Thank you, Madam Chair. I just want to be crystal clear; I never said the commission failed. I think it comes down to the instructions they began with. I could come up with great analogies and metaphors to describe that, but I think it really boils down to the instructions that could have been clearer and we don’t sometimes know that until we’ve launched this opportunity into wherever it goes. It travelled a journey. I don’t necessarily think the commission itself needs to go from corner to corner and corner to corner of the Northwest Territories – that’s four corners – I think it could go back, review some of the information and do the work.

I have to say with respect, back to Mr. Dolynny, who insists an independent judge chaired this, that was pretty clear because we all know and certainly respect that particular judge. In all fairness, judges’ decisions do get overturned and we do see conflicting positions even in the real world of courts.

It doesn’t mean that because a judge is sitting in the chair that it’s the best decision. Now we’re getting into individual decisions and I was trying to avoid that because I really think the commission did the best job they could under the instructions they were given. I want to be very clear. It’s not about any individual member. I think they did do the best job they could and I want to make sure that’s the message they hear. So I wish it wasn’t brought up and characterized that because a judge sat on the commission, the commission’s report is perfect. I hate to say it, but in my view and in the view of many, it isn’t perfect. We’re allowed to have these types of disagreements. It’s called Canada; it’s called democracy.

This motion is simply about one thing, but before I get to that one thing, I want to clear up something Mr. Ramsay had said when he said it will take nine months. We heard this morning – and he was in the same room I was – when the administrative staff member said it would take about six months to do this. So we have a minimum of a year to sort this out and we can do it if we really want to do it. If this is a priority of our government to get this boundaries issue correct the first time, this time, then we should be doing it. In six months, we could do this, if it was a priority. We could delay it if we wanted and, sure, it would take nine months/a year and then it will be too late, but we should not prejudice it already by automatically assuming we will get the exact same decision back.

I think the instructions refined, as Mr. Yakeleya has pointed out, and the perspective Mr. Beaulieu has brought forward… I mean instructions need to be refined. By kicking this problem down by just accepting one of the three present recommendations of 18, 19 or 21, down the road eight years from now saying don’t solve it, don’t worry, they’ll fix it, it isn’t ever going to happen. Someone has to have the political courage and I’ve seen that this needs to stop now. We could do this and say we need a crystal clear answer to our problem and here are the instructions. But the instructions are so vague that we didn’t get a good response to the problem, that is. I think we limited them with our instructions.

So this motion really only says one thing, let’s send it back to get the best decision we can because, quite frankly, I don’t think we have the best decision possible. I don’t think it’s doing the work that needs to be done. Those tough questions I don’t think were ever answered and today is our chance to do it right.

So to stay out of the discussion about why 18 is important or why 19 or 21 or whatever the case may be, I’m really focusing in on this. This is our opportunity to make a difference on one of the toughest choices we all have to make. This impacts people and it will impact all of us as Members.

Madam Chair, I urge Members to reconsider to support this motion and we could get it done in a timely fashion if we were committed to it. Thank you, Madam Chair.