Good afternoon, colleagues. Members, I understand the will of the House is to stand down select orders of the day and to proceed to Committee of the Whole at an early opportunity. Mr. Yakeleya.
Mr. Speaker, I seek unanimous consent to stand down the rules pertaining to our orders and proceed directly to item 14, tabling of documents.
---Unanimous consent granted
Mr. Speaker, I wish to table the Northwest Territories Electoral Boundaries Commission 2013 Final Report. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, I give notice that on Thursday, November 7, 2013, I will move the following motion: I move, seconded by the honourable Member for Inuvik Boot Lake, that Tabled Document 4-17(5), Northwest Territories Electoral Boundaries Commission 2013 Final Report, be referred to Committee of the Whole for consideration today.
Thank you, Mr. Yakeleya. Mr. Yakeleya.
Mr. Speaker, I seek unanimous consent to waive Rule 44 and proceed with the motion I gave notice of earlier today.
Mr. Yakeleya, we are still on notices of motion. Mr. Yakeleya.
I give notice that on Thursday, November 7, 2013, I will move the following motion: I move, seconded by the honourable Member for Thebacha, that, notwithstanding Rule 4, when this House adjourns on November 7, 2013, it shall be adjourned until Wednesday, February 5, 2014;
And further, that any time prior to February 5, 2014, if the Speaker is satisfied, after consultation with the Executive Council and Members of the Legislative Assembly, that the public interest requires that the House should meet at an earlier time during the adjournment, the Speaker may give notice and thereupon the House shall meet at the time stated in such notice and shall transact its business as it has been duly adjourned to that time.
Thank you, Mr. Yakeleya. Mr. Ramsay.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I give notice that on Thursday, November 7, 2013, I will move the following motion: Now therefore I move, seconded by the honourable Member for Mackenzie Delta, that pursuant to Section 15 of the Official Languages Act of the Northwest Territories, Snookie Henrietta Catholique of Yellowknife be appointed as Languages Commissioner;
And further, that the appointment be effective December 1, 2013.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Thank you, Mr. Ramsay. Mr. Yakeleya.
Mr. Speaker, I seek unanimous consent to waive Rule 44 and proceed with the motion I gave notice of earlier today.
---Unanimous consent granted
WHEREAS Tabled Document 4-17(5), Northwest Territories Electoral Boundaries Commission 2013 Final Report, has been tabled in this House;
NOW THEREFORE I MOVE, seconded by the honourable Member for Inuvik Boot Lake, that Tabled Document 4-17(5), Northwest Territories Electoral Boundaries Commission 2013 Final Report, be referred to Committee of the Whole for consideration today.
Thank you, Mr. Yakeleya. To the motion.
Question.
Question has been called.
---Carried
Tabled Document 4-17(5) is moved into Committee of the Whole for consideration today. Item 18, first reading of bills. Item 19, second reading of bills. Item 20, consideration in Committee of the Whole of bills and other matters: Tabled Document 1-17(5), Supplementary Estimates (Infrastructure Expenditure), No. 1, 2014-2015; and Tabled Document 4-17(5), Northwest Territories Electoral Boundaries Commission 2013 Final Report, with Mrs. Groenewegen in the chair.
I’d like to call Committee of the Whole to order. What is the wish of the committee today? Ms. Bisaro.
Thank you, Madam Chair. We wish to deal with Tabled Document 4-17(5), final report of the Electoral Boundaries Commission.
Thank you, Ms. Bisaro. Is committee agreed?
Agreed.
Agreed, thank you. I will go straight to general comments on Tabled Document 4-17(5). General comments. Mr. Bromley.
Thank you, Madam Chair. I’m pleased to participate in this debate today and discussion of the final report. I’d like to thank the Electoral Boundaries Commission for their work. Trying to penetrate this quagmire, it is certainly never an easy job or an easy process, but I think we do recognize that and try and provide some helpful guidelines, specifically the plus or minus 25 percent goal for fair representation; that is every riding should be within 25 percent of the mean population, the average number of people per riding in order to be considered fair representation, and that we should give consideration to the integrity of language and cultural groups as relevant factors in the considerations of these boundaries.
