Thank you, Mr. Enuaraq. Good afternoon. I have here a letter from the Commissioner, and it says, "I wish to inform the House that I have received the following message from the Commissioner of the Northwest Territories. Dear Mr. Speaker, I wish to advise that I recommend to the Legislative Assembly of the Northwest Territories, the passage of the Forgiveness of Debts Act, 1996-97; Supplementary Appropriation Act, No. 3, 1996-97; and Loan Authorization Act, 1997-98. during the fourth session of the 13th Legislative Assembly."

It is signed, yours truly, Helen Maksagak, Commissioner. I also have here a Speaker's ruling regarding Mr. O'Brien, January 31, 1997.

Speaker's Ruling

I would like to provide some comments to the House concerning a matter that occurred during oral question period on Friday, January 31, 1997. The matter relates to an oral question that was being asked by the Member for Kivallivik, Mr. O'Brien. The question is contained on pages 546 and 547 of the unedited Hansard. The Member, Mr. O'Brien, was asking his first supplementary question and I quote:

"Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, can the Minister tell the House exactly what revisions and I use that word, that the Minister is looking at regarding these departments".

I listened to Mr. O'Brien's comments and I thought I heard the word "visions" which in my opinion, made his supplementary question hypothetical so, I reminded the Member of that. The Member then indicated that and I quote:

"Mr. Speaker, I think my question is fairly straightforward."

I would like to point out to the Members that this wording indicated to me that he was challenging my ruling. This of course, is not permitted. I did, after the Minister's response, remind the Members to be a bit clearer when directing questions as what I heard was visions, not revisions. That is why, I made the ruling on the supplementary question being hypothetical. On checking the unedited Hansard, Mr. O'Brien did indeed use the word "revisions". I apologize for the misunderstanding, but at the time, I did hear the word "visions" so I had to base my comments to the Member on that. So, in the future, if Members will assist the chair and Ministers in clearly pronouncing your words, I will listen intently to your every word as I always do. Based on the words and actions that occurred at the time, it was my ruling that Mr. O'Brien challenged the chair. As all Members know, you cannot challenge the chair, so based on the facts at that time, I would ask Mr. O'Brien to withdraw his comments whereby he challenged the chair. Mr. O'Brien.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, with respect to your ruling and your subsequent apology, Mr. Speaker, when I made this statement in the House, it was in the heat of the moment, and also amongst some heckling and catcalls from across the floor. Mr. Speaker, I may have inadvertently challenged the chair. This was not my intention. I have the greatest respect for the chair. Mr. Speaker, if this is the case, I do apologize and withdraw my questionable comments. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

-- Applause

Thank you, Mr. O'Brien, this matter is now closed. I have another ruling here regarding Mr. Miltenberger.

Speaker's Ruling

On Monday, February 3, 1997, the Member for Thebacha, Mr. Miltenberger, rose on a point of privilege. In his statement, the Member said, and I quote:

"I rise on a point of privilege to clarify, at the first available opportunity, a concern about conflict of interest on my part."

Mr. Miltenberger then went on to state that it is difficult to know when we (referring to Members) can speak. He said, and I quote from page 566 of unedited Hansard:

"If a Member has a wife who owns a business, can he participate in discussions on BIP, which could benefit her financially? If a Member's wife works for a women's shelter, is it alright for him to question the cuts to funding in women's shelters?"

In response to the Member's point of privilege, the Member for Iqaluit, Mr. Picco, rose on his point of privilege, stating, and I quote from page 567 of unedited Hansard:

"The Member mentioned, in a veiled way, my earlier response last year on a question to another Minister concerning spousal shelter homes. Mr. Speaker, he has infringed upon my rights as a Member, the Member from Thebacha, in his statement, and I would ask the Speaker to rule that he would strike anything from the record infringing on my privilege as a Member."

The acting Speaker, Mr. Ningark, and thank you for yesterday, sought debate on the point of privilege raised by the Member for Iqaluit. In the course of debate, the Member for Hay River, Mrs. Groenewegen, rose on her point of privilege, stating at page 567 of the unedited Hansard:

"If Mr. Miltenberger feels that he said something on Friday that he should not have said, he has every opportunity to stand up and retract those and apologize for them. He does not need to try and implicate everyone else or other Members of this House in his mistake. I do take exception to him referring to the Business Incentive Policy and people who may have a spouse that owns a business. I not only have a spouse that owns a business, I also own a business, and I believe that he is misleading the House, by suggesting that all business deals need to take place in an arm's length fashion."

