Thank you, Madam Chair. Madam Chair, I guess I can speak from some experience from around this issue as I was around when Nunavut was created, and our Assembly in the pre-Nunavut days was larger and went down by 10 Members. We, in this House, had 24 Members at one time representing Nunavut and the Northwest Territories for just over 60,000. When Nunavut was created, 10 Members left and we had 14. We governed with 14 until the next Assembly. A boundaries commission was established to go out and look at the seats. There were questions looked at.
Ultimately, they came back with a recommendation of a couple of seats. That was voted down in this Assembly and a court challenge occurred, and that's what we find ourselves now operating with is that court challenge, because it has established the rules of 25 percent. That's the case we will use, because that's the case that was used in that particular outcome. Instead of going from two seats, we ended up with five seats. So we went from 14 to 19.
As my colleague Mr. McLeod had referenced, when you look at the numbers, take a step backwards and look at our numbers. When we went to the Northwest Territories and Nunavut went on its way, we were then down to just over 40,000 people. Forty thousand people and we then, faced with the adjustment of the court case, went to 19 Members. Today, we look at it, we're just about 43,000 people, just under 43,000 people with 19 Members. So realistically looking at the numbers, the Territories hasn't grown with any real significant numbers since we last increased our Members by five. I think that's something we have to look at.
I've heard comments around the table that this bill that's been presented by Mr. Pokiak, on behalf of the Board of Management, is status quo. Well, it is not status quo. It is in fact trying to deal with the issue of meeting the requirement that we are faced with as a Legislative Assembly, and that is meeting that 25 percent target. By redrawing the lines in our larger constituencies, we would come very close to those numbers if not on the mark; very close, which I think would protect ourselves in a more substantial way by doing what this bill requires of us. It's a rebalancing proposal, as I see it, that would redraw the maps of our constituencies to allow us to meet that target that has been established. I agree; we can't ignore it. So we have to make some movement to allow for that, for us to redraw the maps, but still leave our government at the existing size of 19 because I do believe that once we go to as we've seen and we have experience, if you adjust the seats and go to two, that has a domino effect, as my colleague from the Sahtu had mentioned. Then you have to look at the numbers again. That adds another seat and another constituency, redo the numbers again, and that's exactly where we found ourselves. When they redid the numbers for the two seats, Hay River had to be adjusted. When Hay River was adjusted, Inuvik's numbers were out. Inuvik had to be adjusted. When you looked at those numbers, Yellowknife had to get another seat. We'll find ourselves doing the same scenario in trying to meet that 25 percent target. So I think instead of 21, we could end up with 22 Members.
Again, I think as the people of the Territories spoke out on this, a large number of them spoke to the fact that they feel their government is of a large enough size. Believe me, when we went from 14 to 19, in my constituency we went back, I spoke against it, but still received a lot of flack about why did you grow government. Does it necessarily mean we have better services? Well, I think it's hard to deny that the larger centres, the regional centre, the capital, if we looked at the programs we provide to our constituents, the number of people drawing down those services come from the larger services by a vast majority. Whether it's student financial assistance, whether it's income support, housing dollars might be a little different in that area, it all depends on the type of program, but shear numbers in communities affect the scale of programs that are drawn down.
I'll use similar arguments that I did back in 1999 when we were affected by this, is that as an individual, and whether it be Inuvik, Hay River or Yellowknife, you can go to a government office and you can get services almost right on that day. You may have to make an appointment and come in two days later. In many of our small communities, you're not going to get that appointment because there is no office. You may have to go to the hamlet that provides it on a contract basis. So will this make that any better? Not necessarily, because again the level of services we'll provide to constituents is not necessarily going to change. The debate in this House will, guaranteed, and is that always a good thing? I think our residents out there are probably questioning that fact today.
We also have to look at what will the future of this government look like. There are many self-government tables in discussions at this point. The Tlicho has become another government in the Northwest Territories. It has been enacted and has come in force. They are now self-governing, they will draw down that authority over time. What will happen in that situation? We have Deline, a community self-government, nearing the AIP stage. At some point, will they come to this Assembly and question this leadership as to why it makes decisions, or will they be questioning their own leadership in their own communities? Then we have to ask again what does this government look like and do we build it up to such a capacity that it has to feed on itself because, as we know, whether it comes to programs and services or political leadership, when you add a seat or add a program, to try to take it away is very difficult. It's easier to add than take away has been my experience. So I think we have to look at that scenario as we review this.
Needless to say, but I will anyway, I support the bill as it has come forward of rebalancing the seats, because I do believe that the 19 Members can represent the constituents of the Northwest Territories at a very adequate level. No matter if you add more Members to this Assembly, we are still going to be arguing about the fact of why we aren't offering better programs, why we aren't increasing programs to the elders or housing units and delivering the programs in a more effective way. The fact is we still won't have any more money out of it just because we add more Members to this Assembly. That's where we get into difficulty with our constituents, because they see needed money for programs and services being paid to ourselves. That's not necessarily an easy defence when you go to your communities and they ask about the programs that they want in their communities.
So I support the bill that is being proposed of rebalancing the constituencies in the Northwest Territories and learning to live with that. As experience shows, things may change in the future but once you have an established seat, it's hard to remove it unless you want to send the next boundaries commission out. That in itself still does not guarantee it will shrink.
I would support this bill as it's been presented and hopefully as we look at this and take a step back and look at the big picture, as my colleague Mr. Robert McLeod stated, when you look at the size of the people of the territory and the size of this government since division, we have not grown significantly and we can still do the job that is requested of us. Thank you, Madam Chair.