Thank you, Mr. Bell. Next on the list I have Mr. Ramsay.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I'd like to thank, as well, the commission members for the hard work and the job that they did on developing the recommendations contained in the report and it's very interesting hearing other Members around this room discussing this very important topic. I listened quite closely to what my colleague Mr. Lafferty had to say from Monfwi and appreciated what he had to say. From where I stand, and I don't want to go over a lot of ground most Members have covered, but from where I stand I think an important factor in all this is we try our best to stay out of court. I think we certainly could be challenged on a number of fronts. The bill as it's presented, obviously, with the redistribution of ridings in Yellowknife, Inuvik and Hay River, does bring Monfwi under the 25 percent, but I think I err more on the side of reality. I think the commission went out, they did their work and I tend to agree with some of my colleagues that Monfwi does deserve, in fact, another seat and I'd like to support that in happening. However, that also includes another seat for Yellowknife and I think the easy thing to do and the best thing to do, if you went out on the street, Madam Chair, and you talk to 100 people, probably 90 percent of them would say that we do not need any more MLAs in this Legislative Assembly and that would be the consensus out there. Now if we went with the status quo, ended up in court and ended up with four or five new Members for this Legislative Assembly, that to me would be more disturbing than just accepting the recommendations in the report and moving forward.

Mr. Lafferty mentioned in his opening comments that his leadership is looking at the recommendations and willing to accept the recommendations contained in the report. This, Madam Chair, I believe will keep us out of court and it will add another seat in Yellowknife, yes, but I think it's a fair and reasonable balance in allowing the community of Behchoko to have its own seat.

Madam Chair, I just wanted to close with that and look forward to further debate. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Ramsay. Next on the list for general comments I have Ms. Lee.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I'd like to put on record my position on this bill as well. Madam Chair, I would like to start by thanking the commission and the commission members along with all the other Members for the work that they have done. I'd like to say, for the record, that I am not in support of the bill as it's written as it suggests keeping a status quo of 19 Members plus redrawing some of the borders. So I will not be supporting it unless it's amended to reflect the commission's report.

Madam Chair, let me just say that the reason why I take this position is because I believe that it is in the public interest that we are here to protect and in the interest of this Legislature for us to accept this recommendation. First of all, let me just talk about the deference to the commission I believe that this Legislature should pay attention to, because I think that we should be mindful of the fact that this commission is not just a regular advisory board where the work of our Legislature is helped by, in many, many different instances, we have lots of boards where Ministers appoint Members to and those

recommendations are subject to our acceptance or not. I would submit an argument that this commission is not such a board. It is a statutory board and the members of that commission were appointed by a legislative action in this House. It was done by a formal motion in this House and I believe there is a lot of distinction in that as opposed to some other appointment. This commission went out there to do the work that they were tasked with by a former motion of this legislature. They had very specific provisions in the Commission Act; as well, they had lots of other legislation and historical analysis they were asked to look at.

Madam Chair, I also believe, and I want to answer to some of the other suggestions made I believe that the commission looking into the issues that the Members are raising. I don't believe the commission's recommendations reflect strict population parity. I do believe that the commission looked at the regional remoteness, the regional government situations, the fact that some ridings have six or seven communities that the MLA in charge has to look after, because they were asked to look into that. Specifically, I believe, and I have attended a number of meetings that the commission had in the city, and I believe in the report it mentions the fact that it looked at the special committee report on sunset clause, for example, in the last Assembly where this Legislature dealt with districting. There were very strong recommendations made for the commission to look at issues other than population parity, because I tell you, Madam Chair, if the commission just looked at the population parity, it would have come back with more than just two seats, or it could have looked at nine seats possibly for Yellowknife out of 19. The fact that it didn't I believe speaks to the fact that the commission did not look at specifically to population parity and that the commission looked at all the other concerns the Members are raising here. So I think that it should be with great carefulness that this Legislature rejects the recommendation of the commission.

There are lots of things in hindsight we could have done if there were very strong opinions here that the House should not grow any bigger for budgetary reasons or financial reasons as presented here, then that should have been made clear, which I would argue was not. But I think that that was mentioned in some of the hearings and I do believe that the commission considered that and rejected that and it's the commission's right to do so. The commission could have reduced a smallest riding or amalgamated it with another riding. I believe that was in their books too. I believe they looked at whether 19 was best or we should go lower or higher, but I believe that they looked at that and they chose not to address the overrepresentations scenario, but looked primarily into the under-representation. So I have to say that my decision in this regard is strictly with the deference to the work of the commission.

