Thank you Mr. Chairman. I think that this Bill is long overdue with respect to MLA's compensation. There was a commission at the outset of our term of office and there were some recommendations made at that time. Now I am pleased to see that some of those recommendations are being acted on and we are making a more streamlined system in place for those coming back to the 14th Assembly. It was not only difficult for the public to understand the former compensation system, I think it was difficult for the MLA's to really understand it, as well, because it was rather convoluted. I think this is better.
I agree with Mr. Erasmus, to some extent, that some people may have a heavier workload and they will not be remunerated for it. Hopefully, we will get people in here who are willing to work and work hard and, not only look after just the interest of their constituents, but also serve on the committees and look at the broader issues of the budget in the NWT as a whole. I think that the remuneration that is being proposed is fair. I think that it is difficult for people to really get a good understand of what is involved in doing this job until you are here and have done it.
I think the media has done us somewhat of a disservice in their reporting in the past about compensation for MLAs and this has already been alluded to by previous speakers here today. To suggest that travel to and from one's constituency, for example, is somehow a benefit that should be rolled into the total package of your pay, is not a fair comment. It certainly does create an exaggerated perception in the public which is not necessary to do. I think that what is proposed now is fair. Having done this job for the last four years, it is something that I can support having seen it from the inside.
With respect to the changes to the conflict of interest legislation, I think that I can safely say that no one is happier than I am that some of these rather vague areas in the legislation have been more clearly defined. I think we found out the hard way, and we found out through a fairly thorough test of legislation, that there were areas that needed to be more clearly defined. I believe that this change does do that.
I cannot say that I agree with all of the changes, again speaking from first hand experience. I will just quickly list some of the things that I do not agree with. I do not agree that any MLA should have access to unlimited resources of this government in their defence. I think that how much they are expected to pay, how much expect to receive, should have a cap on it. I think the act says reasonable costs. I do not know what reasonable is. It will be determined by, I guess, the Management Services Board at the time. I do not think that unlimited access to government funds, particularly in the case where the person is found guilty, is an acceptable expenditure of government funds, tax payer's money. I object to that strongly and I want to be recorded as such.
As for the complainant not receiving any support for legal costs when a complaint is lodged, now that the system after the complaint is lodged is somewhat more defined, and hoping that we will never have another complaint of the magnitude that we have seen this government spend money on recently, I think that should be alright for it to go to the Conflict of Interest Commissioner and then to an adjudicator if an inquiry is required.
If the system works, there should not have to be that much involvement from the complainant after the complaint is laid. That is how it should work and, like I said, I hope we are never faced with a situation like we have been through where there is a complaint that encompasses a magnitude of the issues that the last one did. I think that was flawed. I do not think that an enquiry can always be an non-adversarial process. I do not think that it is necessarily even an effective process of an enquiry when there is no opposing counsel present.
I think Anne Crawford stated in her report that she had never heard so many lies and half truths as were presented in that last inquiry. I am telling you that opposing counsel would have sewn up that problem because people would not have been allowed to get away with it as they did this last time. I am pleased with the progress that this bill makes towards making it a better system and will be supporting the bill. Thank you.