Thank you very much, Madam Chair. I will not be supporting this motion only because I think it’s premature. We never had the full debate on 18, 19 and 21 options before us. It’s too bad they didn’t bring it up earlier because it’s something we should consider should these three options fail. Just on that alone, I won’t be supporting it. I would certainly like to hear the full debate on 18, 19 and 21, the options before us. I respect the work that was done by the Electoral Boundaries Commission as well. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Menicoche. To the motion.
Question.
Question is being called.
---Defeated
At this time, I’m going to call a brief break.
---SHORT RECESS
I will call Committee of the Whole back to order. Before we took the break, we were dealing with a committee motion brought forward by… Oh, we’d already finished it.
---Laughter
Sorry, I wasn’t paying attention. Alright, Mr. Menicoche.
Thank you very much, Madam Chair. As we progress along with the debate about the Electoral Boundaries Commission report, much has been said about the work done by the commission. Once again, I’d just like to reiterate they’ve done some really good work. They were out in the communities and regions and spoke to the people and heard them as well. They were also given instructions to provide 18, 19 or 21 MLA scenarios. With that, part of our process here this evening is to actually vote on the recommendations that we had discussed amongst ourselves about bringing forward the motion for 18 MLAs, but as we heard, clearly there doesn’t seem to be any Members who support that scenario.
I spoke in favour of not the status quo, but to have 19 MLAs realign some constituency boundaries. With that, Madam Chair, I would like to move forward a committee motion.
Thank you, Mr. Menicoche. The motion is in order. To the motion. Mr. Menicoche.
Thank you very much. Upon reviewing the final report thoroughly, it was felt that if we moved electoral districts of the Kam Lake and Yellowknife South electoral district boundaries, it would realign some of the distribution in those districts. At the same time, this motion recognizes that we have a somewhat workable solution with maintaining 19 MLAs. I believe we moved some lines in the Inuvik district as well as the Hay River area. It’s workable and maintains our 19 MLAs for the Northwest Territories and is something I believe the majority of the people of the Northwest Territories would like us to do.
Like I said earlier, my constituency – and I’ve heard from others – certainly don’t want to see our Legislature grow. We’ve got a relatively small population compared to lots of jurisdictions. I think the Electoral Boundaries Commission report says we have about 43,000 people. Adding two more MLAs just doesn’t seem the right thing to do at this time, perhaps in about eight years.
We’ve heard in this House this evening about how some populations have changed, some have reduced and, in fact, some have grown. At the same time, I don’t believe it’s grown enough in eight years that we should add two more MLAs. I believe that if we realign districts and some boundaries, I think it’s a workable solution for us for the next eight years when the Electoral Boundaries Commission is enacted again to review electoral boundaries. Those are my remarks, Madam Chair.
Thank you, Mr. Menicoche. To the motion. Mr. Dolynny.
Thank you, Madam Chair. I appreciate the ability to speak to the 19 seat motion here with the recommendations or amendments. I would also take the opportunity to hopefully address some of the 21 issues because my math fears the fact that if I don’t at this time, I may run the risk of not having an opportunity.
Madam Chair, with the motion before us on 19, one has to take a look at this from an empirical point of view. You have to look at the pros and cons, the pluses and minuses for 19 and how strong is this motion in this House at this time.
Although we see this could be the predominant theme here by Members, it’s very clear now that this is not a unanimous selection by many here. Really the only thing barring the fact that there are some cost implications of doing anything else, there are very few positives that I see with this motion.
This motion, speaking to the 19, puts Monfwi again in a 39.5 percent underrepresentation which is worse than it is today and Yellowknife South now is added to the list, even with some of the barriers of changes, is also under-represented. So we go from a current status quo of five to under-representation of two. We’ve done some migrations of working towards a ruling of the minus 25 percent, but quite frankly, we’re not helping ourselves. We’ve heard from some Members there that operationally this could possibly ease some of the convention protocols with the current set-up of the Cabinet and the Regular Members, but quite frankly, that’s not a decision for this House. That’s a decision for the 18th Assembly. So I want to remove that from discussion here.
When you look at the Yellowknife ridings in the 19 seat model, almost every one of those ridings have toed up to the 25 percent rule. Given the potential growth, the in-migration of the territory, which is clearly documented, Yellowknife will be under-represented again in short order. All the ridings that had issues will definitely creep over this 25 percent in due course.
It has to be said that Yellowknife residents are looking for things beyond the status quo, and as I clearly said, status quo is not an option and this model echoes so much status quo similarities and the fact that the voter parity for Yellowknife doesn’t change from what it is today, I’m sure Yellowknife Members would all agree that this is something that they don’t want to hear. Again, I agree, costs are contained within this 19 seat model, but Yellowknife residents have not been able to increase their ability to narrow that gap in voter parity, which they’ve always been saying that they want to get up. They’re not looking for 48 percent, but they’re looking to see some modest growth, in terms of what truly is a representation of population.
