Thank you, Madam Chair. We had an extensive debate about this in November. We had the bill brought forward that reflected the outcome of that debate. As we now look at the bill, the issue that we have avoided – and I’ve said this at every Boundaries Commission that I’ve talked to and every time we’ve debated this in the House – is how much government do we need? How many MLAs do we need for 42,000 people? I know some people will say there should be no price on democracy, we should keep adding MLAs. We have the smallest constituencies, next to Nunavut and the Yukon, in the free world.
We are at a time in the next 18 months or a year that we’re going to be cutting $30 million out of the budget, which is going to affect programs and services. At the same time, we’re suggesting through this amendment that we add more MLAs into this House.
Like we tend to do in government, rather than look at cuts, it’s easier to look at adding on, and we consistently grow the size of the Assembly. It started out with 15, now we’re up to 19. In my mind, this 19, this bill that’s before this House, is not perfect but it gets us to the next requirement for a Boundaries Commission where maybe at that time we’ll in fact address that fundamental issue. We talk about it with everything else. We talk about it with how much growth do we need, how much development do we need, and we keep getting pressured to deal with those issues, yet when it comes to minding our business in this House, it’s one that we studiously avoid because it’s easier to spend money and add seats to the point where it’s hard to reconcile the size of these constituencies with any other area.
In all my travels, I have yet to hear people say, give me more MLAs. Don’t pave my streets, let’s not do the nursing station or let’s not add money for a house, first we need more MLAs. I have yet to hear that and I’ve been here 19 years.
To me the issue is going to be go with the compromise, 19, and maybe next time we’ll have the hard discussion. There is going to come a day when we have to look, that we can’t avoid it. I’m going to vote for the bill that’s before the House based on the debate last November, in the hopes that next time we’ll reach that point where we have that tough discussion, the same way as we’re going to have the tough discussion with how do we adjust and take $30 million out of government. We can’t avoid it much longer, but this will get us to that next time, so I won’t be supporting the amendment. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Miltenberger. To the motion. Ms. Bisaro.
Thanks, Madam Chair. I, too, want to thank the mover and the seconder for bringing this motion forward. Like Minister Miltenberger, I felt we had a very vigorous and very long debate last fall and it was one of the best debates I think I’ve ever heard since I’ve been here.
I stated then that the status quo was not an option for me. What we have basically in front of us in terms of Bill 18 is status quo and I can’t support the status quo. For me there are probably three main reasons why.
The riding of Monfwi is grossly under-represented and we’ve known that for quite some time and the bill as presented does not address that. The amendment does address that, so I support the amendment in that regard.
The riding of Tu Nedhe is a really difficult issue, but we as a territory have stated, and it was part of the directions to the commission when they went out to do their work, that they were to consider the geography of our territory, they were to consider the cultural aspects of our territory, and I consider language to be part of the cultural aspects that they were to consider. I don’t believe that the bill addressed those adequately.
Yes, it keeps us to 19 but, you know, in the bill, the proposed Tu Nedhe-Wiilideh riding leaves two reasonably distinct groups extremely unhappy. Some people would say, yeah, well, get it over it; you know, just deal with it, but there’s no other riding, except for the ridings in Yellowknife, who would be that diverse. Every other riding in the NWT would be somewhat homogenous and yet we’re saying it’s okay to have one riding where we have two cultural groups which are not, so I have a problem with that.
The third issue for me, and it’s been mentioned already, but the ridings in Yellowknife, every riding in Yellowknife currently is very close to the 25 percent plus or minus level that has been set based on a court decision some time ago whenever that was. The amendment allows for some growth in Yellowknife. The bill as proposed does not allow for growth in Yellowknife and I suspect that the current Weledeh riding is probably over the 25 percent margin as we speak.
It’s been mentioned that Yellowknife is growing and the communities are not, and I agree with that. I think that Yellowknife, although it’s not growing by leaps and bounds, Yellowknife is growing. The need for the amendment, to me, says it gives the Yellowknife ridings a bit of space to grow in terms of population and the bill does not allow that for me.
One other thing that I want to mention is that the court decision in 1999 stated that overrepresentation is better than under-representation. Basically they said it’s okay to be overrepresented and if we go to the 21 we will have one riding that’s, I would say, grossly overrepresented, but for linguistic purposes I can accept that and cultural purposes I can accept that. But under-representation is not okay and that was what came out in the court decision. The amendment addresses the under-representation, not fully, but far better than what the proposed bill does, in my mind.
