Thank you, Mr. Beaulieu. Next I have Mr. Blake.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I would just like to go back a ways. I believe it was last year, before the commission was struck up, that during our Caucus meeting we all agreed that we would give the commission a scenario of 18, 19 or 21 Members in this Legislature and also to give us different scenarios or options that would work with those different numbers that we gave this commission to go out and do public consultation. So I don’t think that this motion would make any changes. The commission did do their job, what we gave them direction to do. I believe that this would just extend things further. I will not support this motion. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Blake. To the motion. Mr. Ramsay.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Again, I just wanted to mention one item and that is that some Members believe that the commission did not take into consideration language, culture, history, land claim and self-government agreements. Under all scenarios, the commission did just that. Again, for the public’s perspective, I just want the public to know that that was taken into consideration. Some Members believe it wasn’t. It was, Madam Chair. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Ramsay. To the motion. Mr. Dolynny.

Thank you, Madam Chair. The Member who brought the motion forward knows full well my thoughts on this. Unfortunately, I will have to share it here publicly.

When I looked at this coming to the table here, I had to really stop and think, what is this motion telling us, what is this motion telling the Members of this Assembly, but more importantly, what is this motion telling the public? You don’t like what we hear, we throw you out? I tell you, I’ll say this again, this is not how we should be governing ourselves. We’re better than that. I say this will all due respect. This was an independent commission chaired by a judge. Let me underline those two words again, independent and judge. It doesn’t get any better than that.

I disagree that culture and language was not dealt with. They were dealt with, as all areas that were explained in a lot of our statements earlier today,

they took into consideration all of those parameters. I hold every one of those parameters to heart that they did take a look at that. They may not like what they hear, but they did take that into consideration.

Unfortunately, this motion I find a bit disrespectful not only to the commission itself, this motion is somewhat disrespectful to the House and any future appointment of anyone who wants to work for this House. Who would want to work for this House when we are going to throw your report out the window? We can’t do that. They gave us three unanimous decisions. I trust their judgment and I will be voting against this motion. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Dolynny. To the motion. Mr. Moses.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I just want to point out in the report under considerations that were taken by this commission, under Section 9 of the act it specifies factors that the commission must take into consideration, under Section 9(g), language, culture and other special community or diversity of interests of residents of any part of the Northwest Territories was taken into consideration. I just wanted to point that out to Members who feel that or even making accusations that the commission itself did contravene the act itself, that they covered all their bases and that’s what we’re making the decision on today.

To throw this motion out the window… As Mr. Dolynny said, if we don’t like your report, then you’re not working for us. I agree with that. We have a lot of strong debates on this, and I feel that we do have to make a decision today.

I stand strong with other committees who are going forward and making those tough decisions on behalf of residents of the Northwest Territories. That’s what we’re here to do, is make tough decisions and today is going to be one of them. I feel the commission did their job and I won’t be supporting this motion and going forward into voting on one of the motions that will be coming up later. Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you, Mr. Moses. Mr. Yakeleya.

Thank you, Madam Chair. This motion here speaks to reviewing this whole issue again. This is a very important motion. The work done by the Boundaries Commission is very important. I feel the commission is just doing the numbers. It isn’t looking at the essence and importance of culture, language and boundaries of the land. When they make suggestions like moving two nations of people together, which don’t come to agree on a riding, that’s not good. That’s too constrictive, too limited. They should be really looking at the importance of the language and culture.

Madam Chair, we even heard last week in the celebration, a former leader in the past went to Ottawa to say we have a unique style of government in the Northwest Territories. We have a unique set of values and cultures that need to be recognized. This report for me really doesn’t take into consideration the hard work that’s been done before us. It’s based on numbers. When you can easily say we’re taking this group of people and putting them over here, that’s not okay. Those days are gone. We’ve got to have the respect for people that was fought for in the Constitution and recognized in the land and boundaries of our people in the Northwest Territories.