So really, when I look at a 19 seat model, I don’t really see any win here for Yellowknife residents and there’s such a huge setback for Monfwi and also, to a lesser aspect, with Tu Nedhe. Really, quite frankly, I have a really hard time to agree with this type of model.
What really I think Members have to consider is the fact that we’ve got to do what’s best for the people of the Northwest Territories considering all avenues, and when you look at the 21, this really gives a greater voter distribution of Yellowknife ridings, it gives us a lot more breathing to the 25 percent rule, which will be violated in less than a couple of years. You’ve got to remember we’re going back to this in only eight years from now. So we’re going to be back to where we were in no time at all. For a 21 seat model, this is Monfwi’s only option to keep within the 25 percent ruling. This conversation comes up time and time again for Monfwi and back in 2006 this was mentioned countless times. Quite frankly, we’ve got to start doing something. We can’t continue to put Monfwi in the corner here and ignore their plea. I think we’ve got to heed that as well.
Nineteen does not give us any movement whatsoever to deal with the growth of our territory. If indeed what we’re hearing from Cabinet is that our economic opportunities are there, that we’re going to have growth in the Sahtu and we’ve got to think about growth, then the 19 model does not allow any of that to occur. That’s where the 21 model definitely has more merits. What we’re looking for here is, and if we’re hearing from Cabinet that devolution is coming down the pipe and we’ve got all these new positions and new departments, clearly the workload is going to be a lot heavier for everyone here and the 19 seat model does not address that one bit. Quite frankly, really at the end of the day, when it comes from a model or design for legal under-representation standpoint of the 25 percent rule, the 21 seat model clearly is the favourite here. Again, I totally agree the Sahtu is going to be affected with 21, but the argument could lend very nicely, given the fact of what we know today and given the fact that we know of all the exploration that’s happening in the Sahtu. The Sahtu would lend itself, potentially, for another seat in eight years and I think mathematically that would probably work just perfect and it’s something we need to make sure we consider.
With the 21 seat argument, Yellowknife does get a small but respectable bump in voter parity, to the 38.09 percent. This is still moving away from the 36 percent that we’re seeing today. That’s something that they definitely have spoken loud and clear on when I’ve been going door to door.
Yes, I know costs have been brought up to the table, but I think the issue of cost has predominantly been made moot as a result of the fact that we can’t put a price on democracy.
So when I look at this from the 50,000 foot aerial photo that we’ve got before us here today, clearly what we want to do is provide a model which meets the majority of the needs of Northerners, meets the majority of needs of our residents and tries to keep us out of the courts. Should we go to 19 seat model, I can guarantee you that we’re flipping a coin 50-50 that we’re going to get a Charter challenge on 19 seats, whereas a 21 seat, I can probably almost guarantee, but I can’t 100 percent guarantee that a 21 seat model will keep us out of the courts. Thank you very much.
Thank you, Mr. Dolynny. To the motion. Ms. Bisaro.
Thank you, Madam Chair. Thanks for the opportunity to speak to this motion. It’s unfortunate that I won’t have the opportunity to speak to a motion for 18, and I want to say that I believe there are Members in this House who did want to speak to the motion for 18 and that there are some Members that do support that option.
I want to just repeat many of the points that Mr. Dolynny just made, but I think they’re valid and they bear repeating. First of all, and I said this in my remarks earlier, 19 seats gives us the largest number of overrepresented ridings of all three options. We still have one riding, which is largely, seriously, hugely under-represented and that’s Monfwi. I feel that that’s definitely wrong.
All Yellowknife ridings are still considerably under-represented and Mr. Dolynny spoke to the fact that they’re very close to the 25 plus or minus percentage, the cushion that we’re allowed, given the Supreme Court ruling. It doesn’t allow for growth. I think I said that earlier as well.
The issue of Tu Nedhe being grossly under-represented is addressed, but it creates the situation where it has been pointed out by several Members that both Ndilo and Detah are not happy about moving into Tu Nedhe and Tu Nedhe are not happy about having Ndilo and Dettah in there with them. So we’re creating a riding where we have four communities who don’t necessarily want to be in the same place at the same time.
I also want to talk a bit to some of the comments that I heard earlier. I’m not sure if I interpreted the comments correctly, and if I didn’t, I’m sorry but I heard a number of comments that I feel need to be responded to. The first one is that someone stated that with more Members it would slow down our processes and one of them that was mentioned is budgeting, for instance. It would slow down the process of budget when we have more Members and my thought immediately was: How is that a bad thing to take more time to consider the issue at hand, whether it’s a budget or whether it’s a motion, because we have more Members it’s a bad thing to slow down the business of government? If it’s urgent, well maybe, but we don’t deal with much that’s all that urgent.
