Thank you, Madam Chair. Recommendations from electoral boundaries commissions are binding in the following six jurisdictions: New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, Prince Edward Island, Quebec, Manitoba and Canada. This does not mean in these six jurisdictions the reports of the Electoral Boundaries Commission has always been accepted without objection. Two jurisdictions, New Brunswick and Canada, provide a formal mechanism to register objections with the commission. Although any objections must be considered by a commission, amendments to a commission’s proposal are not required.
In Quebec during the most recent redistribution exercise, the Legislature enacted legislation to suspend the review process because legislators were not happy with the commission report. Meanwhile, last year in Nova Scotia the Minister of Justice rejected a commission’s interim report because in the government’s estimation it did not comply with the Commissioner’s mandate. This raised questions as to whether the final report of a commission would actually be binding if it did not meet the mandate of the commission. Just to point out that these are exceptions to the rules as opposed to the rule.
Most jurisdictions prescribe in legislation the total number of electoral districts and acceptable variances either in absolute terms or in accordance with a formula. All 14 jurisdictions in Canada employ independent electoral boundaries commissions to periodically examine the redistribution and readjustment of the electoral district boundaries.
What this motion is doing is suggesting we follow a model similar to New Brunswick, where a commission is given a direction or mandate to go out and determine boundaries based on things like we’ve heard discussed here today – numbers, language, culture, regional realities – but it provides MLAs with an opportunity to provide an objection if they feel that the commission missed the point. The commission will take this, as well as all input from communities and from residents of a territory, and develop a final report. The trick here is we need to make sure that our legislation, if this motion is passed, is tight and solid, and clearly and fairly represents the things that you’ve heard in this House today, that language, that culture, that regional differences are taken into consideration and are built into our legislation. Then you take the politics out of it and have this commission go out, do the work, meet the public, talk to the public and come back with a binding decision. Madam Chair, I support this motion.
Thank you, Minister Abernethy. To the motion. Minister Ramsay.
Thank you, Madam Chair. I certainly will be supporting the motion that is before us here today. I agree with Minister Abernethy on this and others that have spoken about taking the politics out of this. I think we really need to do that and find a way and process that will enable that to happen. This motion certainly does that.
We had a very close vote today on the findings of the Electoral Boundaries Commission. I think if I could, I’d like to make an amendment to the motion. It’s just something that I think has to happen. I think eight years is too long for the House to wait for another electoral boundaries report to be done and commissioned by the Legislative Assembly. It’s too long to wait for a riding like Monfwi. It’s too long to wait for a riding like the Sahtu and perhaps even Yellowknife.
Madam Chair, maybe just a minor amendment to the motion that’s before us would be to refer the issue of having an Electoral Boundaries Commission struck in the 18th Legislative Assembly and maybe we could refer the issue to the Board of Management for further review. That way, hopefully it will give a little bit of comfort to those ridings and people out there wondering what happened today. Four years comes a lot quicker than eight. I think it’s the right thing to do. I don’t think anything can stop us from going to the Electoral Boundaries Commission Act and have the next Assembly, rather than the Assembly after it, deal with the issue. I think that’s something I would like to put on the floor, Madam Chair. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Ramsay. Do you have a written version of your proposed motion to amend the motion? Mr. Ramsay.
Thank you, Madam Chair. Maybe just a sentence at the end saying we would refer whether or not the 18th Legislative Assembly could propose changes or this Assembly could propose changes to the EBC Act to have the next government, which would be the 18th Legislative Assembly strike an Electoral Boundaries Commission as opposed to the 19th Legislative Assembly. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Ramsay. The motion to amend the motion that’s on the floor has to be in a written format. So, accordingly, we will take a break. Thank you.
---SHORT RECESS
I’d like to call Committee of the Whole back to order. Mr. Ramsay.
Thank you, Madam Chair. I move that Committee Motion 3-17(5) be amended by adding the following after the words “to make the final recommendations of electoral boundaries commissions binding”:
“; and to require the establishment of an Electoral Boundaries Commission during the 18th Legislative Assembly.”
Thank you, Mr. Ramsay. To the amendment to the motion.
Question.
Question is being called.
---Carried
Back to the original motion as amended. We have several people on the list for that. Mr. Ramsay, you were on the list next. You’re good? Thank you. Mr. Hawkins.
Thank you, Madam Chair. I guess I just want to say I’m going to speak in favour of the amended motion, which is basically as mentioned by Mr. Abernethy and some others I guess repeatedly, but the fact is that we really need to find a way or a mechanism to get this electoral boundaries review process completely out of the hands of politicians.
I think Mr. Moses had said it in a really interesting way. How many hours have we spent on this particular subject, but yet we spend such a paltry amount on other very important subjects, whether it’s early childhood education, poverty, et cetera. That may not be a completely accurate statement in a sense of time, but I think just the debate alone today, I think, was an interesting reference how much time we’ve spent on this initiative in comparison to the others. I think that’s the contrast he was highlighting and I do support his observation in that.
