A motion has been made. The motion is being distributed. The motion is in order. Mr. Hawkins.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. First off, I should inform the public, of course, if this motion passes, it actually doesn’t go back to the Electoral Boundaries Commission that had been established. It would cause the Board of Management to strike a new one.
The reason I moved the motion was, and I certainly hope I’m not the only one who feels this way, but there is some concern about how the three decisions have come about and how varied they are in such a way that it’s very challenging to accept. We’re well within our ability, certainly, our authority, and under time constraints we have the time to do it, so there’s no unnecessary pressure for us to immediately make a decision today on the Electoral Boundaries Commission report that’s before us today. By the same token, I think it would be a mistake for us not to consider that, in my view, and certainly in the view of many people that I know and I’ve spoken to over the summer, that the report was just too one-sided with all three recommendations. As I said in my earlier statement, even if you wanted less government, the only way to do it, according to the report, was go this route. And if you didn’t like that decision, then you were forced to then go look to the next one, and successively, and that’s been very, very challenging for many people.
For myself, I find that, as I said in my earlier opening comments, I felt that it’s not the commission’s fault in any way. I have great respect for the work that they had to do, and I suspect that they received an earful constantly from people about what they want and what people wanted in the communities and fair representation and the type of representation that they wanted.
The issue I raise here is not about necessarily more MLAs or less MLAs, but fair representation, and that is, I think, the fundamental question about how do we balance that. I think that’s the type of instruction we need to be giving the commission to ensure that representation is fair and depoliticized.
As I said in my earlier comments, and I used that by way of example, that perhaps maybe three judges could do this, one from our Supreme Court, one from our Territorial Court and maybe one from somewhere else. That is, how we get there I’m not exactly sure. Not to say that judges don’t have different opinions, I mean, the Supreme Court would always be voting in unanimity if judges were all of like mind. The challenges and the discussions they would have, I think, would be very deep and very concerned, certainly, in the areas of how fair representation should look like across the Northwest Territories.
Earlier we heard many colleagues talk about value, dollar value, that is, and what the cost of MLAs is. I think sending it back to the commission with the right instructions and perhaps, if there’s instruction later today coming through another motion that binds us to it, I think that would take that type of discussion away. The value of democracy is certainly a challenging one, and I think Churchill said it’s also messy, but by the same token, it’s certainly one of the best things that we have, and it’s one that we need to continue to cherish relentlessly even in its darkest days.
The issue before us now is we have to accept a recommendation for 18 MLAs, 19 or 21, and I don’t think it truly represents what the voices out there are saying. As I said earlier, without the varied considerations to it, we put ourselves in a very uncompromising position. One of the challenges we sent the commission out to do is come out with a decision that we can work with. Well, the problem is what if it’s unworkable? We often talk about trying to make sure, as politicians, oddly enough, to depoliticize our direction on these instructions. Well, it’s kind of like the old phrase of gerrymandering. I mean, we shouldn’t ever be in there saying, well, let’s just move the line over here and that will be better. I mean, there’s got to be substantial reason why we would nudge a line or two over ever so slightly in the context of balance and fairness but, I mean, we cannot be seen in any form as drawing our own lines for our own areas.
I don’t think that the instructions given to the Electoral Boundaries Commission were complete. Again, no fault of their own, but I think we can do that here today, and we certainly have that ability here today to do that. By voting for this, I think what we could do is certainly sit down and ask ourselves what are all the problems that got us here today with this report. I’m not talking about the problems of poverty or the problems of education; I’m talking about how we couldn’t provide clear instructions to get a simple reply back. As I said earlier, I think the ones to blame are government or, in the sense of the Members, why the instruction wasn’t simple and clear.
I think the best and only solution for our particular quagmire that we now find ourselves in is to redirect the next phase of this report to go back to the Board of Management, which can issue instructions to a new Electoral Boundaries Commission, and my hope, with clear, simpler and precise instructions, we can get exactly where we want. As we’ve all heard today varying points of view, I’m not sure more MLAs or less MLAs are the right solution, but I don’t think the solution that came forward was the one we need.
On that note, that’s all I have to say at this particular time.
Thank you, Mr. Hawkins. To the motion. Mr. Ramsay.