There was a suggestion that with more Members we’re going to have more talking and that that’s a problem. In my mind it’s never a problem to discuss and debate an issue at length. We get more ideas that way, we see both sides of an issue that way, we come to consensus that way. In my mind it’s not the talking that needs fixing. We have to go back to the goal that I think we should be aiming for and trying to get to and that’s voter parity, and 19 doesn’t do it.
There have been questions to when does expansion stop and I have to say that expansion will only stop when we can bite the bullet and recognize that we will have to either blur the lines or expand or contract the lines of our ridings, overlap language and culture and we’re not really going there in terms of what we’re saying, and until we recognize that, we have to have situations where we have groups together that maybe don’t want to be there or languages together that maybe don’t usually combine, we’re going to have to keep expanding and if we’re going to take language and culture, particularly those two and make them paramount, we will always be expanding.
So to say that expansion to 21 is a bad thing because of the cost issue, I’ve already addressed the cost issue, but to say that we shouldn’t expand to 21, you know, because of the costs, because we’ve got more Members, it does recognize that language and culture are paramount. If that’s where we want to go, then that’s what we have to do. If we don’t, then we have to accept the fact that we are combining languages and cultures that don’t want to be combined. I think, from what I’ve heard, I would say the consensus is that language and culture are paramount.
There was a statement that Yellowknife will always get the numbers. I think that’s what I heard someone say. I’m thinking to myself, I look at this side of the House, there are 11 Members of which four are from Yellowknife, so where’s the majority in that? I look at across the other side of the House. There are seven Members of which three are from Yellowknife, and where’s the majority in that? I don’t understand that phrase that Yellowknife will always get the numbers. We do not have a majority in this House as Yellowknife Members. Maybe we’re better at convincing people to sit on our side, but we do not have the majority in the House whether we’re on this side or the far side or all 19 Members together, so I don’t understand that comment.
Lastly, the option for 19, in my mind, ignores the issue of voter parity and effective representation, and it basically says that’s not important. I think I’ll just leave it at that. I can’t agree with the 19.
Thank you, Ms. Bisaro. To the motion. I have Mr. Yakeleya.
Mr. Chair, the motion here is one that seems to be the simplest or logical to come to a decision to deal with this issue here. That, for me, is not right. We are looking at rejigging the line within the Yellowknife riding. It will be an issue, as the Member already talked about it, and it’s not going to resolve an issue for the Monfwi people. They’re still at plus 39, so rest assured that there’s a high possibility of a court challenge coming from the Tlicho people of their representation in the Legislative Assembly.
I believe this motion has a disregard for the people, the culture, the land and the language. You’re bypassing that just for the sake of numbers. If a nation of people, you force them to move in with another culture group, another nation of people, those days are gone. We have evolved into our own sovereign nation with our land claims, within our boundaries and of our land, where we hunt, all those need to be considered paramount to effective representation. To have this motion disregards that.
I believe the number 21 is the way to go. We have lots of bureaucrats in our system and if we want to save money, we know where to cut money. It’s simple. We have extra positions coming every time for budgeting sake. We have extra positions coming into headquarters. We’re increasing our bureaucracy, and this motion here may be a motion that says, yes, we can do this. It doesn’t do us or me any good to move it forward. You’re not going to have peace within the Territories. I heard it. We’re trying to force the decision that may seem logical, it may see okay, but it’s not the right one. There must be another way to deal with it. I think that this motion here will do more harm than good. It may be fine on paper but in practicality and reality it’s not very healthy, it’s not very good. That’s what I’m saying about the 19, the number here. I really have a hard time to accept it and I won’t be supporting the motion.
I think that we need to look beyond the 19, look at another motion where it seems that it’s workable. For myself, we need to recognize the Northwest Territories is very unique. Again, I go back to what the old Premiers, former Premiers have said what they need to do to ensure that certain constitutional rights were back in the Constitution of 1984. That’s what we’re doing. This is a very unique situation we’re in and we’ve got to look at that. That’s who we are. We’re in our land, in our culture and in our language, and we’ve got to bring that to the front. If you do this motion, it doesn’t give credence to our cultures and to our people. I have faith that we can do the right thing. Looking at the economics, the social, the political, the cultural and you weigh it against the 19, it doesn’t balance out, it doesn’t even out. I will not be supporting this motion for those reasons.
Thank you, Mr. Yakeleya. To the motion. I have Mrs. Groenewegen.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I think, as Mr. Yakeleya said, we have an opportunity here today to do the right thing, and may I suggest that voting in favour of the motion for 19 Members is not the right thing.
