I call the committee to order. We have only one item on the agenda for consideration in committee of the whole for today. Tabled Document 26-13(6) Report of the NWT Electoral Boundaries 1998. We will continue with the debates and comments on the document after we take a short break.

--Break

I call the committee to order. We are on Tabled Document 26-13(6), Report of the NWT Electoral Boundaries Commission 1998. Before we proceed with further general comments, I understand we are through with questions to the law clerk at this time. I would just like a general consensus that the process we are going to have here is general comments from all the Members first, and perhaps the need for another round of general comments. We will then accept motions and debates on the motions. If I could have a consensus of that process. Agreed?

Thank you. For the Members' information, I have Mr. Henry and Mr. Roland having made general comments on Tuesday. If they wish to make further general comments, they would have to wait until the rest of the Members have had the first round on general comments. At this time, I would like to recognize the Mayor of Yellowknife and rather than go through the names of everybody else, I would like to welcome you all to the committee of the whole.

--Applause

Now I recognize, first on my list here, is Mr. Miltenberger. General comments.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This debate on the Electoral Boundaries Commission is not a singular event, but is part of a process. We are in the process of, in fact, trying to weave the political fabric for the new Northwest Territories. That fabric has to be strong in the north, south, east and west and not just the centre, Mr. Chairman. In this debate, I see two main issues I would like to speak briefly to today. First issue is, how much government do we need in the Northwest Territories? The second issue is how many more seats and political power does Yellowknife need?

Mr. Chairman, we are a consensus government. I have been making a case with my colleagues for the last couple of years that, in fact, with the consensus government we can function with 14. I have been consistent in that position. I did not think a boundaries commission was appropriate when it was voted on. I still maintain that, in fact, we can work with 14 MLAs.

I also want to emphasize and heavily underscore that we cannot forget our partners in the Aboriginal Summit. They said because of the situation with aboriginal governments, negotiating self-government arrangements, and the fact we are a government in transition in the territory, in transition, we should not add any seats or make any significant changes at this time. They asked us to hold off on the boundaries commission. We chose to disregard the request. Now we are, in fact, debating this particular boundaries commission report. I do not think it would be in our best interests to be seen to be disregarding completely again, the position and request of the people of the Aboriginal Summit. Especially, in light of the recent statements made in this House by the Premier and by the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs on western governance and the urging of all people to work towards partnership arrangements. We also cannot neglect or not hear what the people were telling us. The theme I heard, I have read, is people do not want any more government. What they would rather see is money put into programs.

Mr. Chairman, I believe we can work with 14 MLAs, contrary to the position put forward by many people. I do not think we should second-guess ourselves or create a self-fulfilling prophecy by saying we cannot do it before we even try it. There are some things we can do to, in fact, make that an achievable goal. Mr. Chairman, we can change our committee structure somewhat. To address the issues of accountability and transparency, we have to once again, bring the issue of opening up our committee meetings more to the public. By my estimation, I would suggest we have 95 percent of our meetings in camera. While not all meetings can be held in the open, I would suggest we can do significantly better than having five percent of the meetings of a public government in public. I think that is a key area, especially with the constant demand for accountability and transparency.

Very clearly, the message I got from my constituents was put the money where we need it, into education, housing, dealing with children and seniors. No more politicians. My opinion, if there is a court challenge, then let there be a court challenge. That is the legal right of the people who want to do that. I think it will be up to us to make a strong legal case, substantiating the unique northern characteristics that would justify maintaining the current number of MLAs we now have.

In regard to Yellowknife. In my opinion, Yellowknife clearly has had unique advantages no other community in the Northwest Territories has or will ever have. It has clearly flourished beyond any expectation than any other communities will have. Since 1967, they have basically quadrupled in size. I do not think you can classify Yellowknife any other way on a comparative basis than as a rich and privileged community.

I think Rene Fumoleau made some very appropriate comments in the article he put into the October 30 Yellowknifer. I would just like to quote one: "In a democracy every one is equal on voting day but what happens to equality between elections? Do all voters have equal access to elected Members, to deputy ministers, superintendents, executive assistants, deputy secretaries, directors, executive officers and planning officers? We all know rich voters talk more loudly than poor ones. Voters who know the right friends, the right doors and the short cuts have more power than their own ballots."