After citing from the conflict of interest provisions of the Legislative Assembly and Executive Council Act, Mrs. Groenewegen went on to state at page 568 of the unedited Hansard:

"I would like to suggest that Mr. Miltenberger, by his comments, not on a territorial basis, but in reference to Fort Smith specifically, and community libraries specifically on Friday, was probably over the line and he can stand up and speak about that and he can retract that, but he does not need to implicate the rest of us..."

In debate on the point of privilege, the Premier, the Honourable Don Morin, rose and asked the Speaker to review the comments of the Member for Hay River when rendering a decision on the points of privilege, pointing out that there is a process available through the Conflict of Interest Commissioner's office for the general public and Members to address the issue of conflict of interest.

Mr. Ningark indicated to the House that he would provide the House with a ruling, following a review of Hansard and the appropriate authorities. I would like to now provide the House with my ruling on the points of privilege raised, as well as to provide the House with some guidance in addressing issues relating to conflict of interest and decorum of Members generally.

The Member for Thebacha, in rising on Monday to comment on the questions asked by him last Friday, was not raising a traditional or normal point of privilege. Rather, his statement was one of clarification or explanation of his conflict and was in accordance with the conflict of interest provisions of the Legislative Assembly and Executive Council Act. Rule 20(1) of the Rules of the Legislative Assembly permits a Member to, with the leave of the Speaker, to "explain a matter, although not a contempt or breach of privilege, which concerns the Member in his or her capacity as a Member of the Legislative Assembly". Mr. Miltenberger's statement explaining his questioning, and his conflict, was a statement properly brought under that rule.

For the assistance of Members, both our Rules and the Legislative Assembly and Executive Council Act contain provisions to guide Members in addressing issues in which they may be in conflict. Rule 13 of the Rules of the Legislative Assembly provides:

No Member is entitled to vote upon any question in which he or she has a direct or indirect financial interest, and the vote of any Member so interested shall be disallowed.

As well, this Legislature passed laws in the 11th Assembly, defining conflict of interest and setting forth the obligations of Members addressing conflicts. These provisions are contained with Part Three of the Legislative Assembly and Executive Council Act. For the assistance of Members, a Member has a conflict where:

The Member, or the spouse or dependent child of the Member, has significant private interests that afford the Member, the spouse or dependent child of the Member, the opportunity to directly or indirectly benefit from the performance of any of the duties of office of the Member.

The above definition is found in section 66(1) of the Legislative Assembly and Executive Council Act. Many Members have, and will continue to have, conflicts in certain matters. We all have personal lives, whether before we were elected or presently, which will, on occasion, result in us being in a conflict in addressing certain issues. What is most important is how a Member resolves a conflict of interest, not necessarily the fact that a conflict exists.

The Legislative Assembly and Executive Council Act places serious obligations on Members to resolve their conflicts in accordance with the public interest. Section 67(A) provides that:

Each Member shall perform his or her duties of office and arrange his or her private affairs in such a manner as to maintain public confidence and trust in the integrity, objectivity and impartiality of the Member.

Section 67(C) and 67(D) places an obligation on a Member to:

Arrange his or her private affairs in conformity with the provisions of this part and act generally to prevent any conflict of interest from arising and make all reasonable efforts to resolve any conflict of interest that may arise in favour of the public interest.

If a Member has a conflict of interest in any matter that is before a committee of this Legislature or before the House, the Member must, pursuant to s.69(1) of the Legislative Assembly and Executive Council Act, disclose the general nature of the conflict and withdraw from the meeting without voting or participating in the consideration of the matter. This is an obligation that must be followed by all Members of this House.

If a Member has a question about whether they are in a conflict, they are able to seek advice from the Clerk's office or from the Conflict of Interest Commissioner. Indeed, the Legislation specifically authorizes the Conflict of Interest Commissioner to give advice to a Member which will prevent any conflict of interest prosecution against the Member if the Member has disclosed all material facts and followed the advice of the Conflict of Interest Commissioner. While it may appear to some that conflicts are a "grey" area, there are very clear procedures to follow in determining what is or what is not a conflict.