We, as a government, came in here as the 17th Legislative Assembly. We talked about the value of our partnership as a central public government with Aboriginal governments. Here today we have a chance to show respect to the Tlicho Nation, to the folks from our neighbours, and they are our neighbours in the South Slave, in Tu Nedhe. And at what cost? What? Two extra seats here in the Legislature? That is nothing. Well, people might argue that with me, but I think it’s a chance for us to show respect.
If we want to give up this opportunity to do the right thing today, let me warn you of where we’re going, because I’ve played in this movie before. Like I said, I sat in this House and had a chance to give Yellowknife one seat, and I was politically pressured not to do it by the leaders of the day and I voted with them. The Friends of Democracy took it to court. We didn’t just get one new MLA; we got three new MLAs. Now, if you want to take it out of our hands and take it to the courts, I guess we won’t have any control over what the outcome is. We won’t be driving the agenda when it goes to the courts.
I think it’s a chance for us to put our money where our mouth is, show some respect to language, cultural, Aboriginal groups here today, and add two more seats to this Legislature. You can say, well, how many people will tell you that we should add more MLAs. Well, that’s not really the germane question in this discussion. This is a debate today. This is actually really good. It’s been a long time since we’ve had a good debate in this House and it’s a very good debate.
But I just want to say that we are a diverse and unique territory and we need to recognize that diversity and that uniqueness by showing respect to our partner governments and our constituencies. We always stand up in this House and we talk about the richness of our territory with our culture, our language and our 11 official languages. We talk about that. We brag about that. We pay it respect. Yet, today we have a chance to, like I said, put something behind those words, and I think that we should be doing it. If we do hand this off to the courts to decide, I would like a recorded vote on this. I’d like a recorded vote because the people who do not vote for the 21 Members and vote for the 19 Members, after we see where the dust settles on this, I want everybody to know exactly who we are talking about.
Thank you, Mrs. Groenewegen. To the motion. I have Minister Beaulieu.
Mahsi cho, Mr. Chair. Although I know we don’t have interpreters anymore, I just want to speak a bit in my language to the elders. [English translation not provided.]
I just wanted to stress a point of how important it is even today as more and more people speak English and communicate in English, and English is a working language for us, we still need to work in our own languages as well. We still need to have representation in the House here that represents people of all Aboriginal languages across this great territory of ours.
We know that some of the languages have almost died because people have not taken language and cultural things seriously. We talked a lot about things like addictions, social issues and things like that. The elders always tell us it’s because we need to go back to the land, we need to get in touch with our culture and we need to talk our language. When you sit down and you can talk to somebody in their language and they have a good understanding of it, it’s the best way for individuals, elders and everybody, to express how they feel towards their people. That’s what is needed. That’s not considered in here. Even if we put it down here saying language and culture will be considered, it wasn’t. It is, actually, with 21 seats, but with 19 seats and with 18 seats it was not considered. It couldn’t possibly be considered because if it was considered, they would never put a recommendation forward that says the elimination of one language in this House. The elimination of one Aboriginal language in the House would not have been considered. So this is what 18 seats did. It puts Tu Nedhe and Deh Cho together, so that would have eliminated the Chipewyan language. I have no doubt about it. Mr. Nadli is a good representative for a lot of people in the Deh Cho and that’s where the Member would arise from. It’s essentially the same thing even if it goes the other way. It’s still one language and it would not be spoken in the House. It disrespects the traditional lines of people. It disrespects the traditional boundaries that the people set up.
People live where they live because that’s where they’re from and that’s the language that they speak and that has to be respected. This report does not respect that except for in where there are 21 seats.
I did talk to the people that put this report together and that was their response. Yes, we did consider it, but that was in the 21 seats. If 21 seats is what this Legislative Assembly picks, then we will have respected the culture and language and the culture and languages or official languages and the diverse cultures that we have across the territory. I’m seeing that, eventually, if we go with 21 seats, as the MLA for Sahtu had indicated, there could be growth in the Sahtu and that would be appropriate, and there could possibly be a seat that’s dominated by Weledeh, by the YK Dene. Right now the YK Dene, their band is I think around 1,100 to 1,200 people, but because of the land and the housing they have, they have about 650 people in their riding in those two communities. But at some point, as the people get repatriated back into those communities, they should have their own seat. They would have enough members to have their own seat. This 19 will eliminate that possibility. It would take them and put them in a riding outside of Yellowknife. From a riding where they’re from, where they’re original people here, it would take them and join them with a riding from out there to another riding. Both groups of people – both groups – don’t want that. The people of Weledeh and YK Dene are happy to be represented here in the capital where they’re from and the people of Tu Nedhe are happy with their representative that is from their culture and their language. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Thank you, Mr. Beaulieu. To the motion. I have next, Mr. Blake.