Mr. Chairman, I think that is clearly demonstrated here today by the many good people of Yellowknife who have the luxury and benefit of being able to walk out of their offices and step into the Legislative Assembly to let us know and try to influence us in the decision-making in this House. My constituents do not have that opportunity and there is not one constituent from outside of this community who has that opportunity unless they want to afford to charter or drive in. Yellowknife was four of 24. Now they are four of 14. I think that is a significant shift. In my opinion the number of seats should stay the same. The tradition of one Yellowknife Member on Cabinet should also be maintained. What we are talking about is not just numbers and not just seats. We are talking about a political balance. There are many considerations other than the pure numbers. There are cultural issues. There are the geographic issues. The issue of constitutional development. What is happening with our partners in the Aboriginal Summit and self-government negotiations? We cannot ignore those.

Mr. Chairman, in addition to the millions of dollars Yellowknife gets as part of their normal funding with this territorial government, they have been given for example, $10 million from Sirius Diamonds to set up diamond cutting and such in Yellowknife, an outfit from BC with three employees. We are going to give them a line of credit that we have given nobody else. We have offered up $1.8 million to Giant Mine and the same offer as far as I understand to Con Mine, to help them keep their operation going. We have poured in another $1.5 million or so to expand the airport because of the diamonds. We cannot forget last year the $400,000 that was given to the city to help them over the tough times they faced because of deficit reduction and such. A fact and an opportunity that I would like to point out that I do not believe any other community was given. This is not a case of kicking sand in the faces of the people of Yellowknife, to use a phrase I recently heard.

Mr. Chairman, in my opinion, Yellowknife will be the major beneficiary out of all the diamond development that is going on in this part of the country. There have been impact benefit agreements with the aboriginal people, but by far the biggest economic boost is going to come through and into this city. That is fine, but I think that is part of the equation. Yellowknife, in my opinion, has most of the political cards. They have accessibility no one else has and have enjoyed for 30 years as you look around and see the benefit of the huge machinery of government that is a presence in the north. In fact, for many years was the engine that helped drive a northern economy. That will continue. There is no chance any other community will ever reap that kind of benefit. In fact, most of our communities have been fighting to stay where we are or prevent ourselves from going backwards or to draw ourselves back to where we used to be, because of the shifting economy, the downsizing of government.

Mr. Chairman, in my opinion all the communities and people outside of Yellowknife should be, and I believe are, concerned about the political balance. I believe Yellowknife is well served with four Members in this House. I believe, Mr. Chairman, in fact, the quality of the current MLAs speaks for itself in that regard. I consider my point of view to be one that is pro, a strong balanced Northwest Territories and not an anti-Yellowknife vote or voice as has been made out in some cases. Mr. Chairman, we are in transition as a territory. In the next Assembly, we will be in transition as a government. We have to listen to what the people told us during the boundaries commission, we have to listen to what our summit partners have asked us. We have to give consensus government a chance and I believe we can make it work with 14. Above all, we have to focus whatever money we do have on programs and services to the people in the communities, not on more MLAs. At the appropriate time, Mr. Chairman, I will be putting forward motions to agree that we put Enterprise into the Deh Cho and that the current four ridings be adjusted to make them comparable in size and to rename them as suggested in the commission report. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

--Applause

I thank the Member from Fort Smith for those general comments. I recognize Mr. Ootes.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, on Tuesday, I and other Members had the opportunity to present a number of questions to the law clerk. I think I did that with the objective to ensure that other Members will have an opportunity to see what her opinions were in the event that the Boundaries Commission Report is not adopted. Her comments reinforced to me an opinion that a condition of effective representation is relative parity of voting power, so that every person has similar power when compared to another person. That is certainly not the case when we consider Yellowknife. There are factors that have been used such as geography that need to be taken into account to ensure that legislative assemblies do effectively represent people. There has been

consideration of variances of plus or minus 25 percent but in our case the variances are much more than that. They are very extensive. It should also be remembered that a person's vote should not be diluted to the extent that he or she no longer has effective representation. In having electoral districts with smaller populations for effective representation of some people does not legitimize excessive under-representation of peoples in other areas, such as the case of Yellowknife versus Tu Nedhe.

