Thank you, Mr. Testart. There is a motion in order. To the motion.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Mr. Chair, this motion simply lays out the definitions that clarify later amendments that will be proposed. Quite plainly, it speaks to what a political party is, what a registered political party is, and what an authorized representative is in terms of the regulations that will be proposed under the act.

Again, this provides absolute certainty to Northerners and, in particular, those who are subject to either the GNWT's code of conduct or other statutes that make explicit reference to Territorial political parties without defining them. This clarifies that issue and clearly defines what a political party is and the difference between a group of people who have formed one and an officially registered one that can participate in elections.

They are simple definitions, Mr. Chair. I look forward to the debate on them. I would like to request a recorded vote. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Testart. To the motion. Mr. Vanthuyne.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate that there are some other potential amendments that are going to be coming from the honourable Member from Kam Lake as it relates to his views and his opinions toward making amendments that would align for party politics. I think, on the onset, it is important for me to share some of my views and allow folks to get an understanding of where I will be positioning myself and what my opinion will be.

Mr. Chair, my colleague from Kam Lake has introduced an amendment and will be introducing others to the Elections and Plebiscites Act to promote the establishment of political parties in the NWT. It is not the first time, of course, that party politics have been proposed in the NWT. It likely won't be the last.

Mr. Chair, our unique form of government is an experiment to some degree. It is an ongoing attempt to find the best way to manage our affairs with respect to our unique history and the heritage of the diverse peoples of the NWT. As such, it is constantly growing and changing. In such a dynamic system, it is important to be open to new ideas and possibilities of change and improvement.

For that reason, I welcome my colleague's suggestions for change, as he has said the goal of his proposal is to enhance the democratic rights of our residents. That is the most important goal of any political system, to give citizens a clear voice.

Mr. Chair, my colleague believes that it is the right of Canadians to establish party politics. I agree that, under the charter, we have that right. I support him in bringing forward his position about changing how we conduct business in the House. However, I don't believe that a party system is the right answer for the NWT.

Mr. Chair, democracy emerged from the town meeting where citizens were afforded a chance to voice their opinions on issues of public interest. Parties emerged as a way of consolidating positions of broad interest into respective groups.

In the NWT, we are blessed with a small but hugely diverse population. It includes people from many different backgrounds, cultures, and languages. We are fortunate that, in our system, each person actually has the opportunity to speak up, have their voice heard, and make a difference. Importantly, our system also pays respect to the decision-making traditions of the Indigenous people of whom this territory we all live in.

Consensus is not a perfect system; I will admit it. All of us in this room know that it requires ongoing attention and vigilance to make it work, but in a territory with a diversity in population, I believe it remains the best system to respond to the needs of our society.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Chair, I stated in an article in my recent newsletter that I don't want to be in a system where cooperation is out and control is in. I believe that a partisan system will begin to diminish somewhat the diversity, rather than enhance it. I believe that unique voices will be discouraged or even silenced in certain ways under a party system.

Mr. Speaker, you don't have to look very far to see the divisions that partisanship can cause. We live in a world that is increasingly divided. I don't believe that we need to divide into camps in order to manage our public affairs in the NWT.

Consensus isn't perfect, Mr. Speaker, but I believe it is uniquely ours, and it promotes unity, collaboration, and most importantly, it represents our identity and who we are as a people. For those reasons, I will not be in support of the amendment. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Mr. Vanthuyne. Next, we have Mr. Abernethy.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I thank the Member for bringing this motion to the floor. I think it is important to have this type of discussion. However, I do have a number of concerns. I don't actually believe that this is the right venue to be having this discussion. I know the Member has said that this is a mechanism to get this into the floor to have those discussions.

In the Government of the Northwest Territories, if a government is moving legislation, it usually involves developing a legislative proposal based on what the MLAs, 19, heard during election campaign. From the LP, that would go to a committee for review to make sure that it is consistent with what we heard from the public.

The LP would then turn into a legislative process, which would involve going out to the communities, going out to residents of the Northwest Territories, listening to them, and making sure that the legislation meets the desires of the people, or at least the vast majority of the people of the Northwest Territories.

