Few jurisdictions have the cultural complexity, the huge area we have or the political problems we have. So I think anyone here who buys into the argument that somehow we are less worthy than politicians in other jurisdictions are not doing this Legislative Assembly or Cabinet service. In my experience, the work-load of Ministers and of the Premier in this jurisdiction is as much, if not more, than any other jurisdiction in the country. The complexity of their duties, because we have so few Ministers, is such a wide assortment of duties that it is incredible. The work that our Cabinet does is recognized everywhere else in the country. Also the work that our committees do is not done by committees anywhere else in the country. So before I carry on with this bill, I want to put it in some perspective. I don't think anyone here has to apologize for the remuneration they are getting compared to other jurisdictions in the country.

I was a Member of MSB and I want to reiterate what Mr. Pollard said, this was not government driven, this was from the Management and Services Board. Secondly, it never was part of the discussion of the Management and Services Board that this is some part of a strategic plan to soften up the unions. That was never the intent. It was never the reason that the Management and Services Board put this forward. In fact, I would say the opposite. It was the feeling of the Management and Services Board that it is important to have a professional negotiation between the government and the union and we should try to take the Legislative Assembly out of that process by having a zero increase. I hear the arguments now about whether we should have a freeze or cut. We tried not to get into that because at this time, though it is politically expedient for people to say I should cut ten per cent and we can all prove to each other how responsible we are, but the reality is if you are going to do it, there has to be a reason for it. My feeling is -- and this is personal -- at this point in time, we are not in a totally desperate, drastic situation, though we might be a year from now.

My suggestion to Members would be to support this particular bill, as it stands with a freeze, we go into negotiations and we have a look at the end of the year how Mr. Pollard and the Premier have made out with all the big package negotiations they are doing. If, at that point, the situation looks drastic, then we revisit it and look at what we have to do in a real sense to set an example in the territories. But I don't think it is appropriate at this point to do that. So I am prepared to support this bill, as it is. I think it sets out the proper message, that the Legislative Assembly is out of these negotiations. We are not taking a symbolic stand either way. We are going to allow the government and the unions to do their job without us being involved and I would be the first one, if the Finance Minister says in a year from now we have some very serious problems, to say let's look at this and if it is appropriate to take a bigger cut, so be it. I would be the first one to support it. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you, Mr. Ballantyne. To the bill. It is a simple bill. It is to take off the 1.8 per cent increase to cover the cost of living on all Members' salaries and indemnities. So I would like to ask Members if there are any further general comments on this bill? Mr. Zoe.

I was going to hear your motion before I decided whether it was in order or not.

Agreed.

---Agreed

Clause By Clause

Okay. Bill 8, clause 1. Mr. Zoe.

We'll keep your motion in mind for the next section, Mr. Zoe. We're on the second clause, item number two, in Bill 8. Okay, your motion is to amend clause 2, Mr. Zoe. We'd have to have a copy of your motion and have it translated. So, we'll take a short break while that motion is being translated.

---SHORT RECESS

I'll call this committee back to order. Mr. Zoe, would you like to state your motion, please? Every Member has a copy of it, I presume. Mr. Zoe.

Thank you, Mr. Zoe. Now that we have a printed copy of your motion, it is pretty clear that what the motion intends to do is to go beyond the principle of the bill, which was to establish a reduction of the 1.8 per cent COLA clause. Although it doesn't violate that principle, it goes beyond the intention of the bill. It goes beyond the scope of what was intended in the bill and for that reason, I would have to rule it out of order. Clause 2. Mr. Zoe.

Mr. Zoe, you are within your rights, obviously, to challenge any ruling of this chair. Therefore, I will rise and report to the Speaker that my ruling on this amendment has been challenged.

---SHORT RECESS

I will call the House back to order. The honourable Member for Yellowknife Centre, Mr. Lewis.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. In committee of the whole, Mr. Zoe moved a motion that would be an amendment. The motion reads, "I move that clause 2 be amended by adding the following subsection immediately following proposed subsection 32.1(6): (7) for the fiscal year commencing April 1, 1994 the amount of an indemnity paid

under subsection 23(1), 25(1), 26(2), 27(1) or 28(1) is reduced by five per cent."

Madam Speaker, upon examining the printed motion, I ruled that this motion was out of order because, although it didn't violate the principle that the 1.8 per cent would now be eliminated, it went beyond the scope of the bill. Under our rules, I believe, any amendment which goes beyond the scope of the bill has to be ruled out of order. I was challenged by Mr. Zoe and, therefore, have referred the matter to you, Madam Speaker.

Speaker's Ruling

Thank you, Mr. Lewis. I would like to advise the House that Bill 8, An Act to Amend the Legislative Assembly and Executive Council Act, provides that indemnities paid to Members under the Legislative Assembly and Executive Council Act for the 1994-95 fiscal year will not be adjusted to accord with changes in the consumer price index. I believe the principle, the intent, was to freeze the salaries under this particular bill.

I reviewed your ruling, Mr. Lewis, with regard to the motion that the clause be amended by adding the following subsection immediately following proposed subsection 32.1(6): (7) for the fiscal year commencing April 1, 1994 the amount of an indemnity paid under subsection 23(1), 25(1), 26(2), 27(1) or 28(1) is reduced by five per cent. In accordance with Beauchesne's section 698 under the admissibility of amendments in committee, section 698 reads: "An amendment which is out of order on any of the following grounds cannot be put from the chair: (1) An amendment is out of order if it is irrelevant to the bill, beyond its scope or governed by or dependent upon amendments already negatived. (2) An amendment must not be inconsistent with, or contradictory to, the bill as so far agreed to by the committee, nor must it be inconsistent with a decision which the committee has given upon a former amendment."

So, therefore, Mr. Lewis, I rule that the scope of the proposed amendment is not within the scope of the intended bill put forth before this House and, therefore, I agree with your ruling in this House. This House will go back to committee of the whole, with Mr. Lewis in the chair. Thank you.

We are still considering Bill 8 and we were on clause 2. Mr. Minister, do you still wish to go back to the witness table and have your witnesses assist you if required?

Mr. Chairman, I'll take my chances from here at the present time but at the slightest provocation, I'll yell for help. I'll stay here, Mr. Chairman.

Right. Clause 2.

Agreed.

---Agreed

We're finished clause 1 and we've finished clause 2. The bill as a whole?

Agreed.

---Agreed

Does the committee agree that Bill 8 is ready for third reading?