So for those reasons, Madam Chair, I do support the amendment. Thank you.
Thank you, Ms. Bisaro. To the motion. Mr. Bouchard.
Thank you, Madam Chair. I will not be supporting the amendment to go to 21. We had this debate last year and I have basically talked to a lot of constituents, and most constituents don’t see wanting to add more MLAs. I think I indicated in November, we travelled around Canada and we talked to other MLAs and they represent 40,000, 50,000, 70,000 people. We’re representing, the highest number is just over 3,200. That’s the highest. The lowest is 797 people. I mean, I know some of those communities are remote and it’s difficult and they have large issues. I don’t disagree with that. But I’m just saying to add more MLAs… Even the 21 option leaves another jurisdiction in the Sahtu over our limit again, so do we add to 23? Should there not be a motion on 22? Then when we add 22, does it put somebody else over and where do you stop? I mean, where do we stop the MLAs?
Mr. Miltenberger talked about maybe we talk about the other side, about how big we get. Maybe we should be looking at, in the next go around, the options of how do we get bigger. Like, how do we have people represent 3,500 people on an average? I know Hay River and Inuvik used to only have one MLA. We’re almost going in a downward spiral. We should be trying to look upwards and trying to keep it at a higher number than a lower number.
I guess I just can’t support that. I mean, basically, because my constituents don’t support the concept of adding two MLAs. But, I mean, we have decisions on an ongoing basis about whether it’s a legal issue or not. We get legal advice. But we’re often challenged. We’re often challenged all the time about decisions we make and that they become court issues or somebody’s willing to challenge it. I mean, that’s the world we live in. But one of the reasons that we’re doing this and the adjustment is that Weledeh is well under-represented. They’re at 42 percent right now, 42.6 percent. We’re trying to fix one of those situations. Yes, Monfwi will be the next one that has an issue and we’re going to have to deal with that, but, I mean, I can’t support it because my constituents don’t support going to adding two more MLAs as well as the numbers, how many people we have. Like I said, when we fix this with 21, there’s another solution right behind it that needs 22 and probably 23 behind that, so where do we stop the bleeding and stop the additional MLAs? I mean, we know that a situation that the territory is getting more and more centralized. We’re going to end up having to add some of our communities together because the size of Yellowknife is centralizing. That’s what we’re trying to fight here but it’s happening. For right now, I think 19 we’re proposing is one of the remedies. It’s not a status quo because we’re actually changing and we’re fixing a Weledeh situation with an overrepresentation area. I mean, some of the Members are not pleased with this, and I respect them. I really do respect those individuals and those cultures, but I mean, we make some difficult decisions here and this is just basically what I see as a solution.
Thank you, Mr. Bouchard. To the motion. Mr. Menicoche.
Thank you very much, Madam Chair. I thought we had dealt with this or the House had dealt with this before and the results were clear; the majority did not support 21 seats, and here we are debating it again and all for the same reasons.
I just want to say that I continue to be consistent that I don’t support 21 Members. We have a 19 MLA solution. It’s not the perfect solution, but it’s a solution now. I think this can be revisited in the 18th Assembly. Some Members spoke about Yellowknife close to but at the upper limit, but they’re not over at this point. I believe that it can be revisited in the 18th Assembly, and I will not be supporting the motion for two more MLAs.
Thank you, Mr. Menicoche. To the motion. Next I have Mr. Blake.
Thank you, Madam Chair. I, too, when this last came up, voted on the 19 MLAs, keeping things status quo with the changes that were brought forward by the commission. I think it addresses a number of the issues that we’re dealing with. I know there are concerns of conflict between two Aboriginal groups, but I represent two ridings such as that with the Inuvialuit and the Gwich’in. Two different groups but we work together. I represent both groups. Any concerns that come up, you deal with it and work together, and that’s the way things should operate. I don’t think that in the long run we’ll learn to… I’ve seen it in the Dene Nation, for example. All the groups work together when there are issues that come up, and as we move forward with the 19 Members, I think things will work out. There are concerns of under-representation with the Monfwi riding, and I stated, again, when we last debated this, I beg to differ, because the Tlicho people are a self-governing nation. They are well represented. I’ve seen how the Tlicho conduct themselves and I have all the confidence in the riding, so I don’t feel that they’re under-represented. As we move forward, I will be voting against this motion.