As Mr. Abernethy had mentioned, there are mechanisms, and I’ve watched other regions go through this and there always seems to be a winner and loser in these situations when they amalgamate or delete or whatnot of a riding. But I’ve seen things work out, being a spectator in those ridings in the context of me watching from the Northwest Territories to watch other ridings whether they’re in Nova Scotia or New Brunswick, et cetera. It’s a true, fair approach, I think, of executing the will of the Legislature and certainly the will of the people. I think it gets there without anywhere near the trouble that we’re going through today.
The challenge – I don’t, sort of, envy the next Electoral Boundaries Commission, again assuming we can find anyone who wants to sit on it after this experience – but the real challenge, of course, is to find anyone without interest to be represented and I know people do represent their perspectives in the spirit and goodwill as they’re attended, but deep down inside I certainly hope that certain biases and whatnot don’t come through. As such, I would think that the Electoral Boundaries Commission… I’m not sure if it’s struck or written into legislation that it has to be three, but I do think that that has to be a consideration at the time.
If you’re going to make something mandatory, you can’t put the smallest group of individuals together to come up with one of these biggest decisions. At that point, if you’ve only got three people, you might as well just give it to one person at that point. I mean, I’m thinking the electoral boundaries review or final decision has to go through something like a group of five, maybe. I know that that’s cumbersome in its own way, but the thing is you really need good tos and fros when you talk about decisions and discussions like this. I mean, look at today, it was a fantastic discussion. Yes, it is. Certainly, I think I have left four and a half hours on the table of my life on this one and it’s a discussion well invested by us because it’s so important for the people of the Northwest Territories, but when you think about that type of decision, I don’t know what the mechanisms are and I’m not about to move an amendment to another amendment. Quite frankly, it’s something that we need to keep in mind and I certainly hope the Board of Management of the day will make that type of decision to expand the roles of people in that job.
So although not an amendment, but more a point, saying that I would hope that the future commission would be a minimum of five people. Again, to help the diversity of perspectives, but to ensure that we get a fullness of discussion when or whatever position they take when they make their recommendation binding. I think to me that’s the key, but at the same time to help the diversity of perspectives, but to ensure that we get a fullness of discussion when or whatever position they take when we make their recommendation binding. I think to me that’s the key, but at the same time it’s the essence of what it should be. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Hawkins. To the motion. Next I have Mr. Beaulieu.
Thank you, Madam Chair. I will not be supporting this motion. I think that it’s important that this type of discussion, this type of decision being made by the people in this room, like with the discussion we had today, as you can see individuals are trying to protect nations or trying to protect the people that they represent. This would take it completely out of our hands and it will go to individuals who are not elected by the people who will be going out there as a commission making a final decision on how the electoral boundaries would look in the Northwest Territories.
I thought this last one was a very poor process and I thought two of their three recommendations didn’t respect language and culture. The third one was very unpopular, because it respected the language and culture, but it came with an additional seat that people didn’t seem to have the appetite to do for some reason.
So now we’re going to then take the work of this type of commission and make it binding. I can’t support that. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Beaulieu. To the motion as amended. Mr. Bouchard.
Thank you, Madam Chair. Glad that I can agree with Mr. Beaulieu’s point of view in that we are elected officials to make these decisions. I will not be supporting this motion, as well, on the fact that I think there are a bunch of intricacies of these types of decisions and I don’t think that’s in the best interests of the Northwest Territories to be bound by a commission. I think the commissions can give us recommendations, give us direction on what they see, what they’ve heard and seen, but we, as elected officials, have to make the end decision.
The other thing is that making this binding isn’t representative of what’s happened in the past. You know, the last couple of commissions for sure, the elected officials at the time decided to go other directions. Even this one we went with 19, one of the recommendations, with a minor tweak. So I mean, us knowing, I think, what the Northwest Territories needs best. So I know it is ugly and we’ve sat here for four hours, five hours, but it has been good discussion and it has stirred emotions in everybody, but I think we are all trying to represent who we represent. So I think it’s still the place to be decided is here as opposed to a commission. So again, I will be voting against this motion.
Thank you, Mr. Bouchard. To the motion as amended. Mr. Menicoche.
Thank you very much, Madam Chair. I know the intention of this motion is to try to remove it from the politicians, but after extensive debate today and how emotional it was, not only for Members but for people out there in the public, the intent was to put it somewhere else and make a commission dictate how many MLAs we have. I think before that happens we have to have our discussion ourselves as to what’s the maximum. We have to set some parameters around it. We can’t just strike up some new board and then on top of that in the next election, as well, with the amendment.
