Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I'd like to thank the mover, Mrs. Groenewegen, for this amended motion, and to Mr. Miltenberger for allowing debate here today.

We are here to debate this motion because of an alleged concern that an overlap at potentially three levels of government elections in 2015 will somehow negatively affect the administration, the campaigning and overall voter participation of democracy from succeeding. I have stated on more than one occasion, the foundation of a democracy is built on our electoral process, a process that has rules and is bound by the social contract we share between the elected and the electorate body we represent. This motion today speaks to the first steps of changing this social contract for Members of the 17^th Assembly. Before I indicate whether I will or will not support this motion, I believe it is prudent for me to evaluate some of the statements within the motion for a better understanding and transparency.

The motion mentions the Legislative Assembly of Nunavut and the Yukon already have five-year maximum term offices in their legislation. This is true, but this alone should not be the sole determinant for our decision-making today. If this were the case, I could cite many other examples where I stood before this House to point to legislation enacted in the Yukon where we don't have it in the Northwest Territories; yet, this has had little sway in making our government jump up and say, yes, I'd like to have that same legislation today as well. I wish it were that easy, but now when the shoe is on the other foot, it appears that comparing legislation with our sister territory is a bona fide tactic now. This is good to know, as I'll endeavour to try this someday myself.

Furthermore, the motion speaks to some provinces having extended their terms to avoid overlap in election periods. Actually, to be honest, only two have. Let me explain.

According to the original fixed election schedule of October 2015, six subnational jurisdictions would, by default, have general elections during this same period as our federal counterparts. They are Newfoundland, Prince Edward Island, Ontario, Manitoba, Saskatchewan and, of course, ourselves, the Northwest Territories. Only two of these provinces, Manitoba and Saskatchewan, have enacted such legislation so far. PEI has stated in December 2013 they intend to bring forward legislation to extend, but hasn't done so yet. Ontario has a minority government and, to my understanding, may hold polls this spring on the subject but has not considered a term extension as of this date, and at this time we have not heard any plans to extend the legislative term in Newfoundland and Labrador. Aside from Nunavut and Yukon legislation name dropping and failing to speak to the actual dilemma presented to the six subnational jurisdictions directly affected, this motion is a bit blasé without these solid facts.

To the statement of concern of overlapping elections, the motion references unease of communication, administration and lower voter participation. To be clear, the overlap for the proposed territorial general election of October 5, 2015, is overlapping the federal election date of October 19, 2015, by only 17 days. By all accounts, there is a perception that the elections are on the same day, but in fact they are actually two weeks apart. To the concern of such overlap, many have mentioned that this could actually serve better for administration function for more effective use of returning office functions and space and for increased voter awareness and turnout.

I would like to further point out that actually only six Northwest Territories tax-based communities are affected by this overlap for school board and municipal elections, and with these elections taking place in such larger centres, the argument of lack of labour and suitable office space have little merit.

As for the concern of voter turnout or fatigue with such overlap, there is some evidence to suggest that holding more than one election campaign during the same time period increases voter turnout, and many of my constituents have echoed similar sentiments of support and that multiple elections at once would be more convenient.

There is much being mentioned today of all the alleged issues of such overlap, yet there are little facts to substantiate the bold moves of extending terms for another year. Again, many agree there are no real concerns to be had and that many are crying wolf when there is no reason to fear. Therefore, as was cited by many of my constituents and many residents of the Northwest Territories, why not just leave the date as is? This in itself is a good question, yet it appears that this motion is already making the assumption that status quo is no longer an option for our residents. Sadly, for this Assembly to make a bold assumption of such magnitude without the formal input and concern of its residents, in my opinion, is breaching our entrusted social contract of office. I ask that this issue be further investigated before we throw the baby out with the bathwater, as implied with this motion.

Continuing on, this motion also raises the overall premise of the Northwest Territories being left out in the cold, of having no such power to extend our terms, and this motion, in some ways, is a triggering mechanism to catch up with the rest of Canada. We need to ask ourselves, is this the principle on how we should govern ourselves moving forward?

Many residents feel that this motion is the beginning or the unravelling of moral principles of those of us in office. In essence, it is a breach of ideals of our democratic value system we long uphold. Many believe we have not examined all options, such as an early election of June 2015, nor have exhaustively justified the status quo of leaving the date as is, that many have unilaterally fast-forwarded on the principle of extending one's term for an indefinite term that we see with the amendment as a justification of what's best for the devolution files.

Whatever the motivation, it is clear that the public was taken by surprise last Thursday when this notice of motion was read into the House and that 96 hours later we are thrust to make a hasty decision personally affecting everybody in this room.

I don't wish to repeat all the messages, e-mails, text messages, Facebook replies and phone calls that we all received in the past four days on this subject, but I can assure you, Mr. Speaker, that the public is not in favour of this request of extension, period.

As I stated at the beginning, and I want to make perfectly clear, I am not in favour of this motion. This motion jumps on the very foundation of democracy I hold true to our electoral process. Anything that would lengthen my term of office from the original mandate bestowed on me by the people of Range Lake would, in my humble opinion, be a breach of my social contract of such principles and values.

For the record, I have no problem looking at term extension legislation that will assist future Assemblies, just as long as I don't personally benefit from such a decision of the House. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.