It’s clear from the past decisions that overrepresentation, that is where a riding comes in considerably below the 25 percent guideline from the mean number of people for all ridings, is acceptable; whereas, under-representation, that is where the population is greater than 25 percent above the mean riding population, is much less so. This differentiation to me has always been perplexing as a situation, where a riding is highly overrepresented relative to other ridings seems to me as unfair, and certainly to all those people living in under-represented ridings. That’s a long and convoluted way, unfortunately, of saying I really think we should stick within the minus 25 percent to plus 25 percent guideline here, something that has not been done in the past.
As we’ve heard, MLAs provided guidance for the development of the electoral boundaries report and specifically requested consideration of three scenarios, solutions, with 18 MLAs or constituencies, or 19 or 21. To my mind, we really failed to provide sufficient guidance by stopping at that point. I believe we should have requested several options for each of these proposals. Of course, there probably are an infinite number of options or scenarios that could result. I think that by simply implying that one was sufficient, we failed a little bit in giving clear direction there.
As a result, we have three options that for me provide little satisfaction in terms of sufficient improvement in fair representation across all ridings. There are understandable reasons for this, some of which I’ve mentioned, but they give little comfort towards accepting the partial solutions that currently seem to be available to us in the final report.
One of the additional reasons, I think, is our unwillingness to cross language and cultural boundaries, at least in some areas, despite highly unfair representation numbers. It begs the question, at what point does fair representation overcome cultural and language group considerations.
Again, using Weledeh as an example, the Yellowknives Dene First Nation of Ndilo and Detah have indicated their preference to me, and to the committee, I believe, to remain within a Yellowknife riding rather than being affiliated with more distant communities despite strong cultural ties with those other communities. To some degree, however, all of Yellowknife ridings host Aboriginal residents with a variety of cultural and language affiliations.
Despite changes made in the past, some ridings have remained substantially under-represented and a good example of this, again, is the Weledeh riding. Currently, it is the most disparate with a population at 42 percent above the main riding population for the NWT. Now, given other disparities such as Tu Nedhe, this means that a resident in Tu Nedhe has effectively had four times the representation that one of my constituents have had in Weledeh. Again, not a desirable situation.
Now, the population of Weledeh has been increasing throughout my six-year-plus term to date and it was clearly already under-represented from the start. As we speak, residential construction is rampant in Weledeh, particularly in the Niven Lake part of the constituency and I note that it’s also moving right along and I think it’s in Kam Lake.
Another under-represented riding is Monfwi, also substantially under-represented at almost 40 percent above the mean riding population. I believe it’s been under-represented, again, for a long time.
There have been some attempts to reduce the number of under-represented ridings with the options before us, although in Yellowknife all seven or eight proposed ridings cover just below the 25 percent mark in the options presented in the report. As indicated, with the considerable residential construction happening in parts of Yellowknife, you can expect that at least one or two will quickly grow to exceed the 25 percent guideline soon after we make a decision.
Population growth rate in ridings is one of the factors that should be considered in setting boundaries according to the act, Section 9, and I did not see this discussed in the report.
Given a generally stable NWT population over recent years, population changes in ridings would be most likely to be caused by movements of people such as into regional centres or the capital. Ultimately, it is important for representation to reflect these population shifts.
Similarly, some ridings have remained highly overrepresented over time, including Tu Nedhe, Deh Cho and the Inuvik ridings as examples. There is a tendency for this overrepresentation to continue for all of these ridings in the options presented in the boundaries report. This is a bit mysterious to me. Again, it seems to be acceptable to have people overrepresented for some reason by those making these sorts of recommendations.
Under the current situation, as things are now the status quo with 19 ridings, 10 of them are unfairly represented, five over and five under-represented. With the 18 seat option, it becomes four and one respectively. With 19, worst case, five and two that are under-represented, five over and two under. Finally, with 21 constituencies the most improvement is seeing three overrepresented and one under-represented. So, given that, my preference would be to support the scenario for 21 electoral districts, although, as I mentioned, I am not enamoured with any particular one.
Should we consider a 21 electoral district option? I think the most common concern I’ve heard is the additional cost, so I’d like to address that issue.
I think we do have a lot of representatives for a modest number of people. However, we are over a sixth of Canada and we represent an amazing diversity of peoples and cultures and languages and geographic areas. I believe the cost of fair and democratic representation is of the highest priority and a legitimate cost of democracy. Also, the cost would be a tiny fraction of the GNWT budget, which will likely average well over $1.8 billion over the course of the next eight years.