From then, there would be a first and a second reading, at which opportunity committee would then be given that piece of legislation to take on the road for 120 days, where they have an opportunity to check to see whether or not the Cabinet of the day actually got the legislation right. This is a great opportunity for input to be provided, amendments to be made, and the voices of the people to be heard, at which point, after amendments, if appropriate, there would be a motion or a bill would then come to the floor for third reading.

I think the honourable Member, Mr. O'Reilly, and his committee did a significant amount of work going out and engaging the public and getting feedback on the Elections and Plebiscites Act, and at no time did I hear anybody come in and say that we need to incorporate parties through this process, that we need to have that discussion at this point in time. I am not saying we don't need to have this discussion; I am saying that nobody brought it up.

I have had an opportunity to reach out to my constituents across the Northwest Territories, as well as my constituents in my riding, and what I have heard is some people saying, yeah, they like the idea of a party. I have heard lots of people say what they would prefer to see is a consensus government where people remember what the principles of consensus government are, and that we all, on every side of the House, work together in the best interests of the people of the Northwest Territories. I have also heard people say, in particular a lot of the Aboriginal governments, that they don't want a party system. They want to change the way that we provide services, and they want guaranteed seats.

There isn't consensus on the system that we need to have or whether or not there even needs to be change.

The honourable Member for Kam Lake responded to a constituent of mine recently, who raised concerns about what was being proposed, and the MLA indicated that it is important to have public discussion on the proposed amendment, but I think it's important that we are having the discussion publicly. I think what the Member has missed is to have the discussion with the public, and if this is something that we are going to discuss, we need to take it to the public and make sure that we get it right.

Frankly, if we move to a party system here in the Northwest Territories, it changes everything. It is a fundamental change in how we provide governance in this territory. It means no more budgets being shared with MLAs on the other side of the House. It means no more working on bills together. It means no more healthy debate and discussion. It is a different system completely, and if we are going to do it, I believe, without question, that the people of the Northwest Territories have to tell us to do it.

I have encouraged the Member to consider a plebiscite. I have encouraged the Member to actually bring forward a private Member's bill that could go through normal process and get proper feedback. I strongly believe that bringing to the floor through this means is inconsistent with the principles and tenets and is not giving the public their due course and their opportunity to have meaningful input into something. It is, to me, more like an end run, and I am frustrated that we are having the conversation here today; I am not saying that we don't need to have the conversation.

Having said all that, I also don't support party politics in the Northwest Territories. I believe, and what I have heard more than anything, is that we need to do better. We need to work together. We have to remember why we are here, and we have to stop the partisanship behaviour that happens on both sides of this House. We need to do better.

I can't support this motion. I don't believe, necessarily, all of the descriptions that the Member has provided. This does create the opening for party politics in the Northwest Territories. If this motion is defeated, I don't think we will necessarily see the rest of the motions, because they wouldn't make sense without this one passing first, but some of the motions that were being proposed include spending. By allowing a party to spend in advance of an election it is really creating unfair opportunity and disadvantage for those who actually believe in consensus government, as opposed to those who want to run a party system. I am frustrated, and I won't be supporting those motions either.

I thank the Member for bringing it. I wish he had used a mechanism that I feel would be more appropriate to have this discussion and not come by way of an end run. I hope that the Member continues to engage and have this dialogue because I am interested to hear what the people have to say.

As the MLA for Great Slave, because this is a review of the Elections and Plebiscites Act and we all speak as incumbents, not Ministers or Regular Members, this is an open vote for everybody, I cannot support this motion, and I don't think anybody should either. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, committee. I would like to remind Members that the debate should be to the motion. This motion proposes adding definitions to the motion. I realize it is a contentious issue here. Any further questions? Mr. Nadli.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Mr. Chair, I, too, would like to express my thoughts on this proposed amendment.

It is very interesting where we find ourselves at currently and what caused the movement to bring us inevitable point. My understanding is that there is frustration in terms of accountability and transparency. How do you make Cabinet, how do you make Ministers more accountable? That is the frustration. The consensus government does not foster a very transparent and accountable process. Some people believe that, and for those reasons today, an amendment has been proposed that, if you file your nomination or register as a candidate, you have to declare whether you affiliate yourself with a party or not, and it is very unfortunate that we have come to this point.