Thank you, Mr. Blake. To the motion. Mr. Yakeleya.
Thank you, Madam Chair. As Mr. Menicoche indicated, we had a pretty lively debate the last time we talked about this, and I still consistently state my position that here we’re having the recommendations looking at the forced marriages. Nobody wants to get married in this forced marriage, you know, Weledeh and Tu Nedhe. You put them together. They don’t want to be together. This is what we’re looking at, and I’ve always said that we’re talking about something very special and unique in the Northwest Territories. We’re talking about a culture and a nation of people that’s very special. If it was different, if we were somewhere maybe, but here in the Northwest Territories we are talking about this special relationship we have in the North. The culture and the nation of a people come from this land in that area and they have their own way. Sometimes that trumps the cost of living here in the North, the economic cost factors to that.
For me, I see this as a means not to disrespect the nation of people, the culture, and to honour and respect that. Otherwise, what could be said about other regions and cultures in the North? We don’t hold them to the degree that we think they should be held. The Tlicho have stated clearly, as it shows in the books, they need an additional MLA, so for me, it needs to be, I guess, respected and listen to what the people and what their elders are saying. At first I really didn’t think that we needed 21, but when I looked at the 19 and I looked at some of the issues, then I said, no, we’ve got to go to 21. I’m going to support the motion because I think that’s the right way to go based on what I’ve been reading, reviewing and what I’ve been hearing that anytime we try to look at a nation of people or culture with some significance to it, we need to be very careful how we deal with these types of issues. I’m going to be supporting the motion.
Thank you, Mr. Yakeleya. To the amendment. Mr. Nadli.
Thank you, Madam Chair. I understood that this process was completed in our last session and a decision was made. Unfortunately, we’re talking about this again, so I won’t be supporting the motion. Mahsi.
Thank you, Mr. Nadli. To the motion. Mr. Beaulieu.
Thank you, Madam Chair. A lot of the Members are indicating that this was already dealt with. Obviously, it’s not already dealt with; that’s why it’s back here. I think everybody knows that we have to go through three readings in order to make a decision on these things.
I like what Member Bisaro had to say about the consideration of what the Electoral Boundaries Commission had to say on culture and language. That’s what my whole point is, that that was not considered. I think what should have happened is that should have been a paramount issue. You should not eliminate a language, one of our official languages, and you don’t make decisions that will eliminate one of the official languages or cultures of this House, of this Legislative Assembly.
People seem to be confused as to how many MLAs can represent the NWT. It’s in the legislation. There’s a maximum amount. It sounds like people in here think that it just goes on forever and that the number will never stop. It stops at 24. That’s the maximum in the legislation that you can have. So that’s the most you can have. We’re nowhere near that. We’re at 19 now and moving to 21. Individuals are saying that’s $2 million, which it’s not, but that’s $2 million to add two MLAs. Again, that would be the cost of having every nation represented in here, people that represent every official language in the Legislative Assembly. That would be the cost of that.
The Member for Thebacha has said nobody has ever come up to him and said, don’t pave my street, get a new MLA. Of course no one says that. Who would say that, right? Why would anybody ever dream to go up to an MLA and say, don’t pave my street, get another MLA. That’s ridiculous.
The point is we have to make the decision here to make that decision. I know we have to cut $30 million out of the budget. That is something we will work on. We would put this into the framework. We seem to be able to find ways to pay for a lot of things in this House, but when it comes to paying what I am asking for, pay a little money to keep a nation in this building, all of a sudden the cost is too high. We can’t possibly do this.
This is what I have a real issue with. I cannot for the life of me understand how Members of the Legislative Assembly can vote to eliminate a language and a culture that is official in the Northwest Territories. I can’t for the life of me understand that and I would like to ask for a recorded vote.
Thank you, Mr. Beaulieu. To the motion. Mr. Robert C. McLeod.
Thank you, Madam Chair. This has been a discussion that was had in the 15th and was had again in this Assembly. It’s a good discussion and I don’t think it’s a matter of picking one group over another. I think the Electoral Boundaries Commission had done a fairly good job in going out there with the terms of reference respecting different areas and cultures of the Northwest Territories. That’s why we see such a discrepancy in the numbers today.