Finally, and less importantly in this case, the two new ridings proposed would be in Monfwi and Yellowknife and, as such, would be less costly than new ridings in other remote areas of the NWT, but again, the costs are very modest relative to the budget and the cost of good representation and democracy. While a 21 seat option does not address the Tu Nedhe issue of gross overrepresentation or the Sahtu’s under-representation, most of the other issues are largely addressed. Again, none of them are particularly pleasing, but that may be the nature of the question we’re trying to address.
I have about 30 more seconds. I will stop here if you want and continue later, or complete my statement. Mahsi.
Go ahead, Mr. Bromley. If it’s only 30 seconds, let’s hear the rest of it.
Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you, colleagues. I’ll wrap up here. I wasn’t watching the clock.
We need to increase fairer representation across our territory while being as sensitive as possible to the recognition of cultural and language groups and determining constituency boundaries. We need to empower the next commission to grapple with and confront the likely need to cross some cultural or language group boundaries in order to achieve more fair representation.
As an MLA whose riding has the highest population by far, and with the greatest diversity of cultures, lifestyles and community types, I can tell you that representing a diverse population is a good thing. Representing Weledeh has helped me see the NWT from many diverse viewpoints and that has convinced me even more of the importance of fair representation for all as the fundamental basis for good decision-making that benefits all.
Thank you, Mr. Bromley. Before I go to the next person on my list for general comments, in the visitors gallery today I would like to recognize several members of the Tlicho leadership, including Grand Chief Eddie Erasmus and our former colleague in this House, Mr. Henry Zoe. I’d also like to recognize the mayor of Yellowknife, His Worship Mayor Heyck. Welcome to the Chamber today.
General comments. Ms. Bisaro.
Thank you, Madam Chair. I, as well, want to start out by thanking the members of the commission, Justice Smallwood, Mr. Furlong and Mr. McCrea. I think they were charged with a very difficult mandate, and as members of the Electoral Boundaries Commission, I think they did do a good job.
We’ve heard from Mr. Bromley. I’m sure we will hear lots from other Members in the House on the three recommendations that are before us. I have to ask, ask myself, and I have to ask it out loud: What are we trying to achieve? The answer, in my view, is that we’re trying to achieve equity and parity of voting power. We’re trying to put in place the right to effective representation, and it’s a difficult task, given all the things that any commission has to consider. Mr. Bromley talked about a few of them, but I’m going to quote from the commission’s report, which said, “factors such as geography, community interest and minority representation may all need to be taken into account.” I think as Members living and working within this grand territory, I think we all understand that.
For me, the status quo is not an option, and on this the commission and I agree. Our current situation demands the correction of two obvious representation differences. One riding is 40 percent over and one riding is 40 percent under-represented and those need to be corrected. The status quo also demands more and better representation of Yellowknife ridings or in Yellowknife ridings. All the Yellowknife ridings are near or over the allowable 25 percent under-representation that’s been determined by the Supreme Court of Canada to be acceptable.
I’ve considered the commission’s report several times, and truth be told, I don’t feel that any of the three options presented achieves the sought after goal. I have looked at the options and see pros and cons to each one of the three of them. I’d like to sort of talk about some of those and go through them a bit.
The 18 seats option gives us only one serious under-representation and that’s the riding of Monfwi. All Yellowknife ridings are still considerably under-represented. K’atlodeeche and Enterprise are moved into the Hay River riding, which makes sense to me. I believe that’s where they belong. The number of MLAs is reduced by one, which some say is a positive because it will give us more money for programs. The combination of Tu Nedhe and the Deh Cho ridings creates a very diverse riding and is not wanted by some of those people who would be in that riding.
The 19 seats gives the largest number of overrepresented ridings of the three options. We still have one seriously under-represented riding, again Monfwi. All the Yellowknife ridings are still considerably under-represented. The overrepresentation in the Tu Nedhe riding, as referenced by Mr. Bromley, is addressed, but moving Ndilo and Detah into that riding creates another situation, a diverse riding where nobody is happy.
The 21 seats option gives us the least number of overrepresented ridings. I think Mr. Bromley referenced that as well. It solves the problem in the Monfwi riding by creating a new riding in that area. All Yellowknife ridings are still under-represented, but there is greater voter parity because an eighth seat is created. The percentage of under-representation is lowered somewhat. This option allows for future growth in Yellowknife while voter parity is maintained. There is an increased cost to government because two new seats are added. That’s kind of a bit of my own analysis of what’s in there. There are lots of other things, I’m sure, that other people may add in or take out, but that’s what I got from reading the report.
