Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, when I look at this I think I see two issues: one being the total size of the Legislature and the other the need to ensure relative equity of representation. They are both tied together.
This report is an attempt by the commissioners to balance what they heard from the public and I think they reflected what they heard relatively well. I have to congratulate them on walking a fine line and doing as good a job as they have.
Having said that, Mr. Chairman, I do not agree 100 percent with their recommendations. I think they have chosen to be conservative. Probably because they heard from many who said, we do not need any more politicians. It is hard not to know today in what high esteem politicians are held. Tuesday there was a survey in the Globe and Mail which confirmed politicians are indeed dead last or lowest in terms of popularity in Canada, politicians in general. I would agree with the Member from Nunakput that in fact, it would make more sense to have more Members of the Legislature rather than fewer. When I made my presentation to the Boundaries Commission, I had suggested we needed 19 or 20, with 17 being an absolute minimum, to allow the proper functioning of the Legislative Assembly and its committees. I noted with some interest that Professor Graham White submitted a paper to the Boundaries Commission in which he argued that leaving the number of seats at 14 in fact constitutes a significant change to the current form of government. I agree. Continuing with 14 Members would remove the inherent strength the Ordinary Members now enjoy, with a significant majority.
The Legislative Assembly is the face of the public government that people of the north see. If we have only 14 Members, it really will constitute a significant shift from what we have now because Cabinet will almost completely control the governing process. The public will not see that Ordinary Members can hold the government accountable and will worry about whether or not the public interest can be protected.
I think the responsible course is to ensure we set up a system that can successfully govern. There has been some argument too that we should make no change until self-government negotiations are further along or concluded and that the constitutional process should have a chance to be concluded. Mr. Chairman, there is no question that self-government negotiations and constitutional discussions will change the face of government in the north. The constitutionally protected right to self-government means institutions of government affecting nearly half of our population, will continue to develop at the negotiating table. However, since we do not know how long it is going to take to conclude those discussions, it would be irresponsible to stop the evolution of responsible public government in the north. In fact, Mr. Chairman, I will be very surprised, if the 14th Assembly does not sit for at least a full four-year term before we have consensus on a new Constitution, which of course then is going to have to be passed by the federal parliament as a new NWT Act. It could be even longer than the next Legislative Assembly, that the system we are setting up now will continue.
A number of Members have suggested Yellowknife does not need more seats because residents have easy access to government bureaucrats. Mr. Chairman, I would have to say that Yellowknife residents probably do have better access to people in government. They run into them at the grocery store, the arena, curling rink, at the library. There is no question though that most contact, even by Yellowknife residents, with government agencies or departments is by phone, something which is possible throughout the Northwest Territories for all residents.
While Yellowknife residents can walk to the Legislative Assembly, I have yet to see that change the way Members vote in this Assembly. The Member from Thebacha talked about the benefits of government. There is no question government has fuelled the growth of Yellowknife over the past 20 years. The law of Canada, the Charter of Rights and Freedoms says individual rights must be respected. Relative parity is required. Economic advantage, population or the ability to walk into the Legislature is not what governs the size of the Legislature or where the seats are located.
As the Alberta Court of Appeals said in talking about the Electoral Boundaries Commission Act and I quote: "The real issue may be not about adequate representation of the less populated areas, but under-representation of more populated areas. No argument for effective representation of one group, legitimizes under-representation of another group. Arguments about the minimal size for ridings in lightly populated areas, inevitably lead to the question, why the Legislature cannot accommodate those requests and the demand for parity by enlarging the Legislature. No doubt a Legislature can be too large but it also can be too small. In the light of the rule in Charter, the overall size of the Legislature will, in the future inevitably come under Charter's scrutiny."
So, Mr. Chairman, I think this argues in support of what you suggested. In the not too distant future, we need to reconsider the size of this Legislature. I would just like to respond to one thing the Member from Thebacha pointed out. Actually the Member for Inuvik mentioned it on Tuesday as well. That is the change in going from four of 24 to four of 14. I would like to point out right now Yellowknife has 26 percent of the population with 17 percent of the seats. We are only nine percent off what we should be. If we stick with 14 seats, or four of 14, Yellowknife will have 44 percent of the population of the territory, with 29 percent of the seats. That is a 15 percent difference. In fact, if we stay at four of 14, we are diminished in our representation.
Mr. Chairman, the report is a conservative minimum in what we can do, I would say. The commissioners have looked at this issue of representation and I believe that in order to protect the existence of the smaller constituencies, they have made a recommendation that we must follow. As legislators, we have a responsibility to respect the Constitution and the other laws of Canada. Given the case law and the opinions provided by the law clerk, we must recognize that the recommendation of the commission will probably save us from the expense and uncertainty that would result from a Charter challenge. We should lead and do the right thing by supporting the recommendations of the commission.
Mr. Chairman, in June, when we set up the Boundaries Commission, Member after Member stood and said, we should send the commission out to hear the people. Let the people have their say, most of us said. Well, we have sent the commissioners out. As you have noted, Mr. Chairman, two from smaller communities and one a Supreme Court justice from Yellowknife. They have listened to the people. They have told us what they think we should do based on public consultation and the laws of Canada. Mr. Chairman, I sincerely hope Members will support the recommendations of the commission. Thank you.