Thank you, Madam Chair. I just wanted to comment on the motion. As a member of the Board of Management, I don’t want the public out there thinking that the government sent the Electoral Boundaries Commission out without giving it some guiding principles. I think, first and foremost, the commission subscribed to some general principles. Voter parity was obviously the goal, where possible. Where voter parity wasn’t practicable, and there were significant community of interest considerations present, deviations from voter parity could be justified provided that effective representation wouldn’t be sacrificed. The community of interest considerations include geographical factors, the population distribution in smaller communities, common bonds such as language, culture and history, land claim and self-government agreements, and if inequality between electoral districts could not be avoided, wherever possible overrepresentation is preferable to under-representation. When the Member talks about fair representation, does that equal voter parity? I think that’s what he’s getting at.
The instructions were straightforward to the Electoral Boundaries Commission. I don’t think it does us much good to say that, in all the people that spoke to the commission, the commission itself that went out and did the work on behalf of the people of the Northwest Territories and this government, we’re going to just say let’s do this all over again. Let’s have a replay. If we did have a replay of this, it would come back, in my estimation, to be pretty much the exact same thing. So either we deal with it today or we deal with it whenever a new commission could be constituted and get the work done, probably looking at anywhere between nine months and a year before it would get back to this Assembly for consideration. Again, I don’t think we would have dealt with getting the politics out of the electoral boundaries issue. Again, until we deal with that, I think it’s kind of fruitless to go back out and get a new commission established and out there. Again, I think they had instructions. We can try to change the instructions, but it’s not going to do anybody any good, I don’t believe. I think we have to deal with the report that we have and just move forward. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Ramsay. To the motion. Mr. Beaulieu.
Thank you, Madam Chair. I would support this motion. I think that the instructions were not clearly laid out. I think that it was assumed by this Legislature that when you selected three individuals that those three individuals would look at language and culture as being something that was very, very important and something that was paramount in the decisions, and in developing the electoral boundaries that culture and language would be something that this commission would automatically know that was essential, was paramount in our decision. However, it was not clearly laid out in the guidelines. It only refers to exception where special circumstances weren’t exceptional deviation. That’s not clear enough. If exceptional special circumstances means language and culture should be maintained within the electoral boundaries, especially one of the official 11 languages that we have, then it should clearly state language and culture as being something that should have been in there. I think that if that’s what that meant, then for the most part, with the exception of 21 seats, which is unpopular because people indicate that the only option where language and culture is considered is 21 seats, which is unpopular because of all the things that were said, or anybody could stand here or sit here and say I spoke to people and no one wants more politicians. Well, I spoke to people, and people are saying, as opposed to losing our culture, we will be forced to take more MLAs.
So I would support this motion for them to go back and do their work properly. Make sure that culture and language is paramount. It’s up to us. It’s the goodwill of this government, and I represent people that have their own language, their own culture. It’s incumbent upon this government to make sure they consult with people where their ridings are affected. There are ridings that are not affected. People didn’t come out in some communities because their ridings are not affected. When the original report came out, the ridings that we are impacted tremendously were Deh Cho, Monfwi and Tu Nedhe, so people came out. That’s where the people came out. People came out in Fort Resolution. They made statements. People came out in Lutselk’e. They made statements about it because they’re affected, and when you’re not affected, then it’s okay to sit here and say oh, we can represent the people across, I represent all kinds of cross-cultural people, I do this and I do that. The point I’m making is they’re not impacted. So this commission has to understand that we have to have a report that recognizes language and culture and the language and cultural differences of the people that sit in this House and who they represent. I would support this motion just for that reason, because the only one that sees language and culture as paramount is 21 seats and that appears to be very unpopular. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Thank you, Mr. Beaulieu. Next I have Mr. Blake.
Thank you, Madam Chair. I would just like to go back a ways. I believe it was last year, before the commission was struck up, that during our Caucus meeting we all agreed that we would give the commission a scenario of 18, 19 or 21 Members in this Legislature and also to give us different scenarios or options that would work with those different numbers that we gave this commission to go out and do public consultation. So I don’t think that this motion would make any changes. The commission did do their job, what we gave them direction to do. I believe that this would just extend things further. I will not support this motion. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Blake. To the motion. Mr. Ramsay.
Thank you, Madam Chair. Again, I just wanted to mention one item and that is that some Members believe that the commission did not take into consideration language, culture, history, land claim and self-government agreements. Under all scenarios, the commission did just that. Again, for the public’s perspective, I just want the public to know that that was taken into consideration. Some Members believe it wasn’t. It was, Madam Chair. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Ramsay. To the motion. Mr. Dolynny.
Thank you, Madam Chair. The Member who brought the motion forward knows full well my thoughts on this. Unfortunately, I will have to share it here publicly.