A Member may rise, as did the Member for Thebacha, to explain to the House a line of questioning which may have been perceived as a conflict. As long as the statement is limited to providing an explanation of the Member's behaviour, it is acceptable. However, as Speaker, I am not comfortable with the idea that this forum is the appropriate forum for debating and ruling on whether a Member has contravened the conflict of interest provisions of the Legislative Assembly and Executive Council Act. There are clear mechanisms for invoking a complaint procedure under our legislation. Any Member who feels that another Member has "crossed the line" is free to file a complaint under the Legislative Assembly and Executive Council Act. The complaint will then be dealt with by the Conflict of Interest Commissioner and her decisions, including recommendations for a sanction, if any, will be tabled in this House for decision by this Legislature. Sanctions for violating the Legislative Assembly and Executive Council Act can range from reprimand, fine to expulsion of the Member as a Member. These sanctions are serious and should not be trivialized in political debate. Given that ultimately this Legislature plays a significant decision-making role in addressing complaints of conflict, I am not comfortable in pre-empting that role and politicizing the issue of conflict of interest. For that reason, I will not entertain an allegation that another Member is in conflict.

With respect to Mr. Picco's and Mrs. Groenewegen's point of privilege, some comments on the nature and function of parliamentary privilege might be of assistance to Members. Beauchesne's Parliamentary Rules and Forms, 6th edition, citation 24, states:

Parliamentary privilege is the sum of the peculiar rights enjoyed by each House collectively as a constituent part of the High Court of Parliament, and by Members of each House individually, without which they could not discharge their functions and which exceed those possessed by other bodies or individuals.

Within the same citation, Beauchesne's goes on to further state:

...The distinctive mark of a privilege is its ancillary character. The privileges of Parliament are those rights which are "absolutely necessary for the due execution of it's powers".

Traditionally, individual privileges accorded to Members have been limited to issues relating to freedom of speech, freedom from arrest in civil actions, exemption from jury duty and exemption from attendance as a witness. Given that these privileges represent an extraordinary exception to the ordinary laws, it is generally accepted that the category of privileges is closed and cannot be added to without express statutory or constitutional amendment.

Notwithstanding the relatively narrow category of privileges that are protected, Beauchesne's does note, in citation 64, that the House has occasionally taken notice of attacks on individual Members as constituting a breach of the privileges of the House. Beauchesne's, citation 67, indicates that it is always the responsibility of the House to decide if the reflections on Members are sufficiently serious to justify action.

I am also aided by Beauchesne's citation 69, which quotes a Speaker's ruling from 1987:

The Speaker has reminded the House, "it is very important...to indicate that something can be inflammatory, can be disagreeable, can even be offensive, but it may not be a question of privilege unless the comment actually impinges upon the ability of Members of Parliament to do their job properly.

Mr. Picco and Mrs. Groenewegen, in their respective points of privilege, appear to be indicating that Mr. Miltenberger's use of examples in his statement go too far. They suggest that Mr. Miltenberger, in clarifying his questioning in the House, was acting improperly, in that he seemed to be citing examples relating to other Members' lines of questioning in the House and using those examples to illustrate how "grey" the area of appropriate questioning is, so as to avoid a conflict of interest allegation. Indeed, Mrs. Groenewegen used the word "implicate us all" in her point of privilege. Given that both points of privilege address the same issue, I will deal with them as a single matter.

As stated above, questions of privilege are, and should be, narrow in scope and limited to only those powers which are strictly necessary to permit a Member to carry out his or her functions as a Member. Mr. Miltenberger's citing of examples of questioning which may or may not constitute a conflict of interest is not so offensive as to impair a Member's ability to carry on as a Member. To paraphrase acting Speaker Paproski, the citing of examples may be inflammatory, disagreeable or even offensive, however, I cannot say that the comments are so clearly directed to one Member or Members as to prevent those Members and the House from carrying on its business.

So I note that although Mr. Miltenberger's comments went beyond his declaration of his conflict, and beyond what he is required to do under the Legislative Assembly and Executive Council Act, I rule that neither the Member for Iqaluit or the Member for Hay River has a point of privilege.

However, before I leave this topic, I would ask all Members to be conscious of the need to avoid the provocative use of examples which, by their very nature, inspire disagreements within this Legislature. As the Premier very properly pointed out, this Legislature has enacted a process for identifying and resolving conflicts of interest. Raising these issues on the floor of the House ignores the legislative process that this very Legislature has adopted and serves to undermine that process, while trivializing the role of debate in this House. Thank you.

Orders of the day. Item 2, Ministers' statements. Item 3, Members' statements. Mr. Picco.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I thank you for your ruling. I would like to take this opportunity to clarify some recent statements in this House. First of all, I did not create a housing crisis. Having people still living in matchboxes without running water or indoor plumbing in 1997 is not only atrocious, but it is a crisis. Mr. Speaker, I did not start a library crisis by laying off regional librarians and not providing that service to small communities. It may be perceived as a crisis by the over 700 people who had signed the petition presented yesterday. Mr. Speaker, I did not start a fuel crisis. The only crisis seemed to be in the minds of those answering my question.

