Thank you, Mr. Chairman. In general, I feel that a mid-term review could help in keeping Ministers accountable since there is a need for a mechanism to keep the Ministers accountable. But like Mr. Antoine said, if the ordinary Members are doing their job properly and are questioning) the Ministers properly during question period, there is a ministerial review every day. I don't know of any situation that had to be dealt with that would have to wait two years to be dealt with to keep the Minister accountable. If the ordinary Members are doing their job properly in questioning the Ministers, a two-year review would not really be required. But I think it would be helpful as a way of keeping something over the Ministers' heads that they have to keep in line and they have to be watchful because a mid-term review will be coming up and in a way would help keep them accountable. But as was said before, I would not want it to be a place where ''wanna-be" Ministers would have their chance to bring somebody down and get in, perhaps.

So if we're going to go anywhere with this, there was going to be a motion for a two-year review. I guess I would support that in general, but keeping in mind that, as Mr. Antoine said, really Ministers' performances are reviewed on a daily basis.

Thank you, Mr. Arlooktoo. Mr. Henry.

Mr. Chairman, with regard to mid-term review, I support a review from the standpoint of an evaluation exercise only of the work done to date by Cabinet. As I see it, it's a formal opportunity for ordinary MLAs to hopefully affirm Cabinet in their work and direction. As stated by Mr. Antoine, ordinary MLAs have the ongoing responsibility to advise Cabinet on how they feel about the government's performance. Mass resignations of the Cabinet in the review process would not be a requirement for me. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you, Mr. Henry. Mr. Barnabas.

(Translation) Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will be speaking in Inuktitut. I am in support of the mid-term review because there are going to be new Members who will be running for the Cabinet, and it is very important that there is a review to see if they are able to do their duties. Also, I am sure that the Premier will be selecting some! of the Cabinet Ministers, but I feel that it would be appropriate to do a mid- term review and I feel that it's very important. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you, Mr. Barnabas. To the item. Are there any further general comments? Mr. Erasmus.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I also support a mid- term review. I do not think it should be for resignations. As has been stated, Ministers need to have stability in their work. They shouldn't be reminded that their term is up in two years and that they have to try to please everybody. I also think that if people are required to resign in two years, perhaps the bureaucracy can do things so that when they don't necessarily agree with the leadership of the Minister they can slow things down until the two years is up and then they can perhaps get their own way. I'm not suggesting that this is what is being done, but there have been times in the past when people have complained about such things.

I also think that the review should be done constructively and in a positive manner so that we can look at changes to what is happening if they are needed. The new committee structure should help us all to have more input into the leadership of the Ministers. Also, the Premier is always in a position to remove a Minister. From what I am told, they can strip their powers, and I think that would be enough to ensure that if a Minister needs to be removed then that Minister will in fact be removed. The Premier should be allowed to do that job and I think we should leave it up to him. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Erasmus. Mr. Ningark, to the item.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. When I was the chairperson of the Ordinary Members' Caucus with Mr. Dent, during the review or the evaluation, as we called it, I was the one who read the evaluation or review in the House to the Speaker and I had a very bad experience. Some of the Ministers were getting graded; some as B and it was coming to the point where some were graded F. I don't think I want to go through that again, Mr. Chairman. I guess if we want to do a review we should forget about the grading. Some of the Ministers, I guess one or two, were given six months to shape up or ship out. I don't think we should look at it in that context. I think it should be a more friendly manner than we did last time.

So I agree basically, but we want to behave like we want to work together. During the past few days each and every Member stated in our orientation workshop that we wanted to work together, even the new MLAs stated in another forum that we were in that the public perception is that MLAs during the 12th Assembly were always fighting in the House, there was bickering and so on. I think the public wants to see a friendlier, people-working-together environment within the government.

There were two or three MLAs from this forum who stated we have been, during the past years, using our energy fighting among each other. We should be using the energy to work for the benefit of the people. In that respect, Mr. Chairman, I support the mid-term review 100 per cent, but I don't want to go to the grading system whereby some Ministers were getting an F, perhaps one or two, I'm not going to name names. I think we should do it in a friendlier manner. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Ningark. Mr. Enuaraq.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, if I may, I would like to make a motion.

I move that the Territorial Leadership Committee agrees that alter two years there shall be a mid-term review where the Premier and Members of Cabinet shall report to and be accountable to Members of the Legislature on progress to date and plans for the remainder of the term of the 13th Legislative Assembly.

Thank you, Mr. Enuaraq. The motion is being passed around. Copies are being made available to Members. Mr. Enuaraq, your motion is in order. To your motion.

If there are any questions to be made on this motion I made, Mr. Chairman, I welcome them, but I don't really have anything to say at this time. Thank you.

Thank you. To the motion. Mr. Steen.

This motion indicates the Territorial Leadership Committee, TLC, would be doing the review. Mr. Steen.

To the motion. Mr. Kakfwi.

Thank you. To the motion. We do have several processes in place including the Caucus system, as well as you here in this Chamber deciding how the review will be conducted. You have two years to think about it and make your own plans on how to do the review. So we have a lot of options and processes in place. Mr. Ningark, to the motion.

To the motion, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, whether the Premier to be will be accountable to answer for the Cabinet Members or the Cabinet Members being accountable to themselves, it depends on the scenario. If in fact we decided to select the Premier and the Premier subsequently appoints the Ministers, then I can see that the Premier should be accountable. But if we in fact elect the Ministers, then each and every Minister should be answerable to the forum during the review. That's the way I see it. Thank you.

Thank you. To the motion. Do we have any further comments?