Agreed.

Agreed.

Agreed.

Agreed.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Earlier this spring, the Legislative Assembly passed a motion to form the Electoral Boundaries Commission. One of the reasons for the formation of the commission was because the Western Caucus wanted to ascertain whether or not all residents of the Western Territory would be fairly represented in the new Assembly.

Mr. Chairman, in carrying out their work, the Electoral Boundaries Commission was required to follow guidelines. When the commission formed their recommendations, they were to be mindful of direction hailed within the Northwest Territories Electoral Boundaries Commission Act. In fulfilling the intent of the act, each individual member of that commission had to set aside personal agendas and regional preferences, as difficult as that may be, to make recommendations that are in the best interests of the new Western Territory. The commission also knew that the Legislative Assembly must establish boundaries that meet the Charter of Rights of every resident of the Northwest Territories for effective representation. Every resident is entitled to the rights guaranteed by the Charter. If this Assembly does not establish boundaries that comply with the Charter, we can be sure our legislation will be challenged in the courts, and I say, successfully challenged. If individuals of this House deny the right to equal representation for one community, it may be your turn tomorrow. Democracy demands a higher standard and should not be negotiable.

Mr. Chairman, I would point to a report prepared by Madam Justice McLaughlin in regard to the Saskatchewan Electoral Boundaries Report. Reference was made to the court getting involved in the review of legislation. I would like to present a quote from that legislation, and it says: "The courts ought not to interfere unless it appears that reasonable persons applying the appropriate principles could not have set the electoral boundaries as they exist." Mr. Speaker, I would point to the members of the Electoral Boundaries Commission, Mrs. Virginia Schuler, who is currently a Justice of the Supreme Court of the Northwest Territories, Mrs. Lucy Kuptana, who is a resident of Tuktoyaktuk and former president of the Tuktoyaktuk Community Corporation, Mr. Nick Sibbeston, who is a resident of Fort Simpson and has been the government leader of the Government of the Northwest Territories. These were members of the Electoral Boundaries Commission. I would challenge any Member of this House or any resident of the Northwest Territories to show me why these individuals did not in their report comply with that. They are, indeed, reasonable persons and they applied the appropriate principles that they came up with the results that they did in their report. I think that each and every one of the members are to be commended for the report that they presented to this House.

Mr. Chairman, a challenge to this legislation would be expensive, time consuming and embarrassing, since we would not, as a government, be able to say we were not warned. This would be a waste of taxpayers' money and would reflect an abrogation of the responsibilities we have as legislators. It is now time for Members of this Legislative Assembly to do what the Electoral Boundaries Commission did. It is time to go beyond our ridings and consider the directions given within the Electoral Boundaries Commission Act, and our responsibilities under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. We must look at what is fair and do what is in the best interests of the new Western Territory.

Some Members of this Assembly may wish to keep Yellowknife under-represented. I often hear the excuse that since the Legislative Assembly is located in the City of Yellowknife, Yellowknife receives representation from all MLAs. I would ask each non-Yellowknife Member in this House to look into their memories. When was the last time that they represented the interests of Yellowknife in this House? Did they do so as they would their own riding? Mr. Chairman, Yellowknife will have 44 percent of the population of the future Northwest Territories. Presently, we will only have four out of 14 Members to represent our interests in this House. It is a small wonder why the people of the City of Yellowknife want, need, and are willing to pursue more MLAs for the city in the next legislature.

Again, Mr. Chairman, I would like to take the opportunity to thank the Members of the Commission for an extremely difficult job, but a job well done. Later, I shall have questions that I believe would be appropriately responded to by the law clerk. Thank you.

Agreed.

Certainly, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, section 3 of the Charter provides that every citizen of Canada has the right to vote in an election of Members of the House of Commons or of a Legislative Assembly and to be qualified for membership in either the House of Commons or in a Legislative Assembly. The courts have held that this section, which enshrines the right to vote, does not mean that there must be absolute parity or equality in voting power between individual citizens. In other words, it is not one person, one vote. It is not incorporating that concept. The courts have held that the purpose of that section is that each citizen in this country has a right to effective representation in a legislature and that one of the conditions of effective representation is a relative equality of voting power.

There are a number of other factors that the courts have set out when they have looked at what section 3 means, Mr. Chairman. Those factors include geography, the need for representation of minority groups, a commonality of community interests, the community history. Those are all factors that the courts have considered when they have looked at what the right to vote means. The primary purpose of that section is, that each citizen is entitled to effective representation. One of the main conditions of effective representation is, there is relative equality of voting power and that one citizen's vote is not unduly or unfairly diluted by belonging in a very large constituency. As a consequence of that section of the Charter, every time we look at our boundaries, we have to be very aware of that section of the factors that the courts have considered and take all of those factors into consideration in ensuring that our electoral boundaries meet the rights that have been set forth in the Charter, and hopefully, try to address the factors that the courts have specified. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. One of the concerns that have been expressed throughout the Electoral Boundaries Commission process was the wide variance in constituency makeup in the western Northwest Territories. A number of people, I understand, throughout that commission process have indicated that if the boundaries were to remain the same, their intention was to launch a challenge. If those individuals go ahead, if the boundaries do remain the same, I suspect that one or more of the individuals who stated their intention would probably go ahead and launch a court challenge.

One of the primary concerns that seems to have been mentioned in the commission hearings, and it has certainly picked up in the case law, in this issue is, the discrepancy in the size of various ridings in the Northwest Territories. Some of the case law points to a rule of thumb of plus or minus 25 percent. We do not know if that rule of thumb would be applied in the Northwest Territories. We simply do not know if the Northwest Territories, as has often been said before, has unique characteristics and features that may argue for a deviation from this plus or minus 25 percent rule of thumb that has been expressed in some of the case law.

I think that Members would see from the report of the Commission that is under consideration today, that the variances in some of the existing boundaries is significantly greater than plus or minus 25 percent, indeed, even plus or minus 50 percent. I would suggest, Mr. Chairman, that the likelihood of a challenge if the boundaries remain the same would be substantial.