Thank you, Madam Chair. I, too, would like to thank the commission for their hard work and all the effort that they’ve made in looking at the three options that we gave them: 18, 19 and 21. Obviously, the debate includes the court
action requiring it to be within 25 percent over or under. But we also have to look at the territory, the size of the territory, the population of the territory and, I believe, the growth of our territory. We’re seeing a decline in the population.
I guess one of the questions or one of the comments is effective representation. We look at these ridings and MLAs have different positions and different jobs. Like myself, I represent half of one community. In my riding, I could probably walk it in a couple of hours. It’s probably a few miles in length, but some MLAs have to represent several communities, and most communities they have to fly into.
Again, some MLAs live in Yellowknife here, represent Yellowknife where the population is very dense and you’re representing a large group of people, but within a mile or two of each other. Some MLAs are representing several communities and you have to get to those communities. Some of them are very remote. So I think that’s a factor that has to be included in this.
I’ve gone through the pros and cons of each number. Eighteen, I mean, obviously we’d see a reduction in costs, but I think the general public has been very adamant that they don’t want to see that many more MLAs. We have some of the lowest numbers as far as representation for MLAs in the country. We travel around and we talk to some of the groups that are around the country that represent 30,000 people, as an example. I mean, I understand that we’re small, we’re a small territory, but big in land and it’s a vast territory to cover. So I understand the numbers that are associated.
The cons of 18, I think there would be melding of a few Aboriginal groups that I don’t think would be very effective. There are issues of language. Mr. Beaulieu has talked to us about it. You’re eliminating a riding; you’re also talking about workload. You know, the workload between Cabinet Ministers, Regular Members, you have one less person doing the work and dividing up the work. As well as the numbers, it’s also a numbers game when we sit here in consensus government about if we have 18 Members, there are seven Members on the Cabinet and there are 11 on this side. If we have 18, then it’s seven and 10. So the Cabinet, in our consensus government, would only require a couple of votes to move things forward, which I don’t necessarily agree with.
The 19 option I see as the most effective one. It’s closest to the status quo. I think if we tweak it a little bit, it’s giving us options, it’s the easiest, the least disruptive. We’re not talking about taking on any additional costs. So I guess the cons are, yes, we have a group of two MLAs that are affected, one giving up some and one taking on some. But I think currently, like I’ve indicated, everyone that I’ve
talked to in the general public don’t want to see more MLAs. So I’m kind of leaning towards that.
The 21 option, I personally don’t see a lot of effectiveness to it. We have the public that’s out there, we sit here and talk about costs associated, we look at our budgets, we talk about fiscal restraint, we talk about wanting more money for different programs, yet we’re willing to take on additional costs for MLAs. I know we’re talking about numbers, but numbers aren’t necessarily what is happening. We’re looking at languages, cultures, there are a whole bunch of different factors.
The cons to 21 also talk about the numbers. Again, the numbers game here in consensus government, we’re talking about Cabinet requiring four people to make consensus happen, which would slow down the process of approval of budgets and acts and activities that the government happens. It would give strength to the larger centres, I think, because they would have larger numbers in Yellowknife as MLAs representation, which the people in the regions have concerns with that. We debate on a daily basis about decentralization, the devolution that’s just happened. I don’t want to pick on my colleagues from Yellowknife, but there has been a lot of job creation through devolution in the capital. The numbers game of adding another Yellowknife MLA is concerning to the people in the regions. Those are some of the things that I have concerns with and I have heard from the general public.
I appreciate the work from the commission, but all three options don’t have any said solution. There are still difficulties with each option.
Ms. Bisaro talked about the motion that may come forward about us making it mandatory to take the commission’s recommendations as gospel and that we don’t have involvement and not to involve the political side of it. But the problem is that there are so many factors to each change that we make. If we change numbers, if we change the lines dividing regions, there are so many factors that I think have to be included at this Legislative Assembly level politically, linguistically, culturally and consensus government-wise. Like I talked about the numbers, if you change one riding, the numbers may change the way we operate as a Legislative Assembly and how this government operates.
Those are some of the comments I have for those three options. Thank you, Madam Chair.