Another thing that I want to say about the arguments being made here that we really don't have money to spend on extra MLAs and I think there's a strong argument to be made in that. I could tell you that in the constituency meeting that I had in June when this report came out, this was a topic of discussion and I would agree with all the Members who said that the general population in Yellowknife are not looking for an extra Member for Yellowknife. But I tell you, they guard very close to the idea of voting parity. I would argue that voting parity in this regard is a Charter right. It's not an issue where it's a decision that could be made just on the political will. Some have suggested that it's for us to make a political decision, but I would argue that the Charter right of an individual voting person and their voting parity is not up to us to decide, it's not at our disposal. A person voting in Range Lake should not have one-third of voting power of somebody in Tu Nedhe. The fact that the commission decided that that's okay for the Tu Nedhe Member to be overrepresented, but the commission spoke that under-representation too far above 25 percent is not allowed. I believe that the commission and these Members did the work and that we should not disregard the committee recommendations lightly.

Let me just say also, to reject the committee recommendation because so many ridings are so close to 25 percent and because we know that this issue will not be visited again for another eight years, I would suggest that it would be quite irresponsible for this Legislature to not address so many ridings where it's either at 25 percent or over 30 percent. So I would suggest to you, Madam Chair, that my position is that I believe that the commission looked at all of the considerations that we are looking at and they made the recommendation that Monfwi should get an extra seat and that Yellowknife should get the voting parity. In that regard, I think that I will be strongly supporting that.

Somebody suggested that we should do this to avoid court challenge. I might just switch that around and say that I don't want to do the things in this House because I feel threatened by a court challenge. Although I think that should be a consideration, I think what we should consider ourselves is that it is more harmful for us as a legislator to give away someone's protected Charter right when we do we have a Charter that says that's wrong and the court will step in. So I don't know if anybody could see the distinction on that, but I believe that it is our job as a legislator to protect the Charter rights of everyone, and this is not talking about strict voting parity here, I mean I think the voters outside of Yellowknife are overrepresented and the commission said it's okay and the law has said it's okay, but how far do we go with that? The commission has drawn the line here and I think it's to our interest and in order that we do our jobs here, that we accept the committee's recommendation and move forward from that. Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you, Ms. Lee. Next I have Mr. Hawkins.

Thank you, Madam Chair. The things I'm going to say are really reflective of what I've heard in my community, the constituency of Yellowknife Centre. The fact is, I appreciate the work the commission did, but we also have to keep in context that they are an advisory group and they do not force us. They are an administrative body that we commissioned out of this House to go find research, come back and to substantiate what they heard into some formulation and then send it off as a proposal to the politicians. Now, in essence, the politicians are the ones that actually have to make the decision.

I'm concerned that I think the report, to some degree, although I sincerely do appreciate their work, I feel it's flawed in the sense of fundamental principle, because I don't think that they heard what the people were saying; they heard what the lobby groups were putting forward.

The reason I say that is because I read page 6 of the report and it talks about where they basically heard a strong voice of keeping status quo, and then they heard a strong voice from small communities outside of Yellowknife to give them more MLAs. They heard, you know, don't change anything that could cause the increase to Yellowknife. You know, they even point out the high cost of travel between communities. Now every one of those is significant on their own right and I wouldn't want to say that it isn't, but now we're getting into high cost of travel between communities. I mean, that is not for this report to be talking about. This report should be talking about fair representation, not what it costs to put gas in your car or to buy a plane ticket.

So I read this and I think, you know, to be honest -- and I say this with an enormous amount of respect for the Tlicho people, and the Tlicho Member knows that I mean this -- that I have a lot of respect for those folks, but my concern is they lobbied the heck out of this commission and they did a fabulous job. I mean we should commend them in a sense of they brought busloads of people. Well, from my community perspective, people I heard from thought it was going to be status quo. If they had any assumption that it wasn't going to be status quo, they would have brought trucks and busloads of people to lobby too and say well, wait a minute, there is a voter problem, and the voter problem that I see it as in a sense of in the House is Yellowknife is still under-represented by at least between one and two MLAs and that's because of our population throughout the Territories it isn't being fairly represented in this House.

