Thank you, Mr. Speaker. In the first whereas mentioned in the motion, it's noted that the federal Bill C-15 already provides flexibility on extending the Legislative Assembly's length of term for the 18^th and subsequent Legislative Assemblies and this is the crux of the matter. To avoid questions of ethics and avoid undemocratic stances, we as politicians should not be changing legislation that might provide benefits to ourselves, especially without clear direction from the electorate.

Yet this motion proposes that we circumvent normal public process and change both territorial and federal legislation, normally a huge and lengthy process, to allow the 17^th Legislative Assembly, that's us, to unilaterally extend our mandate originally for a full year but now amended to a length of time that is not stipulated.

The disregard for the public and the voice of the electorate is widely regarded by residents as undemocratic. In the easily 25-plus e-mails I have received so far - and they're still coming in as we speak - only one person was in favour of the proposal put forward in this motion.

Given the lack of democratic process for the electorate here, I would like to provide an opportunity for their voice in speaking to this motion. Here are some amazingly consistent but uniquely stated samples of the comments I received expressing clear and adamant opposition to the motion. These are all quotes.

“In my view, such an extension would be a conflict of interest for sitting MLAs.”

Another: “The democratic chill sweeping the country is very disturbing. When I heard the motion yesterday, my first thought was that the PMO is now dictating to the GNWT not only on devolution and environmental regulation but on democratic rights and freedoms. Not only is the GNWT rolling over indigenous rights but also the rights of all Northerners, both equally unacceptable.”

Here's another: “The proposal to extend the life of this Legislature and its unelected Premier by another year is an outrage and insult to voters. It suggests that the electorate isn't capable of holding more than one thought at the same time and that voters will be overcome with fatigue if they are asked to exercise our franchise three times in one month. Nonsense.”

And another: “About this 2016 proposal, I'll accept the idea if the Premier will agree to postpone the implementation date of devolution one more year.”

Here's another: “Pair this up with the federal vote suppression law and why would the citizens bother to show up? Again, I am not in favour of this proposed extension. I believe we, as constituents, voted in the previous election and knowledge of the specific time frame for that term in office. I further believe I have another vote at the end of the term to continue supporting my vote or making another choice.”

Here's another resident: “With devolution scheduled to take place in about three weeks, I don't see the necessity of government continuity for an additional 2.5 years. In 1.5 years on the original election date, people should have a say about the performance of their MLAs and the decisions they have made about devolution.”

Here's another: “I do not believe that you have the moral or ethical authority to even request this action. The people of the NWT voted for their MLAs for a four-year term and without going back to the electorate for approval, this Assembly cannot extend its mandate.”

Here's another: “As a political science major, I strongly oppose the question to extend the term for MLAs. Simply, it is highly unethical and very undemocratic.”

Another voice: “When you were elected, you were given a four-year mandate by the voters, not a five-year mandate. To change the term of your office is very self-serving and not what the voters of the NWT signed up for. You and the rest of the Assembly will benefit personally. In my view, that is not appropriate.”

The people speak further: “This is to express my objection to the motion to defer my right to vote in 2015.”

And again, they say: “You have forgotten that you work for us, the people of the NWT. We have to offer the job to you if we want you to continue working for us.”

A colourful one and I think Linden MacIntyre said it best this weekend in his Fifth Estate piece on Mike Duffy: “When you mistakenly believe that privilege means entitlement, you're already on the threshold of humiliation.”

I believe my colleague Ms. Bisaro referenced that one, so, obviously, that went to many of us.

Again, politically correct: “What lessons would Ukraine learn from us at this crucial time in their walk towards democracy? If Putin had decided to consult the Russian people for two days over a weekend before extending his job for one more year, we would have said he was making a farce of democracy. In the NWT you are doing the same and claim it is so I can better vote next year. What's the difference? For those of you contemplating to vote in favour of extending your term, don't do it.”

And again: “While I do not disagree with the concept of a five-year term, or perhaps a term that could vary between four and five years for future Assemblies, it is an affront to democracy for sitting Members to essentially vote themselves in for another term.”

And finally: “There are many challenges and decisions to be made during this devolution transition and we need closer public scrutiny during this time, not less. This includes the public being able to vote on who they want to continue steering the devolution ship.”

Almost all were very concerned about the lack of voice they had and the failure to give people their due in terms of consulting with the electorate. This is something that I've tried to bring up throughout my term, is we have ample opportunity to check with the people, get our finger on the pulse, hear what people are saying, get their view, and adjust our views accordingly. Here are some of the ways that our people have spoken to us on their voice.

“This issue has come up far too suddenly for ordinary citizens to give it due consideration. We would ask the Assembly to delay or table a vote on this motion.”