When I looked at this coming to the table here, I had to really stop and think, what is this motion telling us, what is this motion telling the Members of this Assembly, but more importantly, what is this motion telling the public? You don’t like what we hear, we throw you out? I tell you, I’ll say this again, this is not how we should be governing ourselves. We’re better than that. I say this will all due respect. This was an independent commission chaired by a judge. Let me underline those two words again, independent and judge. It doesn’t get any better than that.
I disagree that culture and language was not dealt with. They were dealt with, as all areas that were explained in a lot of our statements earlier today, they took into consideration all of those parameters. I hold every one of those parameters to heart that they did take a look at that. They may not like what they hear, but they did take that into consideration.
Unfortunately, this motion I find a bit disrespectful not only to the commission itself, this motion is somewhat disrespectful to the House and any future appointment of anyone who wants to work for this House. Who would want to work for this House when we are going to throw your report out the window? We can’t do that. They gave us three unanimous decisions. I trust their judgment and I will be voting against this motion. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Dolynny. To the motion. Mr. Moses.
Thank you, Madam Chair. I just want to point out in the report under considerations that were taken by this commission, under Section 9 of the act it specifies factors that the commission must take into consideration, under Section 9(g), language, culture and other special community or diversity of interests of residents of any part of the Northwest Territories was taken into consideration. I just wanted to point that out to Members who feel that or even making accusations that the commission itself did contravene the act itself, that they covered all their bases and that’s what we’re making the decision on today.
To throw this motion out the window… As Mr. Dolynny said, if we don’t like your report, then you’re not working for us. I agree with that. We have a lot of strong debates on this, and I feel that we do have to make a decision today.
I stand strong with other committees who are going forward and making those tough decisions on behalf of residents of the Northwest Territories. That’s what we’re here to do, is make tough decisions and today is going to be one of them. I feel the commission did their job and I won’t be supporting this motion and going forward into voting on one of the motions that will be coming up later. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Thank you, Mr. Moses. Mr. Yakeleya.
Thank you, Madam Chair. This motion here speaks to reviewing this whole issue again. This is a very important motion. The work done by the Boundaries Commission is very important. I feel the commission is just doing the numbers. It isn’t looking at the essence and importance of culture, language and boundaries of the land. When they make suggestions like moving two nations of people together, which don’t come to agree on a riding, that’s not good. That’s too constrictive, too limited. They should be really looking at the importance of the language and culture.
Madam Chair, we even heard last week in the celebration, a former leader in the past went to Ottawa to say we have a unique style of government in the Northwest Territories. We have a unique set of values and cultures that need to be recognized. This report for me really doesn’t take into consideration the hard work that’s been done before us. It’s based on numbers. When you can easily say we’re taking this group of people and putting them over here, that’s not okay. Those days are gone. We’ve got to have the respect for people that was fought for in the Constitution and recognized in the land and boundaries of our people in the Northwest Territories.
I think that’s why, for me, it’s difficult to accept some of the recommendations. But to see this, I said no, no, no. If anything, we can expand the mandate or give them new marching orders to make it right. Let’s make it right. Let’s do the right thing and make it right. I know a riding is way over. We’ve got to make that right. So, for me, this motion says let’s do it again. Nothing wrong with that, to do the right thing, to say that we just want to disregard this and say it’s done already. We’re going to live with that consequence. That is something we really need to think about within ourselves.
So I’m going to support the emotion and say let’s do it right and in a way that’s respectful. I’m recognizing the hard work, the commission, the mandate and all that stuff that’s brought before us. It’s too constricting. It’s too limiting and it’s our responsibility to fix it.
So I want to say let’s go back and let’s do the right thing for the people. Thank you
Thank you, Mr. Yakeleya. To the motion. Mr. Hawkins.
Thank you, Madam Chair. I just want to be crystal clear; I never said the commission failed. I think it comes down to the instructions they began with. I could come up with great analogies and metaphors to describe that, but I think it really boils down to the instructions that could have been clearer and we don’t sometimes know that until we’ve launched this opportunity into wherever it goes. It travelled a journey. I don’t necessarily think the commission itself needs to go from corner to corner and corner to corner of the Northwest Territories – that’s four corners – I think it could go back, review some of the information and do the work.
I have to say with respect, back to Mr. Dolynny, who insists an independent judge chaired this, that was pretty clear because we all know and certainly respect that particular judge. In all fairness, judges’ decisions do get overturned and we do see conflicting positions even in the real world of courts.