So I’m not in favour of that. I’d rather raise it at Caucus and try to move forward with something that addresses all of our concerns, but to provide a kneejerk or committee motion like this, that’s something I cannot support without giving it some full thought, bring it back to my constituency to discuss it, you know, how do we move forward.
In eight years I do believe that we will be in a position or we may be in a position to increase the number of MLAs because our population certainly has grown and we’ve seen that in the last eight years. I think we’re going to have to wait until then. Those are my comments. I won’t be supporting this motion.
Thank you, Mr. Menicoche. Mr. Dolynny.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Being a newly elected official here, you always come into this room under the pretense of wanting to do what’s best for the Territories. You know, clearly every intention of newly elected officials or those that return here is to do just that and you spend months, years – we’re halfway through our term – almost two years to try to work together in a consensus-style manner. We protect that of which we hold as dear and true, which is consensus, and yet today we’re acting like we’re parties, parties of one, parties of two, parties of three. Clearly, this, in my mind, goes against the virtue of consensus-style government. I know it’s important to have debate. That’s fine. But when the topic of this nature is so political and so self-serving in nature and it crosses the lines of culture, language, I can tell you, it’s not a fun place to be in. Even though I don’t mind being here and having a good dust-up with my colleagues, a lot of people were galvanized on these issues right from the get-go. Things were said and what was supposed to be in the spirit of working towards some type of unanimity in terms of what’s best for the people, it turns out to be who’s with who, who’s with what, and really, at the end of the day, what are we accomplishing.
I think Mr. Moses is the smartest guy in the room and probably the youngest guy in the room. I say that because he’s observant. He sees that. We’ve spent so much time on this being self-serving, indeed where the people of the Northwest Territories are suffering, whether it’s health, education and everything, and quite frankly, we’re squabbling over a seat, a seat there, and quite frankly, what did we achieve? The status quo. We’re going to be going to the courts, I’m pretty sure.
The fact remains that consensus government was designed so that we’re respecting one another. It was designed so that we could work together, and quite frankly, I think that these types of really hot political items need to be looked at. I think if that’s looked at in a form…
Mr. Dolynny, please speak to the motion. Thank you.
I’m trying to get to the motion where I’m trying to summarize it here. The fact is, really, by taking this out of this room and putting it in the hands of the commission which with the motion speaks, is clearly in the best interests not only for the people in this room but for the people in the Northwest Territories. Let’s get back to business.
Thank you, Mr. Dolynny. Mrs. Groenewegen.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I absolutely do not support this motion. That is the biggest cop-out. Furthermore, we should not be discussing this today. We have just had a very good and valuable debate for the last four and a half hours. I’m sorry; I completely disagree with anybody saying that they wasted four hours of their life. This was a good debate. We didn’t all end up agreeing. We will not always agree. Just because it’s consensus government does not mean that we will not represent differences of opinion. But this was a good and fulsome debate, and we will debate it again with it comes before this House as legislation. We’re going to start mounting a campaign right now to have that debate again. To hand this off to a commission and say they should decide, I totally disagree with that, to depoliticize it. And furthermore, I want to say that I did not hear one single self-serving comment made by a Member today. Not to pick on my colleague Mr. Dolynny, but there was no self-serving here. People were representing, from their heart, their constituents, and from their experience and knowledge what they thought was best for our territory. It was refreshing. It was good. I’m happy. I wish we had more debates like this in the Legislature. That’s what the people want to see. They want to see all sides of the subject, not just us coming in here and rubberstamping things.
I do not support moving this on, and I certainly don’t support having this debate here today or this decision here today. We’re right on the heels of something else. Why do we have to decide this today? We should just vote it down and bring it back later. There’s no rush. We can send this off to the Board of Management whenever we want. Why does it have to be right now? I will not be supporting the motion. I guess you might have gathered that by now.
Thank you, Mrs. Groenewegen. Mr. Miltenberger.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This is an important discussion to have in a thorough, measured way, and I do agree with Madam Groenewegen’s concern that this has been an intense time here. There’s been a lot of emotion and a lot of debate, and it’s late. This thing deserves better from all of us. We clearly want to look at how we do this, because I’ve been in five elections, I’ve been through this process three times, and I can tell you, the process needs adjusting or fixing.
It’s not that we give up our authority. Our job, in my mind, the more I think about this and I’ve been watching over the years, is we need to set up a good, solid process like we do in any number of cases and then we get out of the way. It is physically impossible for us in this forum to deal with broad strategic issues and not get caught up in the emotion of the moment, the immediate constituent political self-interest that might be there, and it’s not a forum to have that kind of debate.
I think – and I’m sure Mr. McLeod is listening carefully about this – this deserves more thorough and measured attention. Mr. Menicoche suggested, as well, we need to look at this away from the intensity and the emotion in this room and have a more fulsome debate. I see extreme merit in this, but I, as well, agree that we should probably do this at a different time.