Thank you, Madam Chair. Some Members have spoken. Just for the record, I will be voting in support of this motion.
I know some Members spoke earlier about representation in Yellowknife. I feel that Yellowknife does have good representation here. The Member brought it forward last year that there should be signs that are put up in the city because members don’t know who their MLAs are. For me that’s a clear indicator that possibly there are too many MLAs in Yellowknife because people don’t know who their MLAs are. No disrespect, but that’s pretty clear, just in my opinion.
One thing that seems so simple to me is why can we not change the number of constituents we represent. Why can’t we change it to 4,500 residents? That would make things so simple, but yet it seems like we are asking for too much to do that. There is actually an added benefit for Yellowknife MLAs to support the 21 seats as there will most likely be… They are saving another seat in Cabinet. Whether that has a lot to do with how the vote goes, that’s to be determined. But that’s just the way things operate here. It’s with no disrespect that I do support 19 Members, because I have the highest respect for the Tlicho. Some people here may say they are under-represented, but the way I see it, the Tlicho have great representation because the Tlicho are the only Aboriginal group in the territory that are self-governing. The Tlicho people have this similar structure that they operate their government in. To me, they have a lot more representation than any of us here may lead on. I have the fullest respect for the Tlicho people.
Just to the report, it states on page 10 that some individuals question the need to undertake this process at all. Some did not want any changes that would affect their current electoral district. Also, some people believe the process shouldn’t occur until all land claims and self-government negotiations are concluded. Some believe no changes should be made until after devolution is implemented. Madam Chair, I just wanted to stress that. With that, I will be voting in favour of this motion. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Thank you, Mr. Blake. Are there any further comments to the motion? Minister Robert C. McLeod, please.
Thank you, Madam Chair. We talk about the diversity of the Northwest Territories and we all realize each and every one of our ridings is very diverse. I represent a riding that has Inuvialuit, Gwich’in; we have people from all over the Mackenzie Delta, so we know about the diversity of our riding.
I’m going to vote in favour of the motion, in favour of the 19 but, like Mr. Blake, that is in no way showing any disrespect to our Tlicho brothers, our brothers from Tu Nedhe. It’s no disrespect. We talk about the fact that there are three of us in here that are of Gwich’in descent. All three of us can’t speak our language. The reason our language is lacking is not because it’s not spoken in this Legislative Assembly. It starts well before that. We all would prefer to speak our own language and there are two of us in this Assembly that are Inuvialuit and we don’t speak our own language. I always say I can understand it a bit if they point while they’re talking to me. I can’t remember the last time Inuvialuit or Gwich’in was spoken in this Assembly.
So to say that our languages are dying because it’s not spoken in the Assembly, I don’t think that’s true. There’s a lot more to it than that. Obviously, all of us of Aboriginal descent in this Legislature would love to be able to stand, like some of our colleagues, and speak our mother tongue. I mean, that would be a great honour.
I just wanted to make the point that just because we’re voting to support the 19 Members is in no way showing any disrespect to any culture, language and people across the Northwest Territories. We are a very diverse territory. In my riding alone – and in every Member’s riding – we could count the number of people we have from all across, not only the country, but all over the world, actually. I know Inuvik has a very diverse population with people from all over the world.
So I just wanted to make that point, Madam Chair. I just don’t want it to be thought that because I’m voting in favour of the 19 Members that I am disrespecting anyone, because I’m not. Thank you.
Thank you, Minister McLeod. To the motion. Mr. Bromley.
Thank you, Madam Chair. Clearly, in terms of the guidelines that were presented to the commission, this is the worst of the three scenarios they presented. It does not resolve the issues of under- and overrepresentation. As well, the issues of culture and language remain as we’ve heard for at least two groups.
I would particularly like to say for Monfwi this is unfair and perpetuates an unfairness that’s been on record for some time now. This is our opportunity to correct that, I would say. So I don’t think we should be holding our head up much if we do pass this motion.
I’d also like to say that we do need to have the discussion about how much government we need and what it would require and then a discussion on the model of the government that would be appropriate for that number of MLAs. Update that discussion as needed, but have that discussion, put it on record and see if we can’t pull together some momentum towards working towards that model. If it was a smaller number of MLAs, I would be fine with that.
