Thank you for your indulgence, Mr. Chair. I know it is not our typical process to allow the mover to close this debate, but I welcome the opportunity. I just wanted to comment on Members who have raised concerns about consultation, and I am not going to pretend like this isn't a big issue, but we talk about it all the time and typically around election cycles, and then we don't talk about until the next election cycle, and so on and so forth.
This is an attempt to draw public debate into a very specific proposal that was not proposing to transform this Chamber today into a political party system tomorrow, but rather to allow opportunities for those seeking this option to pursue it and have voters decide in a general election.
Members who are concerned about the lack of consultation on these amendments should be concerned about the lack of consultation on all amendments in this bill. There is a big difference between the CEO canvassing comments in her report or the standing committee holding two public hearings, I believe, in this building and taking a bill out on the road or soliciting input over a period of time. I am not going to pin that on the standing committee. This is the process that we follow in amending the Elections Act. This is how our process works. The bill is always fast-tracked to the House, and we make these decisions as quickly as we can, and as thoroughly as we can, based on the evidence provided in those reports.
However, changing polling day from Monday to Tuesday, that might be a concern people have an issue with, and I don't think they know that that is happening. We will see if it happens when that clause comes up. I think, if we have an issue with changing our Elections Act without fully informed consent, then the substance of these amendments, which only came into existence when the bill was given first reading, should also be toured out there. If you take issue with these amendments, we need to take issue with all of the amendments, because that is the only logical approach to the issue of consultation.
My honourable friend for Range Lake, in her comments about candidates with limited resources, I should note that a proposal for spending limits is not subject to these amendments, but to that issue of candidates with limited resources, not speaking in defence of political parties, but certainly one of the aspects of them is that they do have resources. Someone who doesn't have the financial means to contest an election, personal wealth to contest an election, to buy signs, to buy radio ads, a party could do that for them. Whereas some may look at this as an unfair advantage, it might be an advantage to those who don't have established fundraising networks, who don't have personal wealth, and who are looking for support.
We have an issue with getting women candidates running; you create organizations and institutions that have those resources. That could be another option. I am not saying it is the only one, but we are talking about options in this debate, and I am dismayed that the grounds for some of the comments from the Members are driven by a fear that incumbents would be at a disadvantage in a general election or independent candidates who are Members of this House would be at a disadvantage.
Members know, from the amendments that I have posted, both publicly and shared, that one of these amendments is to allow all independents to spend outside of election periods, so even independent challengers can level the playing field with incumbents, and I will save my comments for that amendment, because I still will bring it forward.
I appreciate where Members are coming from. I appreciate that they support consensus. The point of these amendments is not to condemn consensus to the dustbin of history. The point of these amendments is to allow our citizens to exercise their constitutional rights in a clear and consistent manner.
If a plebiscite failed and said, "No, we don't want party politics," you are giving an Assembly a mandate to ignore defining the constitutional rights, and that gives me great consternation. If a plebiscite passes, then you have to ask yourself, "How is this going to work for people who aren't very much invested, and for people who are concerned that political parties are going to have an unfair advantage in running against them?" I don't know if a plebiscite is the best way forward.
I think the debate is a good one to have. I know these amendments are obviously not going to pass, but I did want to speak to some of the concerns raised, because I think it is important that we talk about what these amendments represent, and perhaps it will enable change, but it is not change in and of itself, and to mischaracterize the amendments does a disservice to this debate. The debate should be around the fundamental democratic rights of our constituents and the choices they make in an election, and should they not have a full range of options available to them as guaranteed by the Charter of Rights and Freedoms? Thank you, Mr. Chair.