This is page numbers 4521 - 4570 of the Hansard for the 18th Assembly, 3rd Session. The original version can be accessed on the Legislative Assembly's website or by contacting the Legislative Assembly Library. The word of the day was work.

Topics

Kieron Testart

Kieron Testart Kam Lake

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.

The Chair

The Chair Frederick Blake Jr.

Thank you, Mr. Testart. Next on the list, we have Mr. Beaulieu.

Tom Beaulieu

Tom Beaulieu Tu Nedhe-Wiilideh

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Mr. Chair, I don't support this amendment, but I have actually had a discussion with the people that I represent; well, with the leadership. Their main concern was a fair distribution of resources right across the territory. I'm not sure that consensus government creates a fair distribution of resources to all ridings. I'm not saying it's not happening. What I'm saying is the consensus government system doesn't create an atmosphere where everybody feels that they would be getting their fair share of the resources being spent by government.

I think that we need to be able to go back to people in this room who support the only consensus government. We should go back and look at what the principles of consensus government is. I believe that the way the system is set up here, where you have 11 people sitting essentially in opposition and seven people on Cabinet, would work if the consensus government was followed with true principles and true intent. I believe that it has great potential for not representing individuals who sit in opposition, truly in opposition of Cabinet. It doesn't work if Cabinet doesn't wish it to work.

The system where everybody is represented and everyone has a say is not really coming out under this current consensus government. I feel that people wouldn't even consider party politics or give it a second thought if we thought the system was working the way it should work. By ensuring that everybody has a say in what goes on, who sits on Cabinet, who gets which dollars into which riding on which types of projects, where the projects are brought to here and discussed, the decision is made. That's where this party politics seems to creep into it, where the decision is made by a Cabinet which is like a party at this point. Then you have Regular Members who will vote with Cabinet on any issue that makes them the backbenchers, the people who are trying to hold government accountable for reasons that we would state would lose the vote, so you don't have accountability.

In a true consensus government, if we want to talk about how consensus government should work, then it works by the opposition having the majority vote. This ensures that each and every Member in the House is represented and would have to be represented. Cabinets representing their ridings and the people on this side have a fair opportunity to represent their ridings, as well. Maybe party politics is not the way to do it. Maybe the way to do is to go back to the principles of consensus government and follow consensus government.

I mean, it works if it's followed. It doesn't work if it's not followed. I mean I have done fairly well with the projects, but I didn't have a say in a lot of things that went on. I didn't have a say when huge projects were approved in the ridings of people who sit on Cabinet. What I did try to do and what we did try to do on this side of the House was ask the Cabinet to make small tweaks; minor, maybe a small percentage in order to say that this is what we feel that is important to the ridings that we represent, but we don't have the authority or the ability, I'll say, to be able to carry out what our wishes are in here. It's not because we are asking for too much. It's because we don't have the votes to be able to ask for the little that we have, to be able to get the little that we have asked for. If consensus government was working, this wouldn't even be a discussion at this point.

I think that, at some point down the road, there will be another discussion. Maybe it has to be in a plebiscite. That's what people here in the room seem to think would be good. Go back to the communities and ask them. Unfortunately, the time is not now.

I can't support this amendment, because the people I represent don't want me to support anything that has to do with party politics at this time. Most of the communities that I represent grew up in the system, the leaders grew up in the system of consensus government, and as the honourable Member from Nahendeh said, they said, "You need to give it a full opportunity again." At least one more time to see if the system would work.

I can't support the amendment, but I just wanted to state the reasons why I even considered going out and talking to the leadership on this. It's because I thought that this one wasn't working as well, either. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

The Chair

The Chair Frederick Blake Jr.

Thank you, Mr. Beaulieu. That's the end of our list, I believe. I let everyone speak a little off-topic, but I know it is an important issue here. To the other motions, if we could stick to the actual motion, that would be appreciated. To the motion.

Some Hon. Members

Question.

The Chair

The Chair Frederick Blake Jr.

Question has been called. All those in favour, please rise.

Recorded Vote
Consideration In Committee Of The Whole Of Bills And Other Matters

Page 4565

Deputy Clerk Of The House Mr. Ball

The Member for Kam Lake.