The people I spoke to said one clear thing, which was they want programs, not politicians. So when we recognize that the cost is almost $900,000, that's almost $1 million we'll be putting into, potentially, MLAs. That causes people concern. So what did the fiscal Conservatives say? Did they want more politicians or did they want more programs?

The problem I have with this report is I was actually one to side with Mr. Miltenberger who believed that we should set from the very start to say no more MLAs. So stop at 19, do the hard decisions, but I don't think they seriously considered the two big factors of what to do with the smallest riding and how to deal with the weight of a vote.

Again, I still have to go back to the fact that Yellowknife is still being under-represented in fairness. I guess I kind of dismissed, to some degree, the fear-mongering people may have or may be suggesting or the private citizen saying if we don't adopt this, we will go to court for sure if we don't go their way. But we have to remember, that's the right of anyone. That's the great democracy we have and we share here. Sometimes we require judicial guidance to finally get the true answer or the right answer. I am sometimes challenged when I listen to some folks about what is the right decision, because what has changed in Yellowknife so significantly, what has changed in the Northwest Territories so significantly that we have to justify two more bodies? I have to point out, yet again, Yellowknife is still short over one Member. If we do 45 percent of the population in the Northwest Territories, it is not represented here in seats in the Legislature.

I am concerned that the lobby effort, again I recognize that had swayed the commission and the commission felt that they heard very strongly that a group of individuals wanted another MLA in their region. To be honest, what I think I heard from the Member who represents that region here today, is the fact that people in Yellowknife and anywhere else still treat themselves as Tlicho citizens first. So, therefore, they call their Monfwi representative first, rather than their local MLA. I think that's truly a problem. I don't know how to help the Member in that regard. He's got to do and he does, by all means, do the best job he certainly can. I certainly wouldn't want to take away the person's opportunity to feel that that is the MLA they should call. I recognize that the Member works very hard for people of his nation no matter where they live. I think that's a problem and we have to figure out as a Legislature how to do this.

I go back to say that the commission is truly an advisory commission and there is nothing here that binds their hands and forces us to accept it either way. We could strike it down and say we need 23 MLAs. We could strike it down and say we want 20 or we want to go to 17, for goodness sake. So there are a lot of options. They are recommendations.

I will dispute one thing my colleague did say. Actually, I often hear that Yellowknife is the largest aboriginal community and we have a significant aboriginal population that makes Yellowknife a great place. That's got to be recognized, too.

So it's truly a challenge here to find the right way to make a final decision. I have very strong views from other sides of constituents in all fairness, Madam Chair, and I have to make sure that their concerns get out as well. The fact that this is one of the few opportunities that Yellowknife has to put more bums in seats here and finally show that there is fair voter parity in the Northwest Territories. The fact is that it is one of the few chances to open up this discussion to say we can have a more fair process. Will Yellowknife be under-represented if we go to eight seats and we have 21 in the whole Legislature? Yes, we won't solve the problem. If we really wanted to deal with the problem, the last court challenge would have said let's consider numbers only and they would have done it and we would have ended up with nine seats in a House of 19. I know they recognize the diversity of the North and the importance of balancing reasonable situations where you can be overrepresented. You have to recognize language, history and geographical lines and that's why they came up with seven out of 19. I respect that. Like I said at the very start, sometimes these things require judicial guidance and maybe that's where this has to go.

Madam Chair, to close this off in a fair way, I have a few very strong constituents that are advocating that we seize the opportunity to grab the extra seat for Yellowknife, only I wish a Member wouldn't have said that the communities would have voted against the courthouse because that would have been their chance. I wish this play between the small communities and the city of Yellowknife would stop. I like to think that the Yellowknife Members continually support the small communities when we can in a fair and reasonable way.

So, Madam Chair, I haven't totally made up my mind which way we will be going, with 19 or 21. I will be taking a few more minutes to listen to my colleagues and I will be making a clear and decisive decision when the time is required. Thank you, Madam Chair, for your time.

Thank you, Mr. Hawkins. Next on the list I have Mr. Villeneuve.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I guess I will just start off by thanking the members of the commission for coming out with this report. I think it opens a lot of ideas in this House to how we can treat voter representation on a fair and even ground. I just want to say that the rebalancing of the Inuvik, Hay River and Yellowknife constituencies definitely will bring everybody under the 25 percent deviation, plus or minus, that we want. I don't believe that a bigger government is a better government. I have to agree with that on a lot of what all Members here were saying about some guidelines that should have been clear to the commission in what we were looking to get out of the commission, as opposed to building bigger government and spending more money.

