Thank you, Mr. Chairman. These are comforting words. The great body of rights and privileges embodied in parliamentary procedure over hundreds of years of the evolution of parliamentary democracy is carefully protected in clause 3(2)(a) under existing procedures. Frankly, that is not much comfort to me, Mr. Chairman.
I guess I would like to ask our legal advisor, in case the phrase "existing procedures" does not clearly preserve the rights and privileges of an MLA in a Legislature and in committee, could the bill be improved -- if that's the clear intention of the government -- by adding (f) which spells out that this bill does not, in any way, limit the powers and privileges of a Member of the Legislative Assembly of the Northwest Territories? My question is, would that kind of provision give more assurance, the kind of assurance I'm seeking, and would it, in any way, go against the spirit of this bill and the spirit of this section, if such a subsection would be added. Just to give me a little bit of comfort?
Mr. Kakfwi is very clear that everything's okay, but I think parliamentarians' privileges are not to be trifled with and I would like a little more assurance than being told, oh, you fit into "existing procedures," don't worry. That is not enough comfort for me, Mr. Chairman. Would a specific clause, spelling out that parliamentary privilege is not prejudiced, appropriately fit into the spirit of this subsection? Thank you.