As we’ve heard, this scenario bumps up against the 25 percent rule, not only for Monfwi but I’d say again for the Inuvik ridings, Mackenzie Delta, with overrepresentation, Deh Cho and so on. For Yellowknife, as well, I just did calculations here and for the formerly Weledeh, so it would be NWT two, 85 people would put us over the 25 percent limit. Now, we know that is happening as we speak. People are moving into the Weledeh riding. For Yellowknife Centre, NWT three, it would be 28 people. Frame Lake would be 122 people and that starts to get into the sort of thing we are looking for. I’m pleased to observe that the scenario for 21 does offer that sort of cushion, so that we can expect the degree of voter parity we would put in place with the option of 21 would actually last for some period of time.
I think cost, again, has been well addressed. The MLAs do contribute. Democracy does have a cost and is well worth the investment. I would say some numbers were thrown on the table that are pretty high from my understanding for what two MLAs, as proposed in 21, would cost. We know government makes a lot of, I would say, almost frivolous decisions on amounts of money that are substantially greater than that and perhaps it would motivate us to tune up our decision-making a bit on some of those costly items.
I would say Weledeh riding, speaking for my current riding, but looking into the future, names are important. I think what’s reflected in the Weledeh riding is even the name indicates the pride that Yellowknifers have in aligning themselves with a couple of small Aboriginal communities, Yellowknives Dene First Nations communities, we regard as part of ourselves. We are very proud of that affiliation. I would say that is from something like 75 years now there’s a record of affiliation of those communities with residents of Yellowknife which were really part and parcel in the early days, lifestyles were so similar in many ways, certainly adjacent, right on the lake, where most of the Weledeh riding is centred and so on. I wanted to make mention this is a big departure against the wishes of the Yellowknives Dene First Nation.
I’d say really the scenario for 19 is close to the status quo. It certainly is in terms of numbers, it certainly is in terms of numbers of MLAs, but it’s worse because it fails to attempt to meet the need that 21 addresses, voter parity and a better representation of the language and culture. Again, not nearly as deserving of our support as the scenario with 21 seats.
Really the only thing I’ve heard against the 21 seats is the cost business and I think that’s been so well addressed and could be further addressed, as I mentioned in my opening remarks just now, through more discussion, more work on behalf of this bunch of MLAs to have a discussion on the form and size of government we want and start moving towards that in a comprehensive way.
So I will be voting against this motion. I encourage my colleagues to also consider that, given that it’s the worst of the three options that we see at the top of page 37 dealing with this. I will conclude my remarks with that, Madam Chair. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Bromley. To the motion. Mr. Lafferty.
Mahsi, Madam Chair. I will be speaking in the Tlicho language. It’s unfortunate that we don’t have an interpreter here. In fair process, if I do go over 10 minutes, if you would allow me to wrap up my statement. I think it’s crucial. The Tlicho elders are listening to us and my leaders as well.
[English translation not provided.]
Madam Chair, I just want to reiterate some of the key messages. Again, it’s unfortunate that an interpreter is not here to capture everything that I said, all the important messages, especially to elders and community members.
The 19 seats that have been proposed here does not do anything for the Monfwi riding. With our numbers, we’re 39.5 percent. That needs to be captured. The 25 percent margin that we have embarked on for a number of years, all the commissions that have come into play, they have always talked about 25 percent. Clearly, we are way beyond that, almost 40 percent, Madam Chair.
Due to that fact, this motion that’s before us is purely the status quo. We want 19 seats to continue as the status quo. Yes, we’re going to tweak it a bit so we can redraw the boundary lines in the Yellowknife area, but that doesn’t sit well with me as a Member for the Monfwi riding. It doesn’t sit well with my leadership either and that’s why they’re here today.
We talk about other regions, Sahtu, yes, I clearly understand and I support that, but today it’s the Monfwi riding with 39.5 percent. I will be supporting the Sahtu region. In the next eight years we’ll have to go through the same process again and they will clearly be above and beyond the 25 percent margin. Clearly, there will be growth as well. It’s not going to go down; it’s going to go up. Nunavut, less population and they added three more seats.
I’m just going to wrap it up. The two ridings, Tu Nedhe and Weledeh, two very distinctive groups, First Nations, amalgamating. We have to listen to the people. That’s why they elected us to sit here and to listen to them. We have to respect their input, their advice and their recommendations. Clearly, we are going against their wishes.
In my view, when we are going to be amalgamating two of the nations, different claimant groups, different languages, different ways of life, I believe we will be dividing those two nations, whether it be their language or way of life. We are forcing upon them to live together. We are forcing upon them to make it work. That’s the old regime, a federal government old regime system. I thought we walked away from that. As a GNWT we’re here to represent the people, not divide the people.
Clearly, the 19 motion that’s coming down does not sit well with my group, with my leadership, with my people. It goes against the wishes of my people and the wishes of other regions as well.