Thank you, Mr. Miltenberger. Mr. Yakeleya.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I also agree with the last two speakers in that we need to take some breathing room out of this discussion right now. I thoroughly enjoyed the debate on the recommendations from the Electoral Boundaries Commission, and I certainly agree with the comment that the MLAs here need to be the final ones to put the stamp on something important as this, and we need to sit back and look at how we see our jobs as we put our names on the ballot box so that the people vote for us to make decisions, and this one here just needs to take some backroom breathing room and look at it and say, okay, this is what we need to do.
I for one will not be supporting the motion at this time. Maybe withdraw it or not to have it on the floor right now with us.
Thank you, Mr. Yakeleya. Mr. Bromley.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Briefly, yes, I agree that this motion is premature. I agree that we do need to do something with the process if we can find something will really move it forward and be supported widely. Really, making it binding, making the Electoral Boundaries Commission report binding depends on us giving them good instructions from the start, and based on my modicum of experience to date compared to Mr. Miltenberger, I don’t think we’re there yet where we can reliably know that we are always going to give good instructions.
I am comfortable that the courts are available as backup if we need them, although that’s clearly not the preferred route to go.
I did also want to weigh in. I think Mrs. Groenewegen captured it well, but not to take away from the wise words of wisdom of my colleague Mr. Moses, but, you know, what we’re talking about here is the fundamentals of democracy. There is nothing more worthy of us spending time on, then making sure and debating how we can remain democratic and as well-founded as we possibly can be on democracy. On that basis, and I have to say, I have the same frustrations as many of my colleagues on the lack of attention that we may give to some issues or the lack of time we seem to have for them despite how huge they are. But I just wanted to share my understanding to, or my appreciation for, the democratic process as being the number one on which this is all founded. With that, I’ll leave it. I will not support the motion.
Thank you, Mr. Bromley. Ms. Bisaro.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I’ll try to be brief, but I did say in my opening comments that I support making the decision of a commission binding, but there have been a couple of extremely valuable points raised within the last few minutes. I do think that this suggestion deserves some careful thought. We are tired after four and a half hours, which I agree with whoever said that it was an extremely valuable time, was an excellent debate. Just the thought that one of the reasons we don’t have debates like this is because we pit one side against the other and our procedures and processes don’t really allow that at this kind of debate. Maybe we ought to look at what we’re doing and change some of that if we want to have more of this kind of freewheeling, open and consensus-style debate.
That said, I am in support of looking at this issue, but to the points that have been raised about putting this off for a time and considering what we really want to do with it, I think that’s probably very valuable. If the motion can’t be withdrawn, which I gather it can’t, I will have to vote against it. Thank you.
Thank you, Ms. Bisaro. Next on the list is R.C. McLeod.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I move that consideration of Committee Motion 3-17(5) be deferred.
There is a motion on the floor. The motion is in order. To the motion.
Question.
Question has been called. The motion is deferred.
---Carried
Mr. Hawkins.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I move that we report progress.
---Carried
Good evening, colleagues. Can I have the report from Committee of the Whole, please, Mr. Bouchard.
Mr. Speaker, your committee has been considering Tabled Document 4-17(5), Northwest Territories Electoral Boundaries Commission 2013 Final Report, and would like to report progress with one motion being adopted. I move that the report of Committee of the Whole be concurred with. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Thank you. Do I have a seconder? Mrs. Groenewegen.
---Carried
Mr. Speaker, orders of the day for Wednesday, November 6, 2013, at 1:30 p.m.
Prayer
Ministers’ Statements
Members’ Statements
Returns to Oral Questions
Recognition of Visitors in the Gallery
Acknowledgements
Oral Questions
Written Questions
Returns to Written Questions
Replies to Opening Address
Petitions
Reports of Standing and Special Committees
Reports of Committees on the Review of Bills
Tabling of Documents
Notices of Motion
Notices of Motion for First Reading of Bills
Motions
Motion 1, Sahtu Institute of Technology Planning Study
First Reading of Bills
Bill 1, Reindeer Act
Bill 2, Archaeological Sites Act
Bill 3, Surface Rights Board Act
Bill 4, Health Information Act
Bill 5, An Act to Amend the Motor Vehicles Act
Bill 6, An Act to Amend the Medical Care Act
Second Reading of Bills
Consideration in Committee of the Whole of Bills and Other Matters
Tabled Document 1-17(5), Supplementary Estimates (Infrastructure Expenditure), No. 1, 2014-2015
Tabled Document 4-17(5), Northwest Territories Electoral Boundaries Commission 2013 Final Report
Report of Committee of the Whole
Third Reading of Bills
Orders of the day
Thank you, Madam Clerk. Accordingly, this House stands adjourned until Wednesday, November 6th, at 1:30 p.m.
---ADJOURNMENT
The House adjourned at 6:42 p.m.