I would like to speak for a moment about the Boundaries Commission. The Boundaries Commission was established through a motion in this House, and that motion was moved by Mr. Roland and it was a recorded vote. Ten people voted in favour of that motion. One of the items in that motion stated that the commission shall take into consideration the density or rate of growth of the population of any part of the territory. That was one of the considerations, Mr. Chairman.

The make-up of the commission was a diverse cross-section of members from throughout the Northwest Territories. We had a representative from Tuktoyaktuk, from your constituency, Mr. Chairman. We had a representative from Fort Simpson and one from the Supreme Court of the Northwest Territories. They were a diverse group that represented all of the people of the Northwest Territories. Their recommendation was unanimous that Yellowknife should have two more seats. Unanimous. There was no question about that. Now, I ask Members here, is that an unreasonable thing to follow? I do not think so. This was a commission we established, by majority, ten people. It appears now that the objections that Members have are based not on democratic rights, but appear to be because they are unpopular. That is no reason to put forward an objection. Unpopularity is no reason. That is not good enough for me.

There was a case, apparently, in Alberta, I understand, that ruled that the issue of unpopularity could not be an issue. We need, in our democracy, equality of citizenship and there is such a thing irrespective of gender, race and we are a society that should have equality. Yellowknife should have equality here. We do not see that in this Legislative Assembly. There is a possibility to make that equal. The commission's recommendations try to restore that equality. Mr. Miltenberger referred to the fact that we have adequate representation with four in this Legislative Assembly. I would like to point out to him that in 1976, Yellowknife had 22 percent of the population and 27 percent of the representation in this Legislative Assembly. Today, it has 44 percent of the population, with only 30 percent of the representation. Times have changed, Yellowknife has grown. We have a lot more population today. We cannot ignore that.

The law of the land says there must be equal representation. When one constituency has 800 people and another constituency has 7,000 people, how can that be looked at by Members here and say there is no disparity? There sure is disparity.

I would like to speak about effective government for a moment. Again, Mr. Miltenberger spoke about the fact that we can work with 14 Members. I have had serious reservations about our ability to operate with 14 Members. When we consider that there will be six Cabinet Members, one Speaker, that leaves seven Members. We also today, have six standing committees. Just because we are dividing, does not mean the workload of this Assembly is cut dramatically because it is not. The workload will continue the same as ever. We will have the same government departments, we will have the same processes that are here now. For Mr. Miltenberger to suggest that six or seven Members, Ordinary Members, can provide effective opposition in this House and have an effective balance to six Cabinet Ministers, is ludicrous. That is just ludicrous. It is hopelessly unrealistic.

The new system that we are going into will alter the power to Cabinet. That is not there today. We have 15 Members here today, to be able to speak and ask questions and to look at the Cabinet Members and to hold them accountable. That will not be the case, I will guarantee it to you when we sit here with seven Members against six Cabinet Members. I have a tough enough time getting questions answered as it is, Mr. Chairman. I do not know whether the Members were listening today to the answers, but if we are sitting here with seven Members, we will never get answers to our questions.

The question has been raised about the cost of extra seats. A good deal of comment has been raised about that. Effective democracy is not something that you do through a cost analysis or a benefit analysis situation. If that was the case, why are we going to three territories in the Canadian north with 400,000 people. If cost is a matter to the federal government, well then we should not have three territories.

Nunavut recognizes that they need more Members to operate with. They will have 19 Members, Mr. Chairman. Iqaluit alone, with 4,000 people, will have three MLAs. In my presentation to the Commissioner, I included a lot of legal precedents. I will not review these here today, but they were recorded for those who are interested in the submission to the commission.

I would like to make reference to the fact that my constituents want to pursue more representation. Should the issue of voter parity not be addressed here, then there will, in my mind, no doubt be a court challenge. We should not have to go to court to prove beyond a doubt that we are right in demanding two more seats for Yellowknife. Members should remember the questions we asked on Tuesday, to the law clerk and the answers to those questions. I think they will prove beyond a doubt that there is a case there to take this to a challenge. I have no doubt in my mind that a challenge will be successful for adequate representation in Yellowknife, at least of two seats. It could affect other constituencies if it does go to a court challenge.

