government is here and that means most government jobs are here. There are lots of service industry jobs. In a way jobs breed other jobs and companies who work in the NWT often want an office or presence in the capital.
So, the government has to be concerned about things in Yellowknife and also about the smaller communities. It is a balancing act. Personally, I think that the GNWT has to rethink and address some of these problems in a much more meaningful way.
I live in Yellowknife and I often find it very difficult to understand the GNWTs rules and regulations, its programs or services or to figure out who I should be talking to about a certain issue. Bureaucracies seem to work that way. If a person living in the capital finds this a problem, imagine what it is like for a person living in a community tying to do it over the phone or internet. There really needs to be one person in each community that you go to get the answers and it is that civil servants’ job to ferret out the answers for you.
Also, the GNWT should figure out ways to create more jobs for people not just for people with university degrees. It needs grass roots programs that use education, mentorship, local training and local hiring right in the communities to deliver services to the communities. So, while a university would be nice, we need a lot more local training and trades people.
These are some of the thoughts that flashed through my mind as I watched the drama unfold at the ledge. It occurred to me they needed a lot less talk and a lot more actual action.