The issue here is under-representation. The overrepresentation is not even an issue here. With the under-representation, all these communities that are pretty borderline on the 25 percent deviation, I don't think in the next five to 10 years there is going to be much change in any of these numbers. Percentage-wise, maybe three to five percent given the development of the Mackenzie gas project, and maybe the Deh Cho where they become more even and Monfwi will probably grow and Yellowknife might even shrink.

I think given these numbers that we look at here, they are all so close, so who is under-represented? Just because you are on that 25 percent threshold, does that really mean you are under-represented if everyone else is 22 or 23? I think we are all on the same playing field and it should be noted as such. Nobody is plus 35 or near the 30s. There is no real large split between the communities that we feel are under-represented. I don't think that adding more seats in this House is going to change these numbers by any significant improvement, as far as I can see.

Just with a note on that, like the other Member was saying, this is a Charter right, this 25 percent voter parity issue. It's also acceptable to be over 25 percent also, as stated in the commission's report. These are based on regional concerns. They are acceptable if they contribute to better government. I think across the board, everybody in the NWT is pretty well represented in this House with the 19 Members that we have here. I do fully understand and support that Monfwi really is on a borderline for under-representation based on the fact that the geographic layout of the territory is one that has the Member dealing with all the challenges that we in the House here, many of us only have to deal with some of those geographic challenges on one side of the coin; whereas, Behchoko being on the main road system and all the other communities -- Gameti, Wekweeti -- are fly in only or drive in in the winter, you know, presents twice as many challenges for any Member in this House. But again, I have to say that Behchoko is on the road and it's close to Yellowknife. Like one Member was saying, if they wanted this government to support them on some initiative that they feel to get done or changed or have implemented, they will come over here in busloads and fill the gallery and they're lobbying right there. Whether they have one, two, three Members sitting in this House, I don't think it's going to make their efforts to get represented here in this House any more or any better than what it is today. Just with the whole population dynamics, it seems like with the latest Stats Canada numbers our population is going down. So who's to say what's going to change in eight years? Maybe everything will even out even better or look better in eight years, maybe it won't. Maybe we'll need an extra five seats in eight years, but that's to be seen.

With respect to any court challenges, we could get challenged on anything. Like other Members said, that's up to the public, that's their decision for them to make and I don't think it's something that we here should be backed into a corner and saying if you do this we're going to take you to court. With me that doesn't really change my opinion of how we can make decisions here in this House, because everything we do decide here is open to legal challenge no matter what it is.

So I just want to summarize by saying that I do support the Monfwi seat, but if it has to come with Yellowknife getting an extra seat because it is one of the recommendations, I'm not supportive of that. But I don't know why they didn't just make a recommendation to add one seat for Monfwi period and draw some new electoral boundaries in Yellowknife, Hay River and Inuvik. So I don't think all the options were really considered here, looking at what people were telling them. Like another Member said, everybody in the NWT feels like they're pretty well represented here as it stands and I just have to go with what the general public tells me and how I'm going to be voting on this bill. I'll have to support what Bill 14 is recommending. Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you, Mr. Villeneuve. Still on general comments then. Next I have Mr. Robert McLeod.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I'm glad to have this opportunity to make some comments towards this bill. I look at the numbers on here and I see an overall population of 42,810. That's one riding for a lot of MLAs south. If you look at some of the numbers here, 2,800, 1,700, the numbers are low and for us to say that they're under-represented, if they're under-represented they're not getting adequate representation and we're not doing our job. That's the way I look at it.

I fully respect the people from the Monfwi's lobbying to get another seat, but I have to say that if the people from the Monfwi would like another seat, then I think the people from the Sahtu need a seat, the people from the Deh Cho need another seat, the people from the Inuvialuit/Gwich'in need another seat. So that's the way I look at it, and I say that in all due respect. But we have to be realistic here and look at the numbers and see that the numbers are not that high. Eighteen hundred sixty-five people, I should know them all by their first name.

It's not like we've got ten, fifteen thousand people to look after.

I look at the ridings of some of the Members here and I see the Member for Nunakput has a wide geographical riding. He has to go all over. Same with the Member for the Sahtu. He has a lot of communities he has to cover.