What is also interesting is my colleague had expressed, well, possibly what should have happened perhaps in terms of process is that, really, a venue to put forth this concept and ensure that a vigilant debate from all sides could happen. That initiative was never undertaken by Cabinet. There have been maybe some gestures towards reforming and looking at new concepts of democracy to ensure that it works within the confines of the consensus system, but that did not happen. That did not happen from Cabinet or the leaders from Cabinet. Instead, what's happening is, from outside, we proposed the idea of party politics because we need to ensure that there's a level of transparency and accountability. That's what precipitated this, is my understanding, this provision to amend the Elections Act.

Also in saying that, too, I'm not prepared to support the amendment. You know, we already have parties. We have Yellowknife. Interestingly enough, you know, we also have regional centres and we also have small communities. You know, so do we have a party system? Indeed, we do. We have a Cabinet and we have Regular MLAs on the side, so you can't tell me that we have one party. There are two parties. I think it's not a good time for us to make changes that are going to have a significant impact in terms of how people work together in the Northwest Territories. It's just not the right time to bring forth a concept like that.

Really, what we are kind of seeing, too, as my colleague expressed, "Well, this is a unique experience in terms of governance." First Nations and democracy, democratic principles and concepts brought together so that non-Indigenous and Indigenous people can live and work together.

What it is, is that we have a public government based on fiduciary obligations on behalf of First Nations to serve the interests of Dene, Inuvialuit, and Metis of the Northwest Territories. That's the experiment that we have now and we have to make it work.

At the end of the day, it's clear and acknowledged that the extent of consultation was not far and wide. You know, people at the community level need to understand of the implications of the changes that we are proposing. Therefore, I'm not in a position to support this amendment. Mahsi.

Thank you, Mr. Nadli. Next on the list we have Mr. McNeely.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I respect the three previous presenters and agree with all the issues raised. I will not be supporting this amendment, for all the reasons being that it would deny the people who I serve the right in having their own deliberations within themselves as voters, the governments they sit on and represent.

There are several organizations in the Sahtu that I represent, and I will not stand in the way of their democratic right to voice and have an input into this process. We have a system, as mentioned by the Member from Great Slave, that there is a system to encounter and a process to engage with those individuals.

In short, for all the reasons raised, I agree and will not repeat the three speakers before me. In having said that, I don't agree with this. Mahsi.

Thank you, Mr. McNeely. Next on the list, we have Minister Sebert.

Yes, thank you, Mr. Chair. I really appreciate the amount of work that the Member proposing these amendments has put into this project, if I can call it that.

I have long been a supporter of a certain party, so I am partisan in that sense. I frankly could see a future where there would be parties in the Northwest Territories. My problem with this proposal is the manner in which it has come to us. It was only raised a couple of weeks ago. I appreciate that the Member opposite has been speaking about this issue and his position on it is well known, but why not have a private Member's bill and go through the normal processes?

I really don't have much of an idea what the voters in my riding would think about this. They have mainly been concerned about another certain issue. I haven't really raised it with them.

The Member who was speaking about this motion talked about consultation and review. We really haven't done enough of that for this kind of change. I'm not necessarily opposed to the idea of parties in the Northwest Territories, but I don't think this is the way that we should get there. I'm going to abstain on this vote. Thank you.

Thank you, Minister Sebert. Next, we have Minister Cochrane.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. When this was first brought to us as Members of the Legislative Assembly, I did talk a little bit more to the Member from Kam Lake, who was bringing this forward. At that time, my biggest concern was around the money. Within this, what will be coming up later, is that introducing that, if this goes through, that there would be an extra $30,000 that can be utilized a year before the election or during the year of the election. I have always been about fairness and I have tried to maintain that fairness throughout all of my work here at the Legislative Assembly. This doesn't make it fair. When you have an extra $30,000, they have an extra year to campaign. The Legislative Assembly has to be open to as many people as possible.

When I came in here, not only was I a woman, I was also a woman of poverty. To be able to just find the money that it took to run the election on its own meant that I used every cent in my savings. It meant that I racked up a Visa to the maximum. In fact, I couldn't even spend the amount of money because I didn't have it.

If we do this, my biggest concern is now that somebody would have an advantage. They would have up to possibly $60,000 to be able to campaign. That is not accessible for people in poverty. We have to be accessible in this government. We have to allow people to be able to get into these seats. That $60,000 is not going to do it.

