Thank you, Mr. Chair. It has been said but it is indeed worth repeating that the people
of Range Lake would like to thank the honourable Justice Shannon Smallwood, Mr. Charles Furlong and Mr. Ian McCrea for their independent, holistic and thorough analysis of this commission report we have before us. It was clear that early on in this process many, including members of the public and this House, took up compelling and galvanized positions. This, I assume, would have been challenging by the commission who concluded with three unanimous recommendations.
But let me remind everyone this was an independent commission, chaired by a judge, that looked at demographic data, census data, geographic data, self-government agreements, community boundaries, transportation, communication, language, culture, public input, 15 hearings in 14 communities, and of course, we’ve heard the legal guidelines set by the highest court in the land in relationship to the relative parity of 25 percent.
Yet with all this, in recent weeks and we’ve heard just recently that we felt an elephant in this room. That beast is the decision we will have to make about our electoral boundaries, and I can assure you, the elephant can’t stay with us and status quo is clearly not an option.
As difficult and complex as today’s mechanical exercise is, I wanted to avoid the pitfalls of the 50 shades of political grey, and concentrate on what I and many of my constituents believe that are the three issues before this House. From my constituents’ feedback, it boils down to the cost of democracy, the balance between rural and urban, and finally, the law before this House.
To the first part, how much is too much? That is, at what point do we say we have too many elected or too few? Clearly, some who spoke in the past and even today have clearly asked what is the ceiling of our adequate government, and what about the added costs that we’ve heard associated with adding elected Members to this House? These are all excellent questions, but yet, the actions of those who use such argument contradict in design. Let me explain. If we were indeed a good government and costs were important, as we were led to believe from Cabinet, then why does it appear that we are growing our public sector well beyond the current framework we are inheriting by the federal government and devolution?
Clearly, the federal government has been running things for decades on a basic framework, so what gives this government the golden touch to increase new responsibilities for an existing proven framework? To devolve is one thing, but to devolve and evolve on the same day. Good government, you say? Fiscally prudent? I’ll let the public decide. Clearly, if we were indeed questioning democracy strictly on cost alone, how can anyone denounce the addition of one or two seats of elected officials
to a potentially explosive balance sheet of new senior positions with the new devolution model?
There is no denying we are under significant budget restraint, and I do agree there is a price to pay for democracy, especially if it means the addition of political seats. I further concur we don’t want more government for the sake of programs, but using the cost argument as a means of distraction to denounce voters’ rights is not a solid enough argument to make at this juncture.
To my second part of rural and urban balance, it can be said that equality of voting power is probably the most important talked about issue for Yellowknife residents and was cited a number of times in the report. Now, balance is the key word here, and this balance should encompass every voter, no matter where they reside, should have fair representation. Without getting to the legal aspect, which I’ll reserve for later, we need to keep in mind that this territory has differences in design. I recognize and fully appreciate the enormous challenges some of my colleagues must face with multiple communities when compared to Yellowknife Members. But I also must be cognizant that adding more Members will not equate easier access to such representation given our geographic hurdles. Unfortunately, the commission report barely addresses this, but it is obvious that we need to retool and rethink how we finance rural Members with these added barriers in reaching out to their constituents. My point is, let’s not confuse the issues of barriers to access with the issue of voter balance.
Finally, from a legal sense we know a number of things, the first of which is that status quo is not an option as we have five constituencies that are currently under-represented. Secondly, it doesn’t matter what the model we agree on today as each model in its design has at least one riding that is under-represented according to the legal definition, and third, the court has already told us that absolute voter parity may be practically impossible, and even if it was possible, it may detract from the primary goal of effective representation when geography, community history and culture are a factor.
It has been said that we, the elected representatives of this consensus House, function in two primary roles: one being legislator, the other ombudsmen for our constituents. As well, the courts have said set clear jurisprudence for us to govern with on the premise that our vast, sparsely populated country with all our varied culture distinctions have to consider that deviations from voter parity may be necessary to ensure effective representation for all.
I’m trying to sum up here. We’ve been given an independent commission chaired by a judge that has given us options for new riding boundaries, and
it didn’t take long for every one of us to figure out that democracy can be a messy business, but we all know that it’s required. If we do not make changes, we will have one or more ridings under-represented by the standards set by the Supreme Court. If we reject that standard, we risk an expensive Charter challenge at the cost of the taxpayer.
In the end I don’t believe any one of us here today want to trigger such a court battle. As legislators ourselves, we cannot ignore the law. In leading up to today’s debate, it seems clear that some ridings in the Northwest Territories have to move away from boundaries encompassing predominantly one language or cultural group. This is a tough one as these are natural and long-standing boundaries to the Aboriginal people of our territory and they’ve been well served and represented in this Assembly. But today some land claims have been settled and negotiations are advanced for others. New systems of Aboriginal government are emerging, as well, and the distribution of population in our territory has been changing.
These are the facts we must reckon with. We have a duty to make difficult decisions according to the law of the land and we have a duty to make sure all NWT residents are fairly represented. Clearly, with today’s debate, we will have some differences among us on how this should be governed. I think we can change our electoral boundaries in ways that serve the people of the Northwest Territories, wherever they are, and live up to the principles of democracy that we hold dear. As Members, we have to live up to this challenge, because if we fail, we may have the courts doing our work for us and I don’t believe this is the intent of today’s exercise.
I ask my colleagues to put away political pressures. We have been given an independent commission report with some very clear options. We cannot ignore these. Thank you, Mr. Chair.