Thank you, Madam Chair. I move that we extend sitting hours to conclude the item under consideration. Mahsi.
Thank you, Mr. Nadli. Motion is in order. To the motion.
Question.
Question is being called.
---Carried
To the motion that is on the floor, Mr. Nadli.
Thank you, Madam Chair. This discussion at this point is fairly significant and the number… Well, these two numbers that we’re discussing has a positive ring to it, 1921, it’s rather ironic. I wanted to say at least, and impart a message to the people that I represent in my language, I know we’ve heard the Chipewyan language and the Dogrib language, but equally so I wanted to share a perspective with the constituents back home that have asked me to be here to be their representative. So I’d like to take that opportunity.
[English translation not provided.]
Madam Chair, I think here in the NWT, the federal government views the Northwest Territories… It’s not a real name, it’s a reference to a bearing or a point somewhere in Canada north of here. It’s north of Ottawa, it’s west of Ottawa and it’s somewhere in Rupert’s Land, so it’s called the Northwest Territories, but it is home and it’s a community that we make up. That’s the view that I try to uphold in terms of ensuring that we have not only our small communities that we represent, but we have to acknowledge the fact that we have a capital city in the NWT as well. So the challenge is trying to always balance in terms of what it is that the small communities need at the same time as the larger centres. So that’s why we’re mandated to be representatives and make this House work in the spirit of consensus.
Upon my initial consideration of this motion, yes indeed, the constituents that I serve have indicated a favour to maintain the status quo. Yes, I agree. However, the last Assembly maintained the status quo and here we are again and under duress, because if we maintain the status quo, the likelihood of a court challenge is real and we need to be very cognizant of that. Perhaps that’s a reality that we have to contend with at some point. What we can’t forget is, sure, they all have voting rights, they all have voting rights and now there’s treaty and Aboriginal rights, court and First Nations rights. At the same time the non-Aboriginal people have assurances under the Constitution and the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, but what it’s predicated on and what it’s premised on is the idea of multiculturalism, that it’s an inclusion, it’s a community that we all represent. If we make one big fire, all of us have to converge and centre around that fire. I think that’s the spirit that most of our elders have told us, that we need to ensure we remember the spirit of inclusion.
In that same light, there are parallels in terms of a First Nation road and a non-Aboriginal road, but the thing about it here in the North, it’s a duality in that we try to work with each other, and we have to work with each other to try to make this community strong and united and work for the better interest of the people that have put us here for the North.
One thing that I do have to acknowledge and we have to remember, it’s people from the communities and the regions that make Yellowknife their home. I have relatives here and I lived here in Yellowknife too. We can’t forget about that. So there’s a trend of people moving to Yellowknife, and for those reasons I feel the scenario of ensuring that 21 MLAs in the end is a decision that I will support, despite the sense that we’re caught in a trap, that there’s a legal ruling, an undue duress that’s hanging over our heads. I take exception to that, but the larger decision is that I don’t support the idea of 19 MLAs. I think the real and practical decision, the best scenario is 21 MLAs.
Thank you, Mr. Nadli. To the motion. Next I have Mr. Moses.
Thank you, Madam Chair. Just before I begin here, I just want to echo some of the comments made by my colleagues, and that’s in no way are we disrespecting any Aboriginal groups, and in fact, I think that the Aboriginal and GNWT relations are as strong as ever, and it started with the 17th Legislative Assembly. I know all you guys can remember the time we were down in Detah and we started those discussions, and continue those discussions. As elected leaders both in Aboriginal groups, municipal or territorial, we do what’s for our residents and constituents that we represent. It’s under this leadership and this government that those relations were brought forth, so I don’t think it is a deciding factor in how we vote, whether it’s 19 or 21, because I believe those relationships are already strong today, stronger than when we got elected here.
There was another comment I just wanted to make reference to that was brought up earlier, was that Yellowknife Members are a minority in this Legislative Assembly, on this side of the House and on that side of the House. The last I saw, Inuvik only had one vote on this side of the House and Inuvik only has one vote with Cabinet, so I don’t see where the minority is coming from. As Members of this Legislative Assembly, we should be representing the residents of the NWT, not the residents of Inuvik, not the residents of Yellowknife by themselves, but the territory as a whole and everybody that resides here in the NWT.
We’ve spent four hours on this issue, and we’re discussing whether we’re going to put two Members in this House or not. I’ve been here two years. There’s not a day that I remember we spent four hours discussing early childhood development, four hours discussing the homeless people, the mental health and addictions, socio-economic agreements, fracking issue, which is big now, and I know moving on with this government we’re not going to spend four hours discussing these issues at all. Education, physicians, our low literacy rates, graduation rates, important issues to our people. They’re not worried about whether or not we have two people or not and if this is going to go to court or not. We have people out there that are sick, that are homeless, and yet we spend the whole afternoon here discussing whether or not this government should have two more MLAs when people down south are representing way more population than we are.
And you know what? I’ve been a community member. I’ve sat on municipal politics, I volunteer. I work with the youth and the elders. I’ve been a government employee for a number of years, and now I’m a Member of the Legislative Assembly, and being in this House, I’ve sat on committees where I’ve never sat with such a strong committee such as the Social Programs committee in all my working years, and I’ll tell you, each and every member that sits on that committee represents their jurisdiction and the people of the Northwest Territories effectively and efficiently. Adding two Members, would it make a difference? You just have to listen to the throne speech yesterday. Look at all that we’ve done as 19 Members. We’ve done a lot. I know Members on this side of the House can agree with that. We got a commission report in front of us that is pushing some Members against each other.
Like I said, this is my first time in government. I wasn’t sure how things were going to work out but I’m very happy, and I know the residents of the NWT are happy with all the work that we’ve done. Whether or not we have two more Members to repeat what we have already said in the next two years, we’ve got good direction moving forward. We’ve got a lot of action plans that are coming out, Anti-Poverty Strategy, Early Childhood Development Framework, Economic Opportunities Strategy, things that are going to guide us 19 Members who had direction and input into that to continue to make this government what it is.
I don’t agree with the extra two Members proposing the 21 Members here. It’s sparked a lot of really good debate and I respect all Members’ comments on this. When we’re looking at all these social issues, infrastructure issues within the people we represent here, I’m in favour of 19 Members. I feel the 19 Members here are very strong in doing the work on behalf of the NWT and moving forward is going to be very strong as well. I will be supporting this motion of 19 Members, and whether it goes to the court system or not, you know, that’s the chance this government’s going to have to take. But in a statement I made earlier, we’re all here to make tough decisions that affect the livelihood, the health and well-being of our people, and 19 Members I feel is adequate and that’s what I will support.
Thank you, Mr. Moses. To the motion. Mr. Menicoche.
Thank you very much, Madam Chair. I think I heard clearly the many, many reasons to keep 19 and not to move on to 21, but I heard clearly, as well, I think Members want a recorded vote, so I’ll certainly ask the chair for that.
Thank you. Anything further to the motion?
Question.