Just to wrap it up, clearly I cannot support this motion and it has to be on the record that we’re making a major decision here. Let’s do the right thing today. Let’s do the right thing this year in this Assembly for our Tlicho partners that are here watching us, to allow a seat for the Monfwi riding. That’s highlighted in one of the recommendations. The leaders from the Tlicho are here to witness a historical event today, listening carefully to each and every one of you. So let’s do the right thing and make a difference. Mahsi.
Thank you, Minister Lafferty. To the motion. Next I have Mr. Nadli.
Thank you, Madam Chair. I move that we extend sitting hours to conclude the item under consideration. Mahsi.
Thank you, Mr. Nadli. Motion is in order. To the motion.
Question.
Question is being called.
---Carried
To the motion that is on the floor, Mr. Nadli.
Thank you, Madam Chair. This discussion at this point is fairly significant and the number… Well, these two numbers that we’re discussing has a positive ring to it, 1921, it’s rather ironic. I wanted to say at least, and impart a message to the people that I represent in my language, I know we’ve heard the Chipewyan language and the Dogrib language, but equally so I wanted to share a perspective with the constituents back home that have asked me to be here to be their representative. So I’d like to take that opportunity.
[English translation not provided.]
Madam Chair, I think here in the NWT, the federal government views the Northwest Territories… It’s not a real name, it’s a reference to a bearing or a point somewhere in Canada north of here. It’s north of Ottawa, it’s west of Ottawa and it’s somewhere in Rupert’s Land, so it’s called the Northwest Territories, but it is home and it’s a community that we make up. That’s the view that I try to uphold in terms of ensuring that we have not only our small communities that we represent, but we have to acknowledge the fact that we have a capital city in the NWT as well. So the challenge is trying to always balance in terms of what it is that the small communities need at the same time as the larger centres. So that’s why we’re mandated to be representatives and make this House work in the spirit of consensus.
Upon my initial consideration of this motion, yes indeed, the constituents that I serve have indicated a favour to maintain the status quo. Yes, I agree. However, the last Assembly maintained the status quo and here we are again and under duress, because if we maintain the status quo, the likelihood of a court challenge is real and we need to be very cognizant of that. Perhaps that’s a reality that we have to contend with at some point. What we can’t forget is, sure, they all have voting rights, they all have voting rights and now there’s treaty and Aboriginal rights, court and First Nations rights. At the same time the non-Aboriginal people have assurances under the Constitution and the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, but what it’s predicated on and what it’s premised on is the idea of multiculturalism, that it’s an inclusion, it’s a community that we all represent. If we make one big fire, all of us have to converge and centre around that fire. I think that’s the spirit that most of our elders have told us, that we need to ensure we remember the spirit of inclusion.
In that same light, there are parallels in terms of a First Nation road and a non-Aboriginal road, but the thing about it here in the North, it’s a duality in that we try to work with each other, and we have to work with each other to try to make this community strong and united and work for the better interest of the people that have put us here for the North.
One thing that I do have to acknowledge and we have to remember, it’s people from the communities and the regions that make Yellowknife their home. I have relatives here and I lived here in Yellowknife too. We can’t forget about that. So there’s a trend of people moving to Yellowknife, and for those reasons I feel the scenario of ensuring that 21 MLAs in the end is a decision that I will support, despite the sense that we’re caught in a trap, that there’s a legal ruling, an undue duress that’s hanging over our heads. I take exception to that, but the larger decision is that I don’t support the idea of 19 MLAs. I think the real and practical decision, the best scenario is 21 MLAs.
Thank you, Mr. Nadli. To the motion. Next I have Mr. Moses.
Thank you, Madam Chair. Just before I begin here, I just want to echo some of the comments made by my colleagues, and that’s in no way are we disrespecting any Aboriginal groups, and in fact, I think that the Aboriginal and GNWT relations are as strong as ever, and it started with the 17th Legislative Assembly. I know all you guys can remember the time we were down in Detah and we started those discussions, and continue those discussions. As elected leaders both in Aboriginal groups, municipal or territorial, we do what’s for our residents and constituents that we represent. It’s under this leadership and this government that those relations were brought forth, so I don’t think it is a deciding factor in how we vote, whether it’s 19 or 21, because I believe those relationships are already strong today, stronger than when we got elected here.
There was another comment I just wanted to make reference to that was brought up earlier, was that Yellowknife Members are a minority in this Legislative Assembly, on this side of the House and on that side of the House. The last I saw, Inuvik only had one vote on this side of the House and Inuvik only has one vote with Cabinet, so I don’t see where the minority is coming from. As Members of this Legislative Assembly, we should be representing the residents of the NWT, not the residents of Inuvik, not the residents of Yellowknife by themselves, but the territory as a whole and everybody that resides here in the NWT.