To me, the Boundaries Commission was a very credible commission with very credible people. They have made a very acceptable, credible report that we should adopt. I urge my fellow Members today to do the right thing. I urge them to vote in favour of giving Yellowknife two more seats.

I would like to make as a final comment, Mr. Chairman, some reference to Mr. Miltenberger's comments about Yellowknife getting everything. I, and my citizens, are tiring of that. That is not true. We represent 17,000 people. They are taxpayers in this northern government, big taxpayers. They contribute a tremendous amount to our economy.

When Mr. Miltenberger refers to $10 million to Yellowknife for Sirius Diamonds, that is strictly a loan guarantee. No $10 million was given to Sirius Diamonds. No $10 million was given to Yellowknife. $1 million to Giant Mine? Our finance Minister has pointed out that if we do not keep that mine going, we will lose $19 million per year in taxes in this territory. It is a cheap price to pay. That is not to the citizens of Yellowknife. It is to the citizens of the whole of the Northwest Territories.

--Applause

That is what keeps this government operating. Otherwise we would have another deficit of another $20 million. $1.5 million dollars to expand the airport, absolutely untrue. We did not get $1.5 million for the airport. $750,000 was spent to build some facilities out there but they are charging $20,000 a month to those facilities to operate out of there. Mr. Chairman, I would like to end on that basis, my time is up but I would like to state that Yellowknife is certainly not over-privileged by any means. We pay our way here. Thank you.

--Applause

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, I will start off first by recognizing that Tuktoyaktuk and Holman Island, or Holman, both requested an amendment to the Nunakput riding by establishing a separate seat for Tuktoyaktuk. This suggestion was that it would then leave Holman, Paulatuk and Sachs Harbour as a separate riding. Mr. Chairman, I made an oral presentation to the Electoral Boundaries Commission in Tuktoyaktuk on August 12 and in there I did not support, nor did I oppose the suggestion.

As an MLA, I pointed out that it is not easy for me to reach the settlement of Holman, but there are regular flights to Sachs and Paulatuk from Inuvik, which allows me for very short connections. In order to reach Holman, I have to fly first to Yellowknife and then down to Holman. I also pointed out that separating the communities as was suggested would not solve the problem because there are still no scheduled flights in between Sachs, Holman and Paulatuk. That would not resolve the problem. I did point out that Holman does, in fact, receive all its services at this point in time from the Kitikmeot or from Yellowknife directly and there are direct flights to Yellowknife. Furthermore, 75 percent of the residents of Holman are, in fact, directly related to Inuit of Kugluktuk and Cambridge. Only 25 percent of them may be related to the Inuvialuit in the Beaufort. I suggested that if any one of those four of my communities were to justify their riding, it would have been Holman, based on the differences they have at this present time and the fact that they are not connected to the Beaufort. The unfortunate part of it is, they do not have the numbers. I pointed that out as well, there are only four hundred and some residents in the community of Holman.

Mr. Chairman, I also pointed out that, at the present time, there are different requirements and different workloads for MLAs than they had in the past because the government has now put in place boards, education boards, and also health boards which take a lot of workload off the MLAs. There are also wildlife boards through the land claims which basically remove almost all questioning of wildlife concerns. The people now have opportunity to take their concerns directly to the board. That is what they do. That makes a lot less workload for MLAs. I am not suggesting the boards are removing the responsibilities of the MLAs, just removing some of the workload. I pointed that out. I did not at that point in time, Mr. Chairman, suggest whether there should be a change in the particular riding of Nunakput. I note that in the Boundaries Commission Report, the commissioners have not recognized this request. I note also that one of the commissioners was in fact from the community of Tuktoyaktuk. I have to take into consideration she gave and the rest of the commissioners gave serious thought to this.

