Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I want to express my appreciation to the mover and the seconder of the motion for bringing it forward, but I, unfortunately, don't support that particular action.
On Friday I put some queries out on social media, through Facebook and through Twitter, and I asked anybody who saw it, listened, heard it, whatever, I asked them for comments and I asked them for positive or negative comments. I didn't care; I just wanted comments because I felt it very important that we get some kind of feedback.
I had considerable input from my constituents and from other people's constituents over the last three days. Of that reaction, 99 percent were against the action that's proposed in this motion.
I have concerns about the rationale for the motion, as I think many Members do. The federal election date is scheduled for October 19th, but I don't feel, as some Members do, that we have a guarantee that that federal election is going to be called for that date. There's certainly not a good track record on the part of the federal government which shows that they keep to a fixed election date. I don't think they've kept to one certainly in the last 10 or 15 years.
Another of the arguments is that the NWT is the only jurisdiction that doesn't have legislation which allows extension of a term to a maximum of five years, and Mr. Miltenberger spoke passionately to that. And that is true. But it goes against our current convention, and that convention is that any changes to legislation which will affect the Legislative Assembly are made in one Assembly for implementation in the next. In my time here, we have not ever made a change to legislation that has been implemented for the current Assembly. We do that, Mr. Speaker, to avoid the perception that the Assembly is doing something which will benefit us as Assembly Members.
One person's comment that I want to pass on: “I do not believe that you have the moral or ethical authority to even request this action.” That we are the only jurisdiction argument I find is rather weak.
We also know that Bill C-15 will allow the 18th Assembly to have the authority to extend an election up to five years, and every Assembly after that will have that authority, so in keeping with our convention and being true to ourselves, I think we need to ensure that we do it for the next Assembly, not for this one.
There's a very strong perception out in the public, certainly from what I saw, that Members are bringing this motion forward for personal benefit. That may or may not be true and I don't have an opinion on that, but public perception carries a really big weight and there are many people who believe that we are doing this for personal gain.
The timing for the consideration of this issue is normal. Part of our process when a motion comes forward, is we give notice of motion and then 48 hours later, or a little bit longer if it's over a weekend, the motion comes to the floor and we debate it. But for an issue which is as contentious as this one is, this timing is way too short. This needed to have consideration in the public realm for at least a month, more like two months or three months, and that certainly hasn't happened.
To quote another constituent, “Give us more time to debate and think about this issue.” That's a common theme that I heard in many, many comments back to me.
The public has said, and I believe them to be right, that they want to have a hand in any decision on this issue. Another comment: “Two days of so-called consultation is a sham. Why the rush?”
This issue needs to be discussed and debated and considered in the public. There needs to be formal consultation that should take place and it has not done so to this point.
Another concern for me is that there hasn't been adequate time to consider potential options. There was one option put forward and that was to extend our term for a year, but there are many other options and some have been mentioned already. We could extend for a week; we could extend it for two weeks; we could go earlier; we could go three months; we could go six months; we could have all the elections on one day, as has been mentioned; we could move the municipal election date; we could postpone it for the latest amount of time possible, so we could postpone for a day, for that matter, but we didn't have those discussions, certainly not in the public, and they need to be held.
I, like many of those people who I heard from, don't buy the argument that it is confusing to voters to have all three elections within the same month. Many people told me that they're affronted by that rationale, and I think more of my constituents than that suggests. I don't think they are quite as stupid as we think they are, or as some people think they are.
Constituents have mentioned that this action is undemocratic. The majority of the input that I received was very, very clear. This Assembly was elected for a four-year term. Our job contract is for four years. Any extension should be granted by the voters, not by the ones who are doing the job. That came through time and time again.
Another comment that I want to pass on: “I see voting to extend your own term as a huge conflict of interest.”
It's been said that there's a risk of poor voter turnout by having all three elections in the same month. I believe there's a risk of increased voter turnout if we have all the elections in the same month. People are already engaged; people are aware that voting is happening, and I think it's entirely possible that we could get greater voter turnout through doing this.
I also heard from people, similar to my own views, that I think if we have the election on the day as scheduled, October 5, 2015, and the other two elections a couple weeks later that that can be dealt with. Yes, it will make life a little bit difficult, but it's nothing that's insurmountable. It's nothing that we, as individuals in our communities and returning officers and CEOs, can't handle. There's certainly nothing, I don't think, that should delay it for a year and that came through again from people as well.
I'm very glad that the one-year date is off the table, but as has been stated, it leaves us with an unknown. We now don't know what's being contemplated.
This to me is an issue where every MLA should be representing the views and the wishes of their constituents. It's not a government issue. I don't feel there's any need for Cabinet solidarity. This is a Caucus issue in which we sit as19 individual Members wearing no hats, but simply representing our constituents. I look forward, hopefully, to hearing that Cabinet will have a free vote on this motion.
One last comment for those who do support this motion. This came from someone within the last day: “I beg of you to represent your constituents in an honest and ethical manner. I beg of you not to cross over the threshold of humiliation.” So I am not in support of the motion and I hope that my colleagues will see the light of day and vote against the motion as well. Thank you.