To the issue of cost, as well, there have been minor discussions about costs and I have to address it, as well, as did Mr. Bromley. To those who decry the cost of two more MLAs, I have to ask them at what price comes democracy. In my view, democracy is a costly business, but if effective representation and voter parity demands more Members, then I believe it is well worth it. I think Mr. Bromley said it’s a legitimate cost and I agree with that.
The commission report discusses over and under-representation. It quotes from the 1999 NWT Supreme Court decision. Mr. Bromley spoke to how they perceived over and under-representation and what’s considered acceptable. I’d like to quote from three passages, or share three passages that are in the report. The first one says, “I am satisfied that there probably is justification…for the present overrepresentation of the electoral districts whose percentage variations in population are below the average.” So, overrepresentation basically is okay.
The second phrase: “Deviations from voter parity can be justified provided that effective representation is not sacrificed.” We see that in every one of these three options that we’re looking at.
The third phrase, “Overrepresentation is preferable to under-representation.” That’s from the 1999 Supreme Court decision. I don’t necessarily agree with the way that that is presented, but the precedent is there. Overrepresentation is considered okay; under-representation is not. I think that in looking at the decision we are trying to make today, all Members of the House must consider those statements and they have to seriously consider them as we try to make our decision.
In looking at all the three options, the bottom line for me is that I have to respond to my constituents’ concerns, and I have to support my belief on what is best for my community, my community of Yellowknife.
Lastly, I want to address the idea that’s been talked about for some months now since the report has been made public, and that idea is to change our legislation to make recommendations of any future Electoral Boundaries Commission binding. I agree with that change. Currently, I find this to be an extremely political exercise. Any decision by MLAs about themselves is highly politically motivated and anybody that denies that is dreaming, I think. Maybe they’re on crack like Mayor Ford.
I feel it’s important that we move this discussion from the Chamber and we accept that an independent commission can and does do an excellent job, and that the recommendation of an independent commission is better than any decision that this Chamber can make.
I look forward to the comments from my colleagues as we debate this issue. I know it’s going to be a difficult decision, but I hope that we will all consider what is best in the interests of the territory as a whole. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Thank you, Ms. Bisaro. Next on my list for general comments I have Mr. Nadli.
Thank you, Madam Chair. I, too, would like to thank the Electoral Boundaries Commission for the report. In that report, obviously, I think everyone is aware, there are three scenarios of moving forward, either 18, 19 or 21.
Unfortunately, this process lacks a real needed effort to put forward constructive opportunity for people of the North to be involved with the building of the nation of the NWT as they advance forward. What I mean is there is a complete lack of constitutional development for interest to even meddle, perhaps, with how it is that we as Northerners live together here in the NWT.
Constitutional development, in my mind, would define the roles of the central and regional governments and at the same time consider, of course, the recent Aboriginal governments that have made efforts to settle their land claims and become part of the larger mosaic of Canada.
Recently, we experienced the most significant transfer of responsibilities from the federal government to the GNWT. In my mind, that cuts into the vein of how it is that this institution of the GNWT functions as a government.
This is from my perspective. This institution that we value is the GNWT. It is, like colleagues have made reference to, a true political process and, unfortunately, we don’t acknowledge that. We have placed greater efforts in terms of trying to advance how it is that we’re going to live together in the future. Unfortunately, because we have bypassed the process, we’re letting the courts decide how it is that we’re supposed to live together.
Of course, there are some realities. The biggest one is the NWT population has remained the same for some time. That’s a stalwart point of reference. It’s very clear that the population of the NWT has remained the same for some time.
I think what has value, too, is the tribal organizations that regions have been moved into. For example, the Deh Cho First Nations is comprised of at least 10 communities and, of course, they have a common language and cultural kinship. So, in that instance, the geography and location of how they work together is fairly significant in terms of the view of how it is we’re supposed to effectively represent people. For the most part, for my constituents, to get to a community I could spend about two and half hours in a vehicle and visit them and spend some time with them. Of course, they know we represent Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal people and we have to speak two languages. We are served by the highway too. So, the point is, the constituents I serve like the accessibility of the MLAs and that we’re available to them to ensure that if you’re a part of this institution of the GNWT, then their voice can be heard in the process.
So at this point, I mean, I know this discussion will continue, but those are just my opening general comments. Mahsi.
Thank you, Mr. Nadli. Next I have Mr. Bouchard.
