Reducing seats in N.W.T. legislature would be mistake: Jane Groenewegen

During the next session of the legislature the Northwest Territories Electoral Boundaries Commission is expected to table its final report. The commission is reviewing the number, size and boundaries of existing electoral districts and it could recommend some changes.

Trailbreaker host Loren McGinnis is speaking with Northern politicians leaders to find out what they think could or should be done to improve the electoral system, and revisiting whether consensus government itself is working.

Jane Groenewegen is a long-time territorial politician from Hay River, and a former MLA who served five terms more than 20 years before losing her seat in 2015. She also ran as an independent in the most recent federal election.

Their conversation is the second in a series.

This interview has been edited for length and clarity.

Loren McGinnis: Yesterday we heard from Kieron Testart, who is a champion of party politics and would like to see those introduced to our territorial system. You've said you're a supporter of consensus government, the system we have now. Why is that?

Jane Groenewegen: I think that for the size of our jurisdiction and for just the nature of our people, I just think it's the best system. I take that opinion somewhat from observing what goes on in the Yukon with party politics in such a small place. It just doesn't seem right, I think.With our consensus government, it does give everybody pretty much a good opportunity to go in there and work hard and make an impact on behalf of their constituents as opposed to, you know, having a party that's in power for a certain time. There's an opportunity there, if all things go well, to have their voice heard, either in private meetings,on the floor of the House, through committees. It gives every elected person the opportunity and the prospect of making their time worthwhile and meaningful. And on behalf of their constituents, which is what it's all about.

LM: There are a number of criticisms that Tesart and others would level at our system, that in an election where everybody's running independently, it can mean quite a disorganized set of priorities that roll in there once 19 people are elected. And then whatever everybody's individual agenda is kind of melts away. And maybe that's a moment for collaboration. But it does also seem like it changes the kind of choice people are given at thepoint of election and whether they can hope those priorities survive the blending of getting everybody together. Is that fair?

JG: Well, one of the nice things about the smaller constituencies and our small population here in the territory is that you probably know the person that's going to be elected very well. So you may not have a party platform to vote on, but the flipside of that is you probably know them. I mean, maybe it's a little bit more difficult in larger jurisdictions like Yellowknife, but I think that people have a fairly good idea of who they are electing. And then, of course, when you do get in there, you enter there as 19 equals. The first thing you do is sit down and you have a roundtable, a caucus meeting, and you plot out your priorities for the next four years.

I've observed that people will come there with an agenda, like there are some people who have a social agenda, some people are there on an environment agenda, some are on a business development agenda, but that doesn't mean that we don't have to deal with all kinds of different issues. And then people who are of like minded on any of those particular items do gravitate to each other and that brings strength to their positions and the things that they came there with priorities to address in the government. And I think I think it works.

Ithink there's room for improvement in the relationship between cabinet and the regular members side of the House. But it's a fine dance and it's a strange balance because, you know, on one hand, you're there to hold people accountable and call them out if think the government is putting forward initiatives that you don't support. And at the same time, you want to be really collaborative.

LM:The Electoral Boundaries Commission is talking about a few specific things. Are there changes you would like to see that you think would make a difference?

JG: Well, there's changes I wouldn't like to see, and that is the reduction of the members in the legislature. And people talk about, you know, the cost of an MLA. Listen, it's good value for money unless you want to go back to the days when we had a commissioner or an appointed council. We have evolved. We've gone from that to a fully elected government to calling our government leader a premier. I mean, there's all kinds of little milestones along the way where we've evolved. And in order for that evolution to continue and to be successful, we can't go back to fewermembers. Either you want that type of government and you're going to pay for it or you don't. Prior to division, I worked in an assembly with 24 members and then after division 19 members. And you know, you have to have a critical mass of people in order for the system to work.

There have been some issues around attendance of some members, for example. So if you take a standing committee with five members and you know, one takes the chair leaving four and somebody doesn't show up ... you're down to three people ... so I think, if anything, there should be more members, but at least 19 members.

LM: How do you see that question of representation between the capital and then the hub communities and then small communities?

JG: I think that the representation of people from the small communities is extremely important ...we have to protect that representation.

The court challenge by the Friends of Democracy really kind of put some detail to that question. Yellowknife got three extra members and then you get two for Inuvik and two for Hay River. And it does make it interesting to have two, you know, from a community the size of Hay River because you want to make sure you're kind of working in tandem.

LM: How do you feel about ranked ballots where voters can indicate a second and third choice.

JG:Idon't find it terribly relevant for the size of our constituencies because in some cases there isn't a whole lot of people running. So I think first past the post works fine for us. On a federal level there could be some discussion around electoral reform for sure, but not so much in our jurisdiction.