We’ve spent four hours on this issue, and we’re discussing whether we’re going to put two Members in this House or not. I’ve been here two years. There’s not a day that I remember we spent four hours discussing early childhood development, four hours discussing the homeless people, the mental health and addictions, socio-economic agreements, fracking issue, which is big now, and I know moving on with this government we’re not going to spend four hours discussing these issues at all. Education, physicians, our low literacy rates, graduation rates, important issues to our people. They’re not worried about whether or not we have two people or not and if this is going to go to court or not. We have people out there that are sick, that are homeless, and yet we spend the whole afternoon here discussing whether or not this government should have two more MLAs when people down south are representing way more population than we are.
And you know what? I’ve been a community member. I’ve sat on municipal politics, I volunteer. I work with the youth and the elders. I’ve been a government employee for a number of years, and now I’m a Member of the Legislative Assembly, and being in this House, I’ve sat on committees where I’ve never sat with such a strong committee such as the Social Programs committee in all my working years, and I’ll tell you, each and every member that sits on that committee represents their jurisdiction and the people of the Northwest Territories effectively and efficiently. Adding two Members, would it make a difference? You just have to listen to the throne speech yesterday. Look at all that we’ve done as 19 Members. We’ve done a lot. I know Members on this side of the House can agree with that. We got a commission report in front of us that is pushing some Members against each other.
Like I said, this is my first time in government. I wasn’t sure how things were going to work out but I’m very happy, and I know the residents of the NWT are happy with all the work that we’ve done. Whether or not we have two more Members to repeat what we have already said in the next two years, we’ve got good direction moving forward. We’ve got a lot of action plans that are coming out, Anti-Poverty Strategy, Early Childhood Development Framework, Economic Opportunities Strategy, things that are going to guide us 19 Members who had direction and input into that to continue to make this government what it is.
I don’t agree with the extra two Members proposing the 21 Members here. It’s sparked a lot of really good debate and I respect all Members’ comments on this. When we’re looking at all these social issues, infrastructure issues within the people we represent here, I’m in favour of 19 Members. I feel the 19 Members here are very strong in doing the work on behalf of the NWT and moving forward is going to be very strong as well. I will be supporting this motion of 19 Members, and whether it goes to the court system or not, you know, that’s the chance this government’s going to have to take. But in a statement I made earlier, we’re all here to make tough decisions that affect the livelihood, the health and well-being of our people, and 19 Members I feel is adequate and that’s what I will support.
Thank you, Mr. Moses. To the motion. Mr. Menicoche.
Thank you very much, Madam Chair. I think I heard clearly the many, many reasons to keep 19 and not to move on to 21, but I heard clearly, as well, I think Members want a recorded vote, so I’ll certainly ask the chair for that.
Thank you. Anything further to the motion?
Question.
Mr. Menicoche, Mr. Blake, Mr. Abernethy, Mr. Miltenberger, Mr. McLeod – Yellowknife South, Mr. Ramsay, Mr. McLeod – Inuvik Twin Lakes, Mr. Bouchard, Mr. Hawkins, Mr. Moses.
All those opposed to the motion, please stand.
Mr. Beaulieu, Mr. Lafferty, Mr. Dolynny, Mr. Nadli, Ms. Bisaro, Mr. Bromley, Mr. Yakeleya.
All those abstaining? All those abstaining from voting on the motion, zero; all those in favour of the motion was 10; all those opposed to the motion is seven. The motion is carried.
---Carried
Minister R.C. McLeod, please.
Thank you, Madam Chair. The debate that we’ve had this afternoon has been great and it’s one of the benefits of consensus government to have debates such as this and then we move on from there.
I have a motion that I would like to move.
Thank you, Minister McLeod. To the motion. Minister McLeod.
Just very quickly, Madam Chair. I’ve been a part of two of these now and both of them have sparked a lot of good debate. We asked this commission, which is supposed to be an independent commission, to go out and listen to what the people have to say and then come back with some of their recommendations. I mean, we’ve seen a motion today to completely dismiss those recommendations and we’ve had a few other motions.
I believe that if we, eight years from now, the Legislative Assembly of the day will ask the commission to go out and do some consultations across the Northwest Territories. They’ll have an opportunity to come back. The Members of the day will have an opportunity to provide some input before their final recommendations, and I believe those recommendations should be binding. I think we’ve heard somebody say that six jurisdictions have this, and we’ve heard today that the commission, I believe, takes everything into consideration. I think we see that now with the 19 Members that we do have and with the discrepancy in the numbers from 760 to 2,800. I think they do take everything into consideration.
I would like to see the future commission reports binding, and I appreciate the opportunity to have spoken a few words on this.
Thank you, Minister McLeod. To the motion. Next I have Mr. Abernethy.