Thank you, Madam Chair. I, too, would like to thank the commission for their hard work and all the effort that they’ve made in looking at the three options that we gave them: 18, 19 and 21. Obviously, the debate includes the court action requiring it to be within 25 percent over or under. But we also have to look at the territory, the size of the territory, the population of the territory and, I believe, the growth of our territory. We’re seeing a decline in the population.
I guess one of the questions or one of the comments is effective representation. We look at these ridings and MLAs have different positions and different jobs. Like myself, I represent half of one community. In my riding, I could probably walk it in a couple of hours. It’s probably a few miles in length, but some MLAs have to represent several communities, and most communities they have to fly into.
Again, some MLAs live in Yellowknife here, represent Yellowknife where the population is very dense and you’re representing a large group of people, but within a mile or two of each other. Some MLAs are representing several communities and you have to get to those communities. Some of them are very remote. So I think that’s a factor that has to be included in this.
I’ve gone through the pros and cons of each number. Eighteen, I mean, obviously we’d see a reduction in costs, but I think the general public has been very adamant that they don’t want to see that many more MLAs. We have some of the lowest numbers as far as representation for MLAs in the country. We travel around and we talk to some of the groups that are around the country that represent 30,000 people, as an example. I mean, I understand that we’re small, we’re a small territory, but big in land and it’s a vast territory to cover. So I understand the numbers that are associated.
The cons of 18, I think there would be melding of a few Aboriginal groups that I don’t think would be very effective. There are issues of language. Mr. Beaulieu has talked to us about it. You’re eliminating a riding; you’re also talking about workload. You know, the workload between Cabinet Ministers, Regular Members, you have one less person doing the work and dividing up the work. As well as the numbers, it’s also a numbers game when we sit here in consensus government about if we have 18 Members, there are seven Members on the Cabinet and there are 11 on this side. If we have 18, then it’s seven and 10. So the Cabinet, in our consensus government, would only require a couple of votes to move things forward, which I don’t necessarily agree with.
The 19 option I see as the most effective one. It’s closest to the status quo. I think if we tweak it a little bit, it’s giving us options, it’s the easiest, the least disruptive. We’re not talking about taking on any additional costs. So I guess the cons are, yes, we have a group of two MLAs that are affected, one giving up some and one taking on some. But I think currently, like I’ve indicated, everyone that I’ve talked to in the general public don’t want to see more MLAs. So I’m kind of leaning towards that.
The 21 option, I personally don’t see a lot of effectiveness to it. We have the public that’s out there, we sit here and talk about costs associated, we look at our budgets, we talk about fiscal restraint, we talk about wanting more money for different programs, yet we’re willing to take on additional costs for MLAs. I know we’re talking about numbers, but numbers aren’t necessarily what is happening. We’re looking at languages, cultures, there are a whole bunch of different factors.
The cons to 21 also talk about the numbers. Again, the numbers game here in consensus government, we’re talking about Cabinet requiring four people to make consensus happen, which would slow down the process of approval of budgets and acts and activities that the government happens. It would give strength to the larger centres, I think, because they would have larger numbers in Yellowknife as MLAs representation, which the people in the regions have concerns with that. We debate on a daily basis about decentralization, the devolution that’s just happened. I don’t want to pick on my colleagues from Yellowknife, but there has been a lot of job creation through devolution in the capital. The numbers game of adding another Yellowknife MLA is concerning to the people in the regions. Those are some of the things that I have concerns with and I have heard from the general public.
I appreciate the work from the commission, but all three options don’t have any said solution. There are still difficulties with each option.
Ms. Bisaro talked about the motion that may come forward about us making it mandatory to take the commission’s recommendations as gospel and that we don’t have involvement and not to involve the political side of it. But the problem is that there are so many factors to each change that we make. If we change numbers, if we change the lines dividing regions, there are so many factors that I think have to be included at this Legislative Assembly level politically, linguistically, culturally and consensus government-wise. Like I talked about the numbers, if you change one riding, the numbers may change the way we operate as a Legislative Assembly and how this government operates.
Those are some of the comments I have for those three options. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Thank you, Mr. Bouchard. For general comments, next I have Minister Beaulieu.
Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you for the opportunity.
