Thank you, Madam Chair. I, as well, want to start out by thanking the members of the commission, Justice Smallwood, Mr. Furlong and Mr. McCrea. I think they were charged with a very difficult mandate, and as members of the Electoral Boundaries Commission, I think they did do a good job.
We’ve heard from Mr. Bromley. I’m sure we will hear lots from other Members in the House on the three recommendations that are before us. I have to ask, ask myself, and I have to ask it out loud: What are we trying to achieve? The answer, in my view, is that we’re trying to achieve equity and parity of voting power. We’re trying to put in place the right to effective representation, and it’s a difficult task, given all the things that any commission has to consider. Mr. Bromley talked about a few of them, but I’m going to quote from the commission’s report, which said, “factors such as geography, community interest and minority representation may all need to be taken into account.” I think as Members living and working within this grand territory, I think we all understand that.
For me, the status quo is not an option, and on this the commission and I agree. Our current situation demands the correction of two obvious representation differences. One riding is 40 percent over and one riding is 40 percent under-represented and those need to be corrected. The status quo also demands more and better representation of Yellowknife ridings or in Yellowknife ridings. All the Yellowknife ridings are near or over the allowable 25 percent under-representation that’s been determined by the Supreme Court of Canada to be acceptable.
I’ve considered the commission’s report several times, and truth be told, I don’t feel that any of the three options presented achieves the sought after goal. I have looked at the options and see pros and
cons to each one of the three of them. I’d like to sort of talk about some of those and go through them a bit.
The 18 seats option gives us only one serious under-representation and that’s the riding of Monfwi. All Yellowknife ridings are still considerably under-represented. K’atlodeeche and Enterprise are moved into the Hay River riding, which makes sense to me. I believe that’s where they belong. The number of MLAs is reduced by one, which some say is a positive because it will give us more money for programs. The combination of Tu Nedhe and the Deh Cho ridings creates a very diverse riding and is not wanted by some of those people who would be in that riding.
The 19 seats gives the largest number of overrepresented ridings of the three options. We still have one seriously under-represented riding, again Monfwi. All the Yellowknife ridings are still considerably under-represented. The overrepresentation in the Tu Nedhe riding, as referenced by Mr. Bromley, is addressed, but moving Ndilo and Detah into that riding creates another situation, a diverse riding where nobody is happy.
The 21 seats option gives us the least number of overrepresented ridings. I think Mr. Bromley referenced that as well. It solves the problem in the Monfwi riding by creating a new riding in that area. All Yellowknife ridings are still under-represented, but there is greater voter parity because an eighth seat is created. The percentage of under-representation is lowered somewhat. This option allows for future growth in Yellowknife while voter parity is maintained. There is an increased cost to government because two new seats are added. That’s kind of a bit of my own analysis of what’s in there. There are lots of other things, I’m sure, that other people may add in or take out, but that’s what I got from reading the report.
To the issue of cost, as well, there have been minor discussions about costs and I have to address it, as well, as did Mr. Bromley. To those who decry the cost of two more MLAs, I have to ask them at what price comes democracy. In my view, democracy is a costly business, but if effective representation and voter parity demands more Members, then I believe it is well worth it. I think Mr. Bromley said it’s a legitimate cost and I agree with that.
The commission report discusses over and under-representation. It quotes from the 1999 NWT Supreme Court decision. Mr. Bromley spoke to how they perceived over and under-representation and what’s considered acceptable. I’d like to quote from three passages, or share three passages that are in the report. The first one says, “I am satisfied that there probably is justification…for the present overrepresentation of the electoral districts whose
percentage variations in population are below the average.” So, overrepresentation basically is okay.
The second phrase: “Deviations from voter parity can be justified provided that effective representation is not sacrificed.” We see that in every one of these three options that we’re looking at.
The third phrase, “Overrepresentation is preferable to under-representation.” That’s from the 1999 Supreme Court decision. I don’t necessarily agree with the way that that is presented, but the precedent is there. Overrepresentation is considered okay; under-representation is not. I think that in looking at the decision we are trying to make today, all Members of the House must consider those statements and they have to seriously consider them as we try to make our decision.
In looking at all the three options, the bottom line for me is that I have to respond to my constituents’ concerns, and I have to support my belief on what is best for my community, my community of Yellowknife.
Lastly, I want to address the idea that’s been talked about for some months now since the report has been made public, and that idea is to change our legislation to make recommendations of any future Electoral Boundaries Commission binding. I agree with that change. Currently, I find this to be an extremely political exercise. Any decision by MLAs about themselves is highly politically motivated and anybody that denies that is dreaming, I think. Maybe they’re on crack like Mayor Ford.
I feel it’s important that we move this discussion from the Chamber and we accept that an independent commission can and does do an excellent job, and that the recommendation of an independent commission is better than any decision that this Chamber can make.
I look forward to the comments from my colleagues as we debate this issue. I know it’s going to be a difficult decision, but I hope that we will all consider what is best in the interests of the territory as a whole. Thank you, Madam Chair.