Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I do not support the initial motion nor the motion as amended, which now, understandably, will basically leave the election in 2015.
My principal belief is that people elected after four years should stick with it. To unilaterally add another year to our terms, again, basically goes against the fundamental philosophy which is to serve people and the public. As you might know, locally with all communities that I represent, local councils have two to three-year terms and they are quite happy with that, but as a territorial-level institution, we need to keep in mind the precedents which we're setting.
I understand why we are trying to do this is because of devolution, and implementation of the agreement is a significant challenge. It's going to bring us into a phased-in stage for the institution of authority and structure are mobilized to work effectively in delivering services to Northerners. I understand the need for consistency in leadership to ensure a smooth transition. However, I'm incredulous of the timing of this proposal.
Basically I see this as a smoke screen and as lining up of someone else's ducks. Devolution gives us authority over lands and resources. Now that we have more power, we want more power. I will propose another motion, a motion that goes with the status quo. Leave it as is and have the election on October 5, 2015, but at the same time supporting the principle of the idea of exploring an extended term from four to five years with consultations and public debate and the legislative draft to be considered then. Mahsi.