Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I appreciate hearing from my colleagues today. I heard many comments about cost. I am the first to admit that there is a cost to democracy, and I know that everybody in this House is aware of considerable government wastage that is way beyond the cost and the benefits of a plebiscite.
I've heard some comments about time. The Premier waxed loquacious about how this is going to delay everything. The motion itself points out that it's within his dictated time schedule, so there would be no delay whatsoever from this.
The people don't want this, people are saying. I didn't get any e-mails, people are saying. The idea of a plebiscite has been on the books for, what, two or three days here? EKOS research conducted a poll. Have people been consulted? Obviously not. They want a vote. They have spoken overwhelmingly and clearly.
I might mention that this is all the people of the Northwest Territories. More than two-thirds of every people in every riding have spoken and said we want a plebiscite, we want a vote, we want our voice heard.
People have mentioned that they are elected so, therefore, they are the voice of their people, but when people are elected, at least when I'm elected I also hear them saying, but we want you to listen to what we have to say, and we want you to act based on what you're hearing. Again, the people have spoken, more than two-thirds of the people - Aboriginal, non-Aboriginal, men, women and so on across the Northwest Territories - and they want this to happen. Are we listening, is my question. I think we are, by proposing this plebiscite and approving it today.
The Premier talked about why ask the Commissioner, he is a federal employee. That‘s pretty good semantics there. I'm surprised at the things I'm hearing. It's almost as if this is threatening. I'm sure it's not, but I'm very surprised at the tone of these remarks when we're talking about a democratic tool here. I'm pretty perplexed about that. Obviously, that's untrue. What we're doing here is asking the people what their comments are and what their take is on the idea of devolution in a non-binding, constructive, and proven, effective way.
On the other hand, the positive aspects of a plebiscite, of course, is the opportunity it presents to give a formal way to educate, inform and seek input and reflection. It provides a validation. I have no doubt that the Premier would get his validation to this, but in a much more meaningful way. This is a real opportunity for validation.
My colleague from the Deh Cho said, what kind of basis do we want to move forward on. Do we want to move forward on a dictatorial basis or do we want to move forward on a representative, democratic basis where we're actually listening to the people and responding. We're engaging, we're giving them an opportunity for their voice to be heard.
The right action here is, clearly, to get a plebiscite on the table within the Premier's time frame. The Chief Electoral Officer has provided assurance that this can be done and a good format for a question. Obviously, this doesn't detract from the accomplishments of devolution, what the Premier talked about. Indeed, it's a major accomplishment. In fact, it is an important step, just as the Premier said. However, how it's implemented will actually determine the benefits that the Premier spoke about. That is where we actually could do some real consultation here as opposed to the hollow sorts of things that have been done to date. Again, it is the people that are saying this, not me.
I look forward to a vote and I appreciate the support of Ms. Bisaro and Mr. Nadli and their comments today. I appreciate all the insights provided in everybody's comments. I will look forward to a plebiscite this coming May.