It doesn’t mean that because a judge is sitting in the chair that it’s the best decision. Now we’re getting into individual decisions and I was trying to avoid that because I really think the commission did the best job they could under the instructions they were given. I want to be very clear. It’s not about any individual member. I think they did do the best job they could and I want to make sure that’s the message they hear. So I wish it wasn’t brought up and characterized that because a judge sat on the commission, the commission’s report is perfect. I hate to say it, but in my view and in the view of many, it isn’t perfect. We’re allowed to have these types of disagreements. It’s called Canada; it’s called democracy.
This motion is simply about one thing, but before I get to that one thing, I want to clear up something Mr. Ramsay had said when he said it will take nine months. We heard this morning – and he was in the same room I was – when the administrative staff member said it would take about six months to do this. So we have a minimum of a year to sort this out and we can do it if we really want to do it. If this is a priority of our government to get this boundaries issue correct the first time, this time, then we should be doing it. In six months, we could do this, if it was a priority. We could delay it if we wanted and, sure, it would take nine months/a year and then it will be too late, but we should not prejudice it already by automatically assuming we will get the exact same decision back.
I think the instructions refined, as Mr. Yakeleya has pointed out, and the perspective Mr. Beaulieu has brought forward… I mean instructions need to be refined. By kicking this problem down by just accepting one of the three present recommendations of 18, 19 or 21, down the road eight years from now saying don’t solve it, don’t worry, they’ll fix it, it isn’t ever going to happen. Someone has to have the political courage and I’ve seen that this needs to stop now. We could do this and say we need a crystal clear answer to our problem and here are the instructions. But the instructions are so vague that we didn’t get a good response to the problem, that is. I think we limited them with our instructions.
So this motion really only says one thing, let’s send it back to get the best decision we can because, quite frankly, I don’t think we have the best decision possible. I don’t think it’s doing the work that needs to be done. Those tough questions I don’t think were ever answered and today is our chance to do it right.
So to stay out of the discussion about why 18 is important or why 19 or 21 or whatever the case may be, I’m really focusing in on this. This is our opportunity to make a difference on one of the toughest choices we all have to make. This impacts people and it will impact all of us as Members. Madam Chair, I urge Members to reconsider to support this motion and we could get it done in a timely fashion if we were committed to it. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Thank you, Mr. Hawkins. To the motion. Mr. Bouchard.
Thank you, Madam Chair. I won’t be supporting this motion. I think we are here to make a decision. We’ve given them direction and we have some options before us. I believe we should be moving forward on this decision. This motion only clouds the decision-making before us. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Thank you for those succinct remarks, Mr. Bouchard. To the motion. Mr. Nadli.
Thank you, Madam Chair. I, too, will not be supporting this motion. We’ve had an opportunity to at least discuss the terms of reference in terms of trying to guide this commission when it was set up. I think they’ve done their work. They’ve done their due diligence in consulting with the public and brought back a report and now we need to move on it.
I also reject this motion on the grounds that if we’re going to do things the right way, we have to stop denying that there is a need for constitutional reform in terms of ensuring that the public has a say in terms of how it is that the legislative bodies and the judiciary in terms of how this government is supposed to function, reflective of public institutions at the same time, with First Nations principles. That, I think, is the process that has been completely ignored. Mahsi.
Thank you, Mr. Nadli. Mr. Lafferty.
Mahsi, Madam Chair. I just want to highlight a couple of things. First and foremost, we’re talking about the motion brought forward on 18, 19 and 21. Of course, I agree with 21.
---Laughter
I just want to speak to the whole instruction. I am very puzzled. It says “Considerations” language and culture will be taken into consideration, public input will be taken into consideration, and so on, as well as land claims and treaty land entitlement agreement, self-government.
What it boils down to is that again reiterating that they’ve listened to the people of my riding, Behchoko. So they came up with option 21 due to that fact. I’m glad they did, but at the same time if we were to consider option 18, for example, we would have two Members. We only have three fluent Aboriginal speakers in the House and two of them would be competing for one seat. Only one winner will come out, so we are going to be losing one of the languages, whether it is South Slavey or Chipewyan.
Those are key factors. It says here they are taking language and culture into consideration. I clearly do not see that with these two positions that will be competing, two people competing for one seat, current Members. Going to 19, again amalgamating two different nations. There is Tlicho, Chipewyan, Cree, three different languages. I just want to reiterate that, because it says they are taking into consideration language and culture. I clearly don’t see that with two of the options being considered.
I just want to make it clear to this House that a process is in play, but at the same time it’s not being considered. I just want that on the record. Mahsi.
Thank you, Minister Lafferty. Mr. Menicoche.
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.