I found this to be a very difficult topic, very difficult report to understand. We have the people from the Northwest Territories, the Aboriginal people that are impacted by decisions made in this House know where the boundaries should be drawn, individual communities. The 19 seats option, there’s something that Akaitcho Territorial Government passed a motion to support and that was to leave the status quo as is. They have difficulty understanding why, with the amount of MLAs, that they would have to take and essentially eliminate one seat from the small communities. That’s what 19 does, so they wanted to go to status quo.
Today we are here to look at three options: 19, 18 and 21. In order to make the option that people of Tu Nedhe and some of the people that I spoke to at Detah/Ndilo, and as MLA Bromley indicated, they too don’t want to become a part of a riding outside of Yellowknife. They see Yellowknife as their homeland. In the future, they see that Detah/Ndilo, YK Dene could be a majority in a Yellowknife seat, one of the seats here in Yellowknife. The people of Tu Nedhe see that with the population changing and the population migrating to the urban centres, that unless we put good representation and keep good representation for those communities, that’s going to continue.
If you look at why a riding like Tu Nedhe needs to have an MLA of their own, all you have to do is look at the social issues and employment rates in those communities. The employment rate in those communities is only 30 percent. When I travel to Tu Nedhe, as I represent the people of Fort Resolution and Lutselk’e, I go visit from household to household to household. When I visit 30 households in a one-week trip in either of those communities, I come home with at least 30 issues for the government. The people in those communities rely heavily on the MLA. They rely heavily that we have representation in the House. And, as MLA Nadli says, when I travel into those communities, I speak two languages. Sometimes in Lutselk’e I go all day without speaking English. I wonder how an individual that is unable to speak Denesoline or Chipewyan is able to effectively represent individuals. However, that same person that speaks Chipewyan would have a lot of difficulty representing anywhere else that didn’t speak the language where there are Aboriginal people that are more used to trying to present their situation, often elders. Often the elders in these communities are living on old age security and they’re the main income earners in families, old age security, and that’s what they’re living on. People live in poverty in those communities. People have been living in poverty in those communities for so long, they don’t even know it’s poverty. For me to watch the Legislative Assembly say, actually you don’t really need individual representation to represent the Chipewyan people, that you can just combine with another riding and that’s okay, is actually very hurtful to me.
People recognize at a federal level, as an example, the differences. If we’re only concerned about numbers – and I agree people are under-represented shouldn’t exist – but at the federal level, as an example, they recognize the difference between people being overrepresented and culture. When you have a federal riding of Brampton, Ontario, of 170,000 people and the average federal riding is 112,000, they are under-represented, but that doesn’t mean that the federal government is going to now make a decision to combine Labrador, Nunavut, Northwest Territories and Yukon in order to get the numbers right. They recognize that the 29,000 people in Yukon, the 41,000 in Northwest Territories and the 34,000 people in Nunavut are distinct, different groups that need their own representation.
In 1873, when Canada became a country, Prince Edward Island got four seats. They acquired those seats. Each seat has 34,000 people. That’s 69 percent below the average of 112,000, but no one is coming to PEI and saying they are only eligible for one seat now because we have to get the numbers right.
We, as legislators, are here to represent people. Fort Resolution and Lutselk’e have had their own seat for 40 years. When you consider the age of this Assembly, I’m thinking that they’ve acquired that seat. They have a right to their own seat in this Legislature. They have the right to have their language spoken in this House. It’s one of the official languages. With what this Assembly is looking at, if we go to 21 seats within maybe not this election but elections to come, I assure you that there will be no Chipewyan language spoken in this House. [English translation not provided.]
[Translation] Okay, with the people here, it’s going to be without us. Okay.
Thank you. I’ll go to Mr. Blake next for general comments.
Thank you, Madam Chair. I, too, would like to thank the Electoral Boundaries Commission. I believe that they went out and carried out the direction this Legislature gave them.
I know many things have changed in this territory over the last two decades. A number of years back there were only 24 seats and we served a larger population. Through that time, many things have increased. A good example is when we were combined with Nunavut, we had the same budget that we have now, pretty similar. Here we are after division, debating whether to move to 21 seats, which is only three less than what was originally serving the people of two territories.
I know a lot of people who are debating here today are concerned with under-representation, but it’s very clear through this report that many of the people of the Territories and many times Members here are always saying listen to the people. The majority of the people would like to see the status quo. Many people feel that there are already too many MLAs. We always get e-mails saying there are too many MLAs; we should be getting rid of some. Those are the e-mails I receive, anyway. I just wanted to bring that forward.