That was my major concern. However, I was open to looking at the idea of the party system within here, but I put it on my Facebook because I decided that it was something that I needed to hear from the people. I didn't realize how many comments I would get; not as many on my Facebook, but I had phone calls all weekend from people saying "Yes, no, yes, no, yes, no." All it told me was that this is a huge issue. This isn't a small issue, Mr. Chair. People want a say in this. People are afraid. They want to have a say.

I think that, one, I can't agree with the spending. Two, we need to have a plebiscite on this. Therefore, because of that, I cannot support this amendment. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Minister Cochrane. Next, we have Mr. O'Reilly.

Thanks, Mr. Chair. I guess what we have before us is a bill that was developed in response to reports from the Chief Electoral Officer; the observations and recommendations that she made in running the election in 2015. There were opportunities for the public to review and comment on her report. Maybe they could have been better, and I will agree with the mover of this motion that we probably could do a better job in terms of the public review of this bill itself, but the Chief Electoral Officer did not raise the issue of party politics in her reports. That's not part of why this bill was being brought forward.

I guess, on that basis alone, I have some difficulty with the proposal from the Member from Kam Lake that this is being sort of piggybacked onto this work. I think that party politics represents a very fundamental change to the way that we carry out governance in the Northwest Territories, and that it really does deserve a public discussion and debate. I think we have heard that it's going to be a divisive debate and discussion. We know that.

I think trying to do this, even though I understand that this is enabling, that it doesn't require party politics, it certainly opens the door. I think once you open that door, there's no coming back. It is very difficult to come back.

I agree with others. I think that the more appropriate way to do this, rather than piggyback it onto this bill, is to do it as a private Member's bill and/or a plebiscite. If you're going to do a plebiscite, there needs to be a very clear question around registration of political parties and affiliation on ballots. I think you can devise a clear question around those ideas and, you know, I'm willing to have that discussion and debate, but I don't think we have it in the context of this bill and the changes that it proposes, which are really to improve our democratic system, improve elections, and improve the ability of the Chief Electoral Officer to carry out elections.

The last point I guess I want to make is that there's some urgency with this bill. We have to get this bill dealt with, so that we give the Chief Electoral Officer clear direction moving forward in how the next election is going to be carried out. I know I have sort of pestered some of my colleagues about this, about the necessity to get this done and out the door so that the Chief Electoral Officer can get the tools and the resources in place to start working on the election, which is less than a year away.

With all that being said, I do want to commend my colleague from Kam Lake in bringing this forward. Look, I'm as frustrated as anybody else with consensus government. I don't think it's working as well as it can and should. That being said, I have tried to find ways to improve it and work with our Cabinet colleagues, when and where I can, including amendments to bills and so on. I do want to commend my colleague from Kam Lake in bringing this forward and starting the debate and discussion that will inevitably take place around party politics. I just don't think this is the time and place to do it in the context of this bill. For all those reasons, Mr. Chair, I will be voting against the amendment. Thanks.

Thank you, Mr. O'Reilly. Next on the list, we have Mr. Thompson.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. When I first got elected, we talked about consensus and what it means. I have had the pleasure of living all my life in the Northwest Territories and watching consensus government work. I have been in meetings where a decision was made, and an elder come up or somebody else come up and asked for clarification and brought their viewpoint to a place. That is what is, to me, true consensus government as you work forward and move forward to this.

I had the opportunity to go back home and talk to my constituents about this very issue. Their first question was: "What do you want? You're our MLA. What do you want?" I said, "I want a true consensus government. I want to be able to come back and tell the people that they heard us." They heard what the people were asking.

A number of people have said, "It's not working. You know, it's not working, and we're not seeing it. The smaller communities are losing out. They don't have the voice." I have talked to others and they say, "You have to give it one more shot. This is your first term. Work on it. See how it could be achieved."

I have been accused as the person who brought this or is supporting this. I want to tell everybody here and tell the Northwest Territories, I listened. That's my job as an MLA, is to listen and to hear what people are saying and be their voice. Even if I fundamentally don't agree with it, I have to be Nahendeh's voice. That's what I was elected to do. I was asked to present things, fight for things.

Poverty is an issue. We see a huge, huge issue in the Northwest Territories. It is about the residents. It's like I tell my soccer kids, my hockey kids, and my ball kids that I have coached throughout the years: we need to work on our weak point. If it's soccer, if it's passing, we spend a lot of time on passing.