Shame.

Mr. Speaker, I did not start an amalgamation crisis. From the unedited Hansard of Friday, January 31, in response to a question from ...

-- Noise

Mr. O'Brien, the Minister said on page 546, that "the amalgamation proposal as presented is not going ahead". Mr. Speaker, from that, I was trying to ascertain from the Minister if there was a new proposal on amalgamation. Mr. Speaker, I was not starting a crisis. I was asking a question. The proposed amalgamation might have been crisis for the affected employees who were going to be laid off as a result. That should not be belittled.

Mr. Speaker, question period is to provide answers, not to prompt debate, argue or ridicule a Member, or marginalize his or her statements. The decorum in this House has slipped to an all time low, and I will not be party to the baiting of Members for the sake of a sound bite in the media. Mr. Speaker, it would seem that any question on the direction, policies, financial plans, reductions and layoffs are not to be raised by the Members without upsetting the Executive Council.

I ask a lot of questions. I make no apology for that, and by marginalizing my questions or attacking me as a fear monger only demonstrates to the people of the Northwest Territories the pettiness and contempt some of you have for an individual trying to represent his or her constituency. In consensus government the Ordinary Members are here to try to provide the checks and balances to the Executive Council. Mr. Speaker, I will continue that role to the best of my ability. Crisis or no crisis. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

-- Applause

Thank you. Members' statements. Mr. Enuaraq.

(Translation) Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and good evening, fellow colleagues. Just recently, we spoke on Clyde River housing conditions, as well as what Mr. Picco referred to matchboxes still be used in Clyde River. Today, I will be thanking, Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Housing Corporation, Honourable Goo Arlooktoo, who was able to answer our question. The seven units will be replaced within two years in Clyde River. For that reason, I would like to thank the Minister of Housing Corporation. Thank you. (Translation ends)

-- Applause

Members' statements. Mr. Barnabas.

(Translation) Thank you, Mr. Speaker (Translation ends) I would like to speak out a concern of my constituency of Arctic Bay. The constituents have been complaining about the high dust level and the contaminant spillage for a number of years now. In the spring of 1995, there was an oil flow into Strathcona Sound and this has been a concern for many years. As of this result, I have learned Qitirmiut Association filed a formal complaint about the situation. I know that in my constituency of Arctic Bay, we are benefitting from this mine, but this needs to be addressed. Later today, Mr. Speaker, I will be asking question to the appropriate Minister. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you, Mr. Barnabas. Members' statements. Mr. Henry.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, I want to talk today about a wonderful new program developed and being introduced by the St. Patrick's High School here in Yellowknife. The program I am referring to, Mr. Speaker, is appropriately called Bridges. The developmental work and study program is aimed at assisting students in the transition phase from school into the labour market. The new program will be made available to all students, but is primarily aimed at aboriginal youth, young women, disabled students, minorities, and those most at risk of leaving school. Students in the program will attend regular classes in the mornings and will participate in on the job training work experiences in the afternoon.

Mr. Speaker, I feel this is a wonderful, practical program. All too often, we educate our youth on an academic level, but forget about providing those who do not choose an academic career a vehicle to move into the work force. This program provides that vehicle. It provides a bridge and makes it easier for our students to move from school curriculum into the real world. Not all of our students in our schools have the ability or desire to pursue academic activities.

I for one, Mr. Speaker, would like to applaud St. Patrick's School for undertaking this initiative and addressing such an important part of our educational system. I feel that this type of initiative will help maximize benefits for our northern students. Later today I will be asking the Minister of Education some questions on this. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you, Mr. Henry. Members' statements, Mr. Ootes.

The Member for Yellowknife Centre is seeking unanimous consent to conclude his statement. Do I have any nays? There are no nays. You have unanimous consent, Mr. Ootes.

Thank you, Mr. Ootes. Members' statements. Mr. Miltenberger.

Thank you. Members' statements, Mr. O'Brien.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, I wish to acknowledge and commend the Minister of Housing Corporation for his swift action for addressing the very real concern of families being evicted during the dead of winter. It would be valuable for the Members to hear the response from the letter that he recently sent out to the local housing associations as to what options and modifications they will be making to their policies. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you. Members' statements, Mr. Erasmus.