I know we are debating whether to choose 18, 19 or 21 Members. Through the different scenarios it could work with either one, but I would like to support the public and leave this government at 19 Members for the future. If we do actually decide to go with 21 within the next government that we have or within the next eight years, you could see another MLA being added, which, as Mr. Bouchard mentioned earlier, would really throw things off. If we were to go with 21 Members, most likely you will see the cost of this Legislature going up between one and two million dollars. Not only would we have two more MLAs, but we would most likely have another Minister. That’s the sort of things that we have to look at here when we’re asking these decisions.
Right now, the way this government is operating, I believe it’s operating very well. If we were to go down to 18, that would put a larger workload on committees. Right now, with 19 Members and 11 Regular Members, we have enough Members to function with all the committees that we now have in this Legislature. Those are my opening remarks. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Thank you, Mr. Blake. Next I have Mr. Menicoche.
Thank you very much, Madam Chair. I, too, would like to thank the committee for all the hard and extensive work as they went about the Electoral Boundaries Commission. I do want to say that we’re the ones that gave them instructions to look at 18 MLAs, 19 MLAs and/or 21 MLAs. I think it kind of limited them in how they could look at our territory and find the best arrangements for representation. They were kind of limited, so they came back with their recommendations and not all of them are popular. It really didn’t fix what we were looking for, which is equal and effective representation in all the constituencies.
However, that’s always been the past pressures as well. I think we heard our constituents and they said 18, let’s look at 18. Let’s have less MLAs. Nobody wants to see government grow, especially Members of the Legislative Assembly, so we looked at 18 and it becomes very politicized only because we are going to have to eliminate one riding. That still did not help out because some regions still have a lot of constituents to represent.
Looking at 19, it’s not the status quo, but it’s a rearranging of boundaries. I heard clearly from my constituents they don’t want to see growth. Rearranging the current boundaries, I think, is a workable solution. I just want to say clearly for the record, too, that my constituents are listening. The Nahendeh riding is unaffected by this report.
When we looked at 21, it was important for me that not only Yellowknife gets an MLA but the regions get an MLA as well. So if Yellowknife grows by one, then the regions have to grow by one and I think that’s what was proposed with the 21 MLA scenario, as well, which is important for parity and political growth in our great Northwest Territories.
Just one further thing, they also recommend that future electoral boundaries be independent, they’re the ones that set the future growth, but we’re setting a small constituency and in other jurisdictions, even the federal system, I think they’re going up by about 30 Members of Parliament in the next election and that’s because they’ve got an independent commission that said you have to go by 30 in order to meet these certain parameters. I’m afraid that going independent like that will have us grow lots of MLAs in the Northwest Territories, just like leaves.
So, I’m not really in favour of an independent commission. At the same time there has to be another route or mechanism in which we look at how much our jurisdiction grows in MLAs for 41,000 people. Constituents have made it clear to me that having 24 or 26 MLAs is over-government, its overrepresentation. So I’m not really supportive of going to independent. There must be another way around it.
With that, those are my opening remarks, Madam Chair. Thank you very much.
Thank you, Mr. Menicoche. Next I have Mr. Moses.
Thank you, Madam Chair. Before I begin, I’d like to commend the work that was done by the Electoral Boundaries Commission bringing forth what this government actually gave direction to. With that said, perhaps, maybe in hindsight, we could have actually given a little bit better direction in how this government wanted to proceed on such an important issue that’s going to affect representation of our constituents and residents of the NWT moving forward.
The Northwest Territories is very unique in that we have a very diverse culture. I represent many different groups, some that weren’t First Nations to the Northwest Territories before and I don’t speak their language, I don’t practice their cultures, but I do represent them and I feel that I represent them very well in this House. Not just the uniqueness of the Northwest Territories and to have what we have before us today, we do have a decreased population in the Northwest Territories, but one of the recommendations is that we’re looking to add two new Members.
That being said, we did have discussions on this on numerous occasions and one thing that I want to bring up to Members of this Assembly is we’ve got to go through the budget process, whether it’s for operations or capital, while we fight to offer better services, programs and infrastructure for residents of the Northwest Territories. If we look at adding any new Members, whether it’s equal representation or effective representation, that’s something that’s been brought up in this House before.
I’ve worked with Members on this side of the House and that side of the House for the last two years and I feel that each and every Member does a great job in representing their constituents, their ridings, their community or, in some cases, Yellowknife, where I feel they have a great representation of MLAs that are very effective in bringing forth the issues of Yellowknife. Obviously, that’s one of the ridings that are being affected with this increase to 21.