I think that’s why, for me, it’s difficult to accept some of the recommendations. But to see this, I said no, no, no. If anything, we can expand the mandate or give them new marching orders to make it right. Let’s make it right. Let’s do the right thing and make it right. I know a riding is way over. We’ve got to make that right. So, for me, this motion says let’s do it again. Nothing wrong with that, to do the right thing, to say that we just want to disregard this and say it’s done already. We’re going to live with that consequence. That is something we really need to think about within ourselves.

So I’m going to support the emotion and say let’s do it right and in a way that’s respectful. I’m recognizing the hard work, the commission, the mandate and all that stuff that’s brought before us. It’s too constricting. It’s too limiting and it’s our responsibility to fix it.

So I want to say let’s go back and let’s do the right thing for the people. Thank you

Thank you, Mr. Yakeleya. To the motion. Mr. Hawkins.

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.

Thank you, Mr. Hawkins. To the motion. Mr. Bouchard.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I won’t be supporting this motion. I think we are here to make a decision. We’ve given them direction and we have some options before us. I believe we should be moving forward on this decision. This motion only clouds the decision-making before us. Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you for those succinct remarks, Mr. Bouchard. To the motion. Mr. Nadli.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I, too, will not be supporting this motion. We’ve had an opportunity to at least discuss the terms of reference in terms of trying to guide this commission when it was set up. I think they’ve done their work. They’ve done their due diligence in consulting with the public and brought back a report and now we need to move on it.

I also reject this motion on the grounds that if we’re going to do things the right way, we have to stop denying that there is a need for constitutional reform in terms of ensuring that the public has a say in terms of how it is that the legislative bodies and the judiciary in terms of how this government is supposed to function, reflective of public institutions at the same time, with First Nations principles. That, I think, is the process that has been completely ignored. Mahsi.

Thank you, Mr. Nadli. Mr. Lafferty.

Mahsi, Madam Chair. I just want to highlight a couple of things. First and foremost, we’re talking about the motion brought forward on 18, 19 and 21. Of course, I agree with 21.

---Laughter

I just want to speak to the whole instruction. I am very puzzled. It says “Considerations” language and culture will be taken into consideration, public input will be taken into consideration, and so on, as well as land claims and treaty land entitlement agreement, self-government.

What it boils down to is that again reiterating that they’ve listened to the people of my riding, Behchoko. So they came up with option 21 due to that fact. I’m glad they did, but at the same time if we were to consider option 18, for example, we would have two Members. We only have three fluent Aboriginal speakers in the House and two of them would be competing for one seat. Only one winner will come out, so we are going to be losing

one of the languages, whether it is South Slavey or Chipewyan.

Those are key factors. It says here they are taking language and culture into consideration. I clearly do not see that with these two positions that will be competing, two people competing for one seat, current Members. Going to 19, again amalgamating two different nations. There is Tlicho, Chipewyan, Cree, three different languages. I just want to reiterate that, because it says they are taking into consideration language and culture. I clearly don’t see that with two of the options being considered.

I just want to make it clear to this House that a process is in play, but at the same time it’s not being considered. I just want that on the record. Mahsi.

Thank you, Minister Lafferty. Mr. Menicoche.

Thank you very much, Madam Chair. I will not be supporting this motion only because I think it’s premature. We never had the full debate on 18, 19 and 21 options before us. It’s too bad they didn’t bring it up earlier because it’s something we should consider should these three options fail. Just on that alone, I won’t be supporting it. I would certainly like to hear the full debate on 18, 19 and 21, the options before us. I respect the work that was done by the Electoral Boundaries Commission as well. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Menicoche. To the motion.

Question is being called.

---Defeated

At this time, I’m going to call a brief break.

---SHORT RECESS

I will call Committee of the Whole back to order. Before we took the break, we were dealing with a committee motion brought forward by… Oh, we’d already finished it.

---Laughter

Sorry, I wasn’t paying attention. Alright, Mr. Menicoche.