Thank you, Madam Chair. I guess I just want to say I’m going to speak in favour of the amended motion, which is basically as mentioned by Mr. Abernethy and some others I guess repeatedly, but the fact is that we really need to find a way or a mechanism to get this electoral boundaries review process completely out of the hands of politicians.
I think Mr. Moses had said it in a really interesting way. How many hours have we spent on this particular subject, but yet we spend such a paltry amount on other very important subjects, whether it’s early childhood education, poverty, et cetera. That may not be a completely accurate statement in a sense of time, but I think just the debate alone today, I think, was an interesting reference how much time we’ve spent on this initiative in comparison to the others. I think that’s the contrast he was highlighting and I do support his observation in that.
As Mr. Abernethy had mentioned, there are mechanisms, and I’ve watched other regions go through this and there always seems to be a winner and loser in these situations when they amalgamate or delete or whatnot of a riding. But I’ve seen things work out, being a spectator in those ridings in the context of me watching from the Northwest Territories to watch other ridings whether they’re in Nova Scotia or New Brunswick, et cetera. It’s a true, fair approach, I think, of executing the will of the Legislature and certainly the will of the people. I think it gets there without anywhere near the trouble that we’re going through today.
The challenge – I don’t, sort of, envy the next Electoral Boundaries Commission, again assuming we can find anyone who wants to sit on it after this experience – but the real challenge, of course, is to find anyone without interest to be represented and I know people do represent their perspectives in the spirit and goodwill as they’re attended, but deep down inside I certainly hope that certain biases and
whatnot don’t come through. As such, I would think that the Electoral Boundaries Commission… I’m not sure if it’s struck or written into legislation that it has to be three, but I do think that that has to be a consideration at the time.
If you’re going to make something mandatory, you can’t put the smallest group of individuals together to come up with one of these biggest decisions. At that point, if you’ve only got three people, you might as well just give it to one person at that point. I mean, I’m thinking the electoral boundaries review or final decision has to go through something like a group of five, maybe. I know that that’s cumbersome in its own way, but the thing is you really need good tos and fros when you talk about decisions and discussions like this. I mean, look at today, it was a fantastic discussion. Yes, it is. Certainly, I think I have left four and a half hours on the table of my life on this one and it’s a discussion well invested by us because it’s so important for the people of the Northwest Territories, but when you think about that type of decision, I don’t know what the mechanisms are and I’m not about to move an amendment to another amendment. Quite frankly, it’s something that we need to keep in mind and I certainly hope the Board of Management of the day will make that type of decision to expand the roles of people in that job.
So although not an amendment, but more a point, saying that I would hope that the future commission would be a minimum of five people. Again, to help the diversity of perspectives, but to ensure that we get a fullness of discussion when or whatever position they take when they make their recommendation binding. I think to me that’s the key, but at the same time to help the diversity of perspectives, but to ensure that we get a fullness of discussion when or whatever position they take when we make their recommendation binding. I think to me that’s the key, but at the same time it’s the essence of what it should be. Thank you.