Recorded Vote
Consideration In Committee Of The Whole Of Bills And Other Matters

Page 4565

The Chair

The Chair Frederick Blake Jr.

All those opposed, please rise.

Recorded Vote
Consideration In Committee Of The Whole Of Bills And Other Matters

Page 4565

Deputy Clerk Of The House Mr. Ball

The Member for Tu Nedhe-Wiilideh, the Member for Nahendeh, the Member for Frame Lake, the Member for Yellowknife Centre, the Member for Deh Cho, the Member for Inuvik Boot Lake, the Member for Range Lake, the Member for Great Slave, the Member for Yellowknife South, the Member for Inuvik Twin Lakes, the Member for Hay River South, the Member for Hay River North, the Member for Sahtu, the Member for Yellowknife North.

Recorded Vote
Consideration In Committee Of The Whole Of Bills And Other Matters

Page 4565

The Chair

The Chair Frederick Blake Jr.

All those abstaining, please rise.

Recorded Vote
Consideration In Committee Of The Whole Of Bills And Other Matters

Page 4565

Deputy Clerk Of The House Mr. Ball

The Member for Thebacha.

Recorded Vote
Consideration In Committee Of The Whole Of Bills And Other Matters

Page 4565

The Chair

The Chair Frederick Blake Jr.

The results of the recorded vote: one in favour, 14 opposed, one abstention. The motion is defeated.

---Defeated

Recorded Vote
Consideration In Committee Of The Whole Of Bills And Other Matters

Page 4565

The Chair

The Chair Frederick Blake Jr.

With that, Members, we will call a short recess. Thank you.

---SHORT RECESS

Recorded Vote
Consideration In Committee Of The Whole Of Bills And Other Matters

Page 4565

The Chair

The Chair Frederick Blake Jr.

Thank you, committee. We will now call the Committee of the Whole back to order. Committee, we were on clause 2. We will continue. Does committee agree?

Recorded Vote
Consideration In Committee Of The Whole Of Bills And Other Matters

Page 4566

Some Hon. Members

Agreed.

Recorded Vote
Consideration In Committee Of The Whole Of Bills And Other Matters

Page 4566

The Chair

The Chair Frederick Blake Jr.

Thank you. We will now do the majority in groups.

---Clauses 3 to 33 inclusive approved

Recorded Vote
Consideration In Committee Of The Whole Of Bills And Other Matters

Page 4566

The Chair

The Chair Frederick Blake Jr.

Thank you. Mr. Testart.

Kieron Testart

Kieron Testart Kam Lake

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Mr. Chair, I move that Bill 24 be amended in clause 34 by adding the following after paragraph (a):

(a.1) adding the following after paragraph (o):

(o.1) if the person being nominated wishes to be identified on the ballot as a member of a registered political party

(i) contain the consent of the party's authorized representative, as indicated by the authorized representative's signature, and

(ii) contain the person's written declaration that he or she is a member of a registered political party and wishes to be identified as a member of that party on the ballot.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

The Chair

The Chair Frederick Blake Jr.

Thank you, Mr. Testart. Thank you, committee. I did not yet call clause 34, but I will call it now, and we will proceed to the motion. Does committee agree?

Some Hon. Members

Agreed.

The Chair

The Chair Frederick Blake Jr.

Mr. Testart.

Kieron Testart

Kieron Testart Kam Lake

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I know which way the wind is blowing on this amendment, so I won't belabour the point too much, but for the purposes of posterity, I wish to make sure these amendments make their way into the official record so that we can see clearly what was being proposed and clearly how these amendments were designed to create options for our residents.

There are a few more amendments I will move as well for the same purposes, but we don't have to belabour the point, and I won't be asking for recorded votes. Thank you.

The Chair

The Chair Frederick Blake Jr.

Thank you, Mr. Testart. The motion is in on the floor. The motion has been distributed. The motion is in order. To the motion.

Some Hon. Members

Question.

The Chair

The Chair Frederick Blake Jr.

All those in favour, please rise. Mr. Testart.