Thank you very much, Mr. McLeod. General comments. Next I have Premier Handley.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I also want to express my appreciation and respect for the work that the commission members did in making their recommendations.

Madam Chair, in looking at this issue I've talked to many of my constituents and I've also thought long and hard about this issue. There are three main issues that I took into consideration. First of all, how many people can we represent? I had to look at some of the provinces and the federal government, the size of constituencies, and I have to say that the number of people that each of us represent, whether it's in Yellowknife or in some of the smaller communities, is quite low compared to what you see across the country.

A second question is how do we achieve a balance and ensure that voters in any constituency in the Territories are fairly and equitably represented?

The third one, in my view, is cost.

Looking at the issue of balance, I think it's important that voters, constituents, no matter where they live, have fair representation. I recognize and I appreciate the challenges that MLAs who represent multiple communities have compared to those of us in Yellowknife, and I appreciate that the numbers in Yellowknife are probably higher than they are in the smaller communities. But I have to say that just adding more MLAs is not the only way of ensuring a balance in representation. I think if there's a problem with cost of travel, or time in travel and so on, then there are other ways of handling that. But there are ways of increasing the travel allowances for people who represent the smaller communities or a number of communities within their constituencies.

Looking at the number of people we can represent, as I say, it's low. I think we could theoretically represent many more than the two to three thousand people that most of us have.

My belief is that 19 MLAs can represent the Northwest Territories very well, but this isn't just a matter of numbers. I don't think we should be concerned about increasing the numbers simply because we want to avoid a court challenge. That's a wrong way of looking at it, from my view. We shouldn't be doing this just to stay out of court. If we're going to increase, then increase it because we genuinely believe we need more people in order to represent the constituents that we all have.

This comes to the issues of cost as being a main one for me. It costs a lot of money to add another one or two more MLAs, and I don't think it stops there. I don't think if we don't go status quo, we'll be looking at more than one, most likely; probably more than two additional MLAs. That costs money. Madam Chair, I can tell you that if that happens, then I suspect in the 16th Assembly there's going to be a move then to increase the number of people on Cabinet; more cost if we go that direction. Madam Chair, if we don't take the cost of government seriously in this House ourselves, then how can we criticize the government departments and the rest of government for growth? We're as guilty as anybody else is. So, Madam Chair, I have difficulty with the issue of cost.

Basically, my view is that 19 can represent very well, but if it's the will of the MLAs in here that we need more, then my position would be that we have to go to 21. We have to go to the report recommendations if it's more than the 19. I could not see increasing another one outside of a large centre like Yellowknife and then not doing anything in Yellowknife. I think that creates an imbalance and an unfairness that has already been tested. It's not out of fear of a court challenge, but it is because there was a lot of thought and work put into creating a balance and we should maintain that. Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you, Mr. Handley. Next on the list for general comments I have Mr. Roland.

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.

Thank you, Mr. Roland. Next I have Mr. Menicoche.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Finally, I get to speak, Members.

---Laughter

Just reflecting upon Bill 14 that is before us maintaining the status quo and rebalancing, I have given it lots of thought and a lot of the recommendations that the commission reports, I am not convinced that they gave it more thought than just to write what they did. Basically, for me, when I look at the numbers, if I don't look at the recommendations but I look at the numbers, the numbers do not say that we need extra seats. That is the way I see it. Unfortunately, the numbers do not say that we need extra seats. Members around this House are saying the opportunity is for Yellowknife to get more seats. As a community MLA, that is how I see it.

This spring, I had a great opportunity to tour Alaska. Our first stop was Juneau, which is the capital. There are 40,000 people there and they have been the capital for a very long time. The biggest city is Anchorage. My numbers might be off, but I think Anchorage is around 40,000 people. The debate has been on for some time to move the capital over to Anchorage. Very often, the people in Juneau and outside of Anchorage, they are all saying you can move the capital to Anchorage, our state politics, the politics that matters for the people, get involved in the city politics. That's exactly the case that we have here. I find that often in this House, we get wrapped up in Yellowknife politics. The reason I see it so clearly is I get wrapped up in it and I get in the momentum and the swing of things. When I am all stressed out and we take a break, I go back to my riding and people really don't care. What they do care about is the programs that they receive. That's important. Why is that program cut? Why didn't you tell us about it? Why didn't you consult with us in this? It's the day-to-day things that matter. As a Regular Member, I spoke lots about housing. That's because that's what people care about. It's about roads, that's what people care about. When it comes to talking about more governance, that's not something we support. When we talk about something as mundane as name changes, they are saying don't worry about that. Take care of the real needs of the people today.