Do we need more Members to talk about the issues we’re still talking about today? We did have a throne speech yesterday that outlines all the work that this government has done, the 17th Legislative Assembly, and you just have to sit and listen to all the work, everything that’s been accomplished in the two years, that’s with the numbers that we have now. Do we need to take more money out of the government budget to add two more Members so that we can have more people talking about what we need in the communities? I don’t think so. Working with the Members in this House, for me, I’ve had the firsthand opportunity of seeing the work that Members do.
As for public consultation, the commission did go out, and even before that I want to talk about even the election process. During our election the voter turnout we did have lower percentages of turnouts in some of the jurisdictions around the Northwest Territories. I mean, you have to factor that in too. Why are we going to have more elected leaders when the residents of the NWT aren’t coming out and voting in some of the jurisdictions to try to get some of these people in? The public consultation put on by the commission, they did visit 14 communities with only 149 people that came out to these consultations. Yet, we’re trying to fight for more MLAs in this House. Twenty written submissions, some of which were by Members of this House. So, I mean, you’re going to hear from those same Members today as well.
What it comes down to for me is that in just over two years that we’ve been working together as a collective 17th Legislative Assembly, I do feel that we’ve done a lot of work with the Members that are here in the House today. I feel that by adding two new Members, which is one of the recommendations brought forth to us, it will be taking out possibly program and service dollars, possible infrastructure dollars that our communities need, that the city of Yellowknife needs, and dollars that are not going to be there when we’re looking at the next operational or capital budget. Do we need more people sitting around the table talking about needing another school? We already know that. Or that we need more psychiatrists or physicians? Do we need somebody else around the table to say yes we do? No, because we’ve said it already. Do we need another person to say we need another treatment centre, to say it over and over again? No, because we’ve all said that. I guess you can pretty well see where I’m going with this.
The report itself gave out a lot of good information. There was even talk in some communities about how come 20 Members wasn’t discussed, an increase of one number. Just sticking to the commission, they said no, we were given direction of 18, 19 and 21. Like I said at the beginning of my little talk here, perhaps in hindsight this government could have given a little bit better direction on how to move forward. I know it’s all about equal representation, but as I said, we do have a lot of MLAs here and I feel that each MLA brings something unique and they’re effective in what they speak about in terms of their constituents that they represent. You look at the population of the Northwest Territories and it’s about 43,000 residents. Yet you look anywhere down south and the representation that one Member of the Legislative Assembly has to deal with, and we’re talking about, give or a take, a few hundred other constituents. I’m sure that any Member here is capable of doing that, of taking on a little bit more members to represent and bring their concerns to the table in the House.
If we continue to look at the increase, the 21 Members, I feel that the structure of how the Assembly will run will also be different in terms of looking at Cabinet and possibly committees. At this moment, I think you know where I’m going. I think residents of the Northwest Territories see the work that is done in this Assembly and they also feel that we don’t need any new Members. Equal representation definitely is a concern here with some jurisdictions, but I feel that if we do add any new Members, it’s going to take out of operating and capital budget dollars. We do need services, we do need programs, we do need infrastructure in the communities and in the territory.
So just my opening comments, and once again I thank the commission for the work that we directed them to do. They went out, did their job and came back, and today we’re going to make a big decision on where we go from here. I hope all Members take into consideration what each and every Member discusses today because everyone is bringing something different and unique to the table. We all have different ridings that we represent, whether it’s culture, population or language, and that moving forward we do the right thing with the taxpayer dollars and the residents of the Northwest Territories. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Thank you, Mr. Moses. Any further general comments? Mr. Bouchard.
Thank you, Madam Chair. I just wanted to add something that I missed. I’d indicated that none of the three options had a complete solution. One of the areas that I have problem with is the 21 selection option. It also brings up concerns. There are still overages, so in that process we would have, at that time, problems with the Sahtu. The Sahtu would have an overage and, at that time, would we be looking, at the next go-round, to be adding 22, 23? Where does the expansion of this Legislative Assembly stop, especially when our population is not going up, it’s going down? I mean, the scenario of 21 just adds an additional factor to the next go-round when we review this, and we know the Sahtu is probably going to grow some more with activity in the region. I mean, typically, where do we stop growing this Legislative Assembly? We have to look at that as well. I thought I’d give that last comment.