I, along with Mr. Blake and Mr. Moses, represent communities that have a fairly large Gwich’in/Inuvialuit population. Neither of us speaks either of the languages, but we manage to work with them well, thus we get elected. So I believe we speak for all the people.
If we had asked the Electoral Boundaries Commission to go out across the Northwest Territories and base their decisions just on numbers alone, then we’d see our territory carved up where maybe a community like Colville Lake will be part of the Mackenzie Delta. We’d have to move a lot of areas around with different groups, but we’d all be one people.
So I think they’ve done a really good job in trying to address some of our concerns. No disrespect to my two colleagues. I respect the fact that they are able to bring this motion forward. I respect both of them and the people they represent, but as in the 15th Assembly, I believe that 19 is a workable number. I think one of the Members said we have some of the smallest ridings in Canada. I truly believe that. I think that I’ve got 1,700. It might go to 1,900 if it changes. I should know every one of them by their first names. We are always fairly easy to get hold of.
I think the NWT is well represented in the Northwest Territories, not just based on numbers but based on the people that are in here. Needless to say, I will not be supporting the amendment to the motion. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. McLeod. To the motion. Mr. Ramsay.
Thank you, Madam Chair. As others have alluded to, we have debated this previously. It is back here again for debate. Today, I just want to start off with saying I do have a great deal of respect for both Members that have brought forward this motion, the Member for Tu Nedhe, the Member for Monfwi as well as the Member for Weledeh. This is a difficult situation to be in. Any time we look at adding seats to this Legislative Assembly, we run into some firm opposition. There are some out there that think adding seats, whether they are outside of Yellowknife or in Yellowknife, is a good thing, but the majority of people that I’ve spoken to here in Yellowknife, I would have to say that most people do not want to see more politicians. For that reason, my decision remains to support the 19 Members. I will not be able to support the motion. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Ramsay. To the motion.
Question.
RECORDED VOTE
Question is being called. Can we have a recorded vote? All those in favour of the amendment to the motion, please stand.
Mr. Lafferty, Mr. Dolynny, Ms. Bisaro, Mr. Bromley, Mr. Yakeleya, Mr. Beaulieu.
All those opposed to the motion, please stand.
Mr. Ramsay, Mr. McLeod, Inuvik Twin Lakes, Mr. Bouchard, Mr. Nadli, Mr. Hawkins, Mr. Moses, Mr. Menicoche, Mr. Blake, Mr. Abernethy, Mr. Miltenberger, Mr. McLeod, Yellowknife South.
The results of the vote are in favour of the motion, 6; opposed, 11. The motion is defeated.
---Defeated
To the schedule as amended.
Agreed.
Thank you. Now we return to page 1, Bill 18, An Act to Amend the Legislative Assembly and Executive Council Act. Clause 1.
---Clauses 1 through 3 inclusive approved
Bill as a whole.
Agreed.
Does the committee agree that Bill 18 is ready for third reading as amended?
---Bill 18 as amended approved for third reading
Thank you. Bill 18 is now ready for third reading as amended. One other matter, does committee agree that consideration of Tabled Document 4-17(5), Northwest Territories Electoral Boundaries Commission 2013 Final Report is concluded?
Agreed.
I will now rise and report progress.
Good evening, colleagues. Can I have the report of Committee of the Whole, Mrs. Groenewegen.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Your committee has been considering Bill 18, An Act to Amend the Legislative Assembly and Executive Council Act, and Tabled Document 4-17(5), Northwest Territories Electoral Boundaries Commission 2013 Final Report, and would like to report progress with one motion being adopted and that Bill 18 is now ready for third reading as amended. Mr. Speaker, I move that the report of Committee of the Whole be concurred with. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Thank you, Mrs. Groenewegen. Do we have a seconder to the motion? Mr. Blake.
---Carried
Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the honourable Member for Tu Nedhe, that Bill 4, Health Information Act, be read for the third time. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Thank you, Mr. Abernethy. To the motion.
Question.
Question has been called. Bill 4, Health Information Act, has had third reading.
---Carried
Mr. Premier.
Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the honourable Member for Inuvik Twin Lakes, that Bill 10, Northwest Territories Lands Act, be read for the third time. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Thank you, Mr. McLeod. Motion is in order. To the motion.
Question.
Question has been called. Bill 10, Northwest Territories Lands Act, has had third reading.
---Carried
Mr. Premier.