So I like to get back to the report itself. It is an...(inaudible)...report. Don't be surprised what our House does and doesn't want to do. Just like for the first time we heard a nay in the House the other day. It's not shocking to say no to a committee report. Assemblies, not only ours but throughout the world, do it all the time. They commission these huge reports and they don't accept the recommendations. They do it all the time. It's not that there is anything new here. We are not reinventing the wheel when we are presenting Bill 14, basically the status quo with a realignment.

I know that the honourable Tlicho Member and the Tlicho Government made a good case, a good presentation for better representation. I believe they will get it, but maybe not today. It's got to be put off until the next time.

I concur; we are not under-represented. When I think about the court case and talking with former Members of that era, let's say, what happened then is there were gross cases of under-representation, there were gross cases of very large constituencies and then the tension and the judge that made a decision for all those extra MLAs took all that into consideration. Today, like I said, the first thing I went to was the numbers. I don't know how any court would rule against us saying that constitutionally people's voices are not being heard. I do not believe that for a minute.

So with that, I am not convinced that the courts will tell us that we are under-represented. I am not convinced that the court will rule in the favour of more MLAs. I am not convinced that we need to improve our legislative numbers. With that, Madam Chair, I conclude my statements. I will be supporting Bill 14 as it is. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Menicoche. Next I have Mr. Michael McLeod.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Madam Chair, I guess, first of all, like everyone else, I should commend the commission for going out and taking the time to visit the communities and hear what the community concerns are. I am not totally convinced that all the factors were looked at when the report was compiled, the final report. However, we've had five commissions on electoral boundaries since 1978. The smaller communities, especially the smaller communities such as I have in my riding, have been very clear in terms of what they need to see, the concerns. It's always seen as a case that the commission doesn't seem to hear what they are saying. They put in the report that they heard the communities voice their concerns, but it doesn't seem to be factored into what the final analysis of what should be done. That concerns me.

The smaller communities have been saying consistently that they sometimes feel neglected because of their size, that the larger centres such as Yellowknife has easy access and a lot of the smaller communities are also saying that major changes within this government should not take place until all land claims are settled. That's something we don't seem to be factoring into our report. When we look at electoral boundaries and representation, I certainly take the view that is has to be fair and it has to be balanced. I can't say honestly that I feel I have the same voice as the city of Yellowknife when they have six more Members than I do. I have one crack at what I am going to say, whereas a larger centre such as Yellowknife can say it seven times in a row.

I would never convince anyone in my riding that Yellowknife needs another seat. I would be laughed at. My career would be over in politics, I am sure.

---Laughter

You also have to consider in the smaller ridings where we have a number of communities represented by one MLA, if that Member becomes a Minister, there is no one to cover for him or her. We also have to look at maybe one of the flaws in this commission was that we looked at strictly representation. I am concerned, of course, as I said before, that this report focuses too much on per capita and maybe not as much on what an MLA with more than one community has to go through. Maybe we should have packaged this up with the MLA compensation and benefits where we look at constituency budgets. There is really a difficulty when, I am sure the population factor is

something that has to be taken into consideration. Forty-eight percent of the population in one community, of course, we need to recognize that.

We also have to recognize there's a cost. It's $450,000 for another seat, times two. That's a lot of money. A couple of other people have said that surely 19 MLAs can represent 43,000 people. I have to agree with that. It's really unfair not to take in all the concerns from the communities. If the report is focussed so much, the emphasis is so much on per capita, then why bother with commissions? Why bother having these people go out there? This is the fifth time now to look at what the boundaries should be. The only other time in recent history that we saw a change is when the courts forced us to make a change in the 13th Assembly. So in that sense, it is a waste of money. If we are going to look at strictly numbers, let's not go back out there and start getting everybody's hopes up that we are going to listen to everything because we aren't. We are only listening to numbers, as far as I am concerned.

I keep hearing around the room let's not feel threatened. I have heard, every time I have stated that I supported one side or the other, people say well, then, somebody in Yellowknife is going to take you to court. If it's the other way around, they say the Tlicho is going to take you to court. So how could I not feel threatened when the threat is hanging out there that we are going to end up in court?