Mr. Chairman, I now turn to the report itself. I suggest we take and look, give some serious significance to see exactly who was on this Boundaries Commission. We must not ignore the fact that one of them is a Supreme Court judge. We should ask ourselves why the act is in such a way that a Supreme Court judge is on the Boundaries Commission. The fact of the matter is, to make sure that whatever comes out of the Boundaries Commission can stand a challenge under the Canadian Charter of Rights. Obviously one of the main duties of the Supreme Court judge would be to ensure it would in fact, meet the requirements of the Constitution. I give great significance to the fact that the Supreme Court judge is on that Boundaries Commission. I also give great significance to the fact that she put forward a minority recommendation. I suggest she may not have been sure the recommendation of the majority of the commissioners could, in fact, stand a challenge. Furthermore, the references to a smaller riding for Yellowknife North I believe it is, did not take into consideration there were other requests for the same type of ridings in other parts of the territory. Nunakput was requesting smaller ridings, so was Nahendeh as was Fort Rae, Rae-Edzo. I am sure the commissioner could not see reacting or responding to the request for a small riding for Mr. Erasmus' riding, without taking into consideration the request from the other communities in other parts of the territory.

I also take into consideration the fact that she could have suggested only one Member for Yellowknife. She did not. She supported two Members. All she did was change the numbers within those two, so you divide all six evenly or as close to evenly as possible. Therefore I think she was making sure that whatever was recommended will stand a challenge and we do not have to worry about it. One of the questions we put to the legal counsel the other day was whether or not, what would Supreme Court judges do and what would they not do in certain circumstances. I suggest all our answers from the Supreme Court judge that was sitting on this commission she is indicating to us what we should do. Although I favour and I would think at some time in the future, maybe possibly the next Assembly, there would be struck another Boundaries Commission to address the fact that aboriginal groups do not want to deal with Boundaries Commissions at this time.

There are individuals who do not want to deal with Boundaries Commissions at this time based on the uncertainty in the political arena at this time. Hopefully, in two years' time, three years' time, the political arena will be more settled. At that point in time, we could possibly look at all the boundaries and see whether or not we could in fact, have more than what has been recommended here, 16. I also speak against having small numbers. I prefer large numbers. I think the public should know that this government receives sufficient funding from the federal government to cover the cost of 24 Members. We do receive funding for 24 Members. We are not going to be cutting programs in order to have 24 or whatever number. We do not cut programs. The funding is already in the formula agreement. We can take up to 24. The funding is there. I suggest in the future we deal with that. We re-address, we have another look at this thing. For the time being, Mr. Chairman, I support the minority recommendations of the Boundaries Commissioners. That is what I say.

--Applause

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.

Mr. Chairman, I will be supporting the recommendations of the commission and the report that they have tabled with us.

--Applause

We had three independent people who were appointed by the legislature. We asked them to go on our behalf to undertake to speak to Members of the public, consult with our communities and to focus their time and their attention on this issue to advise us on it. We have some very credible, well-known, well respected people on this commission.

I believe that the report reflects their advice on the best way to balance the need for representation by population, regional representation, as well as respecting the cultural diversity and reflecting that in this legislature. I also know that one of the primary responsibilities I have as an elected Member of this legislature, elected by the public, is to ensure always that this institution functions in the best possible capacity. That is, I should not allow anything to happen that would compromise the ability of this institution to do its duties for the general public. That has been shared with my constituents since last spring. At the end of the day, whether this government, this central institution, this legislature is supported or disowned by the public, whether it be the aboriginal constituents or the general public; it should not be because we have deliberately done a disservice to ourselves and compromised the ability of this legislature to carry out the very functions that we asked people to elect us to carry out in the first place. I do not think that it is up to us to compromise that institution.