When we sit here and look at it, this side here has a number of times brought forward ideas that would be strategic spending that would have a huge impact on the whole collective Northwest Territories. As we have developed, sometimes people say, "I fight against consensus." Now, I fight for consensus. I'm willing to stand up, be by myself and still have my voice be heard.

A number of colleagues here talked about the importance of accountability, being transparent, and working for the residents of the Northwest Territories. That's what our job is, 19 of us. When I get accused of, "Well, you're not doing true consensus because you're arguing the point and you don't get your own way," it's not my way. I'm fighting for my constituents, the people I represent.

If I stand up and say, "Yes, no, I don't agree with this." I have had to make some really fundamental choices where I thought, "Well, this is good for my personal belief, but it goes against." My constituents are saying, "No, this is what we need to do." So I do listen to them.

I struggled with this. I made a commitment that I would support this motion. Why? It's not that I support same-party politics. That's the worst thing I'd ever want to see in this Legislative Assembly, but we should allow the residents of the Northwest Territories to decide that. They should be the ones deciding.

The Member from Great Slave talked about a plebiscite. Maybe that's the direction we have to go. Let's let the people talk. I have heard colleagues say, "Well, it's each community that makes the decision." Is it a riding? Is it the communities? Well, you know what, I think the residents of the Northwest Territories have to make that decision.

I struggle with this, I really do, because it lights at my core. I have been lucky enough to be here; born and raised in the Northwest Territories. My seven children were born and raised in the territories. My grandchildren were born in the territories.

I thought about it. I have listened to people. At the end of the day, unfortunately, I can't support it right now because we haven't done due process. I struggle with that and I apologize to Mr. Testart, because Mr. Testart did an amazing job with this. He went out and did a lot of good work with this, and he has brought it forth to the forefront.

I would support a private bill. I would also support a plebiscite moving forward so that we can get the consultation of the residents of the Northwest Territories. This is not a cannabis bill, where we can only hit 19 communities. This is something that would have to hit 33 communities, and for that, and as the Member for Frame Lake -- I am still struggling with the Members from Yellowknife. I have only been in here three years. I know their names well. We didn't hear that when we toured the bill.

We have to respect due process, and for that, I cannot support the bill. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Mr. Thompson. Any further questions? Mr. McLeod.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Mr. Chair, I can't support this motion, and I won't support any further motions within this to start looking at a party politics-type system.

I believe in consensus government. It has its pros, and it has some cons, but I think that the big question here, and a couple of Members have raised it, is that for an institution that prides itself on hearing the people, which it says right in our code of conduct, I believe, I don't think we heard them on this one, because there has not been a groundswell of support for this, and I think the approach that we are taking is the wrong approach. That goes against what this institution is supposed to be doing.

The Member from Frame Lake, the sponsor of the bill, said it well when he said that it can't be piggybacked onto this. It is one that has got to either come forward as a private Member's bill or in a plebiscite. We cannot assume that we know what the people of the Northwest Territories want, because we didn't ask them. They didn't tell us. They have more important issues on their minds right now, and we should respect that.

I can't support this, and I will not support any further amendments to Bill 24. I think we had a debate on Bill 24, and we have comments on some of the items that are in it. Again, I think the Member from Nahendeh said it when he spoke about an elder, this institution is based on the Aboriginal principle of a circle sharing type of governance, consensus decision-making, mixed with some Westminster British-style parliamentary procedures. The Member from Sahtu, I think, said as much in his Member's statement today.

We shouldn't sit here and assume that we know what is best for the people of the Northwest Territories when we have not gone out and asked them exactly what they want. There are a couple of opportunities for that. I think a private Member's bill is a great idea. A plebiscite could be considered. There is the Electoral Boundaries Commission. That is going to be struck, I think, during the midway of the next Assembly, and I think there is an opportunity there.

There is not a groundswell of support for this, not from what I have been hearing, and there was a comment made that the people in the small communities don't have a voice. Yes, they do. We are that voice, and we have to listen to what they have to say, because it says right in our Member's code of conduct, "Hear the voices of people." We didn't hear the voices of people on this one. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Mr. McLeod. Usually, we don't do a second round, but I will let Mr. Testart.

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.

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

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.

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.

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