If you want a phrase, I would say that 14 is not enough. I think a minimum of 16 would help greatly to ensure that we continue to be able to see this institution work and carry out the functions that have been set out for it to do. We have all been elected to ensure that it does carry out those functions. A reduction of 24 to 14 is a drastic reduction, so when we say we should leave everything the way it is without change, there already has been a dramatic change that has happened. We have to accept the fact that it is a drastic change. What it does is, presently we have 24 Members, one of which is a Speaker, that allows 23. Eight are Ministers, allowing 15 Ordinary Members. What we will end up with if we leave things as they are with 14, is we will have one Speaker, six Cabinet Members and, therefore, only seven Ordinary Members. The Cabinet could be able to call a session of this Legislature with only one Ordinary Member agreeing. That is only one who would have to attend these sessions for us to carry on the business of this Legislature. That is a dramatic change in the nature, in the character of this institution. I also believe that the legal challenge is inevitable and it will cost us money. I also believe it is our duty to avoid settling issues in court, that is why we are here. Despised as we are as politicians, according to someone's survey, we are preferred in many ways to letting the courts decide issues. Our constituents and the general public look to us to make difficult decisions, take difficult positions. Nevertheless, meet their obligation to come up with some sort of agreement that will avoid having the legal system deal with issues that are our primary responsibility. Yellowknife has a huge population and I think we have an obligation to ensure that the makeup of this Legislature reflects that.

-- Applause

We also have a growing aboriginal population right here in this city. I am aware of that. I can see by the suggestions that at least one of the ridings recommended will be majority aboriginal, which would make it, if there is such a thing, an aboriginal constituency, so who would object to that?

The aboriginal leaders have said over the last few years that they will focus on community and regional institutions of government, that their primary focus over the next few years is to look at community and regional governments and see how those work. For the time being, this central institution will carry on. We have a duty to make sure that we do the best job possible for them, for everyone. We should not be disowned at the end because we have compromised our ability to do that job.

I believe that the aboriginal people will stay with public governments as long as those governments provide an adequate job, providing an adequate service for them. Just being under-represented alone will not alienate them, but what will alienate them more than anything is being marginalized economically. I believe as long as the aboriginal population is part of the economic growth of this part of the country and that they feel they are partners in the development, the number of people representing them directly or indirectly in this Legislature would not be that significant a concern. Having said that, I believe that the issue of the Cabinet makeup of the new government is equally important in that the aboriginal population in the regions would be served greatly by any agreement that we make here as Members about how the Cabinet will be made up. Is it going to be a free-for-all or are we going to ensure that the northern regions are represented in Cabinet, that Yellowknife is represented in Cabinet, that the other regions that are on Great Slave Lake will also be on Cabinet, but no one has really addressed that. It is something that we need to work on because I think it is equally important to the people out there in our communities. The number of Members in the Legislature alone is not the most important thing to them. At the end of the day, they will also find equal comfort in knowing that, no matter what happens, all regions will be adequately represented in a future Cabinet of this government.

Some of my constituents have said that perhaps there should be no change, but as I have said to them, I have said to you again, I do not believe that no change is an option at this time. I believe we are compelled by a number of factors to act and it is our duty to act. I must support an increase in representation for Yellowknife and I believe I do that and still keep it consistent with some basic objectives, that is, keep it small, keep the costs down, avoid a court challenge, show respect for the work of the commission and the recommendations to us and also reflect the significant population of Yellowknife in the future Western Territory. Thank you.

-- Applause

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Coming from a small riding in the Mackenzie Delta where it consists of the three very diverse communities of Aklavik, Fort McPherson, and Tsiigehtchic, where one community is isolated and the other communities have some sort of access, but one thing that we do not realize is what has happened to the rural communities in the north as we know them. A lot of these communities were developed during the time of the fur trader. A lot of them are traditionally aboriginal communities.

One thing that you see happening, especially in this government, and the fear that I have changing the structure of government and allowing more seats to Yellowknife is exactly what I see happening in this House in the last three years, where a lot of times, a lot of issues that I have raised, especially in my constituency which consists of a lot of small communities, the people cannot associate with the social and economic problems that we have in our communities. Coming from a large centre and large communities, you do not realize that what you have in programs and services where you can go down the street, pick up the phone, make an appointment at the doctor's office or walk into a hospital, have access to doctors, lawyers, the Supreme Court, any person in a department. Yet for us, in some cases, you have to wait two, three months to see an eye specialist. A doctor may come to your community twice a month if you are lucky to see him while he is there, which is usually one day. If you do not get in that one day, you wait for the next time he comes through. You have to grow up in a small community to realize what you really do not have when you come to Yellowknife.

My biggest fear with what is in the Boundaries Commission Report is the inequity that is going to take place from rural ridings to the restructuring of the political makeup of the new Western Territory.

A lot of times in this House I make motions, I look for support from Members in this House. With a lot of my colleagues leaving from the east, where the majority of the support that I get from this House comes from this side of the House. A lot of times, that side of the House does not have a worry or concern of the social impacts that we face in our small communities because they do not have it here.

There have been a lot of economic booms going on around Yellowknife, with the diamond industry, yet the oil and gas industry in the riding that I represent in the Beaufort Delta was at one time a thriving industry which had world potential for oil and gas, yet nothing has ever been said in this House to develop that economy and also where the aboriginal people in that region want to go.

In the Beaufort Delta, self-government process there is a real, I hate to say this, but the disparity between regions and ridings when it comes to economic opportunities. One thing that a lot of aboriginal groups see by way of negotiating land claims and self-government agreements that it is a way to get away from government and go it on their own. The sad thing to say about this is it has already happened and occurred to our neighbours to the west, in regard to aboriginal groups negotiating self-government agreements and running programs and services on their own.

With the disparity that we see in the west, especially coming from aboriginal communities, that will continue. With the makeup of the House just looking as it sits now, if you took a vote today, there would only be two Members on this side of the House representing small ridings, which would be Mr. Rabesca and myself. Yet in the past, I had five other Members on this side who I could depend on because of the rural concerns. I think that was something that was missed by this commission. This commission only looked at one aspect and that was population. It did not look at the diversity of cultures, inequity in regard to access to government. Also, the process that is in place for self-government negotiations to be able to establish programs and services and have the right to run those programs and services by yourself.

I think the aboriginal groups that have been involved in the Constitutional process have come to a point of not seeing any light at the end of the tunnel to say there is a possibility of us working together and striving for a better Western Territory, yet everything around that process is collapsing because people take it into consideration to let us look at the other option that we have, and that is negotiating directly with Ottawa, for the same programs and services that this Legislature will have the funds from the federal government for. Those dollars that we think we have control of now will sooner or later be controlled by aboriginal governments. It is a serious point and I think people have to realize that we are taking something for granted that was not really recognized by the people in Yukon. I believe we, in the Western Territory, will be stuck in the same dilemma. It may not happen in the next five years, it may happen in the next ten years, but eventually it will happen.

Another point I would like to make is regarding something someone mentioned about how much Yellowknife puts into the western economy. How much money is generated by taxes? How much money has Yellowknife put in by way of jobs? People forget history. The Beaufort Sea in the 1970s and 1980s as well as in the early 1960s was the only economic boom in this territory. A lot of resources and revenues went into building Yellowknife because of that activity in the Beaufort Delta. The thing that I feel despair now about is how we can sit here and argue about court cases and being fair and everything else, yet when it comes to economic opportunities and the social well-being of people, service delivery in our small communities, in some ways you can look at it as what you see in Third World countries. It has come to being a point that it is getting worse then getting better.

In Yellowknife you have paved streets, general hospitals, government buildings, major economic base, do not forget Wal-Mart. When you pay 90 cents for a litre of gas and pay almost $2.50 for a litre of milk, you have to start realizing the cost to access government is not that cheap. Myself, I represent three distinct communities, I represent three distinct governments and two unique aboriginal groups. Somehow you have to try to balance that off by yourself. In issues you relate in this House, they do not have access to walk into a Minister's office, if you are lucky, you can fly down here for $1,200 and go see a Minister, but that is what the cost of access is. That is something that the Boundaries Commission was also supposed to look at. The access in regard to remote communities. If you took the map and chopped it in half, over 50 percent of the new Western Territories will consist of the Sahtu and the Beaufort Delta, in which we have four seats. Is that fair? That is bigger than some countries. Yet you have 10,000 people for four seats. I think that you talk about fairness, equitable distribution and the threat for court action, I say go for it, that is what they are there for. You do not like what they decide, let us take it to the Supreme Court. Maybe by that time aboriginal groups will have self-government agreements and they will also demand in the Supreme Court that they would also like to guarantee to have the government for themselves.

Thank you, Mr. Krutko. I do not have any more names on the list. I suggest we take a five-minute break and then we either deal with more statements or comments. Mr. Erasmus.