Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, yes, if memory serves me correct, and again I stand to be corrected because I have to go by memory here, Mr. Speaker, I believe that a single mother with a child up to age three is a productive choice. I believe that a mother with two children up to age six is a productive choice. I go by memory on that, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, a mother than who chooses to stay home and raise a four-year old is, in the department's assertion, making an unproductive choice? Would that be a correct assumption? Mr. Speaker, I will rephrase that. Why would a four-year old child not be considered productive?

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I am concerned about mothers at home raising four-year old children not being able to receive income support. They are not considered to be productive choices. Is this the case?

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, in all likelihood, there was rationale developed as to why the age was attached to this. It could very well have been on the basis that pre-school is available at that particular point, where prior to that, of course, the mother may need to...may not be in a position to hire babysitters, childcare sitters, rather, and to access other types of programs. Once the child may have access to such things as pre-school programs, it frees up the single mother to possibly access other training programs and so forth. That may have been the rationale. I will get back to the Member with the exact rationale for this. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. If there was ever a rationale for this, I would hazard a guess that it was money and our lack of money. I am glad the Minister has agreed to get back to us and discuss the rationale for this, but would he not agree that certainly this is a problem for us if we are telling mothers who may or may not be eligible for pre-school that a three-year old child is a productive choice but a four-year old child is not?

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, as I said earlier, I think we need the rationale behind this, to look at it from that viewpoint. As I mentioned earlier, I will get back to the Member on it. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, my written question today is for the Minister responsible for Finance:

1. In the 1999-2000 year, how many times was the $100 failure to file penalty charged with respect to the payroll tax, and how many times did the GNWT recover that $100 penalty?
2. Are parties wishing to contest penalties or interest charged for late filing or failure to file payroll tax required to make an official application for remission?
3. How many times in 1999-2000 was remission granted for payroll tax penalties or interest?
4. How many auditors does the GNWT employ to audit payroll tax remittance directly?

Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, I was not planning on doing a reply to opening address, but I would like to thank the Member for Mackenzie Delta for considering this option that is available to I understand all Members to speak once in every Session.

Mr. Speaker, my main desire to speak is to make sure that I protect my right to speak in this House because, Mr. Speaker, I believe that the biggest asset politicians have, and really the only thing that people can ask of a politician, is their power to speak. I recall that in my first ever speech in the House, which was titled Voices of the People. What I said there was that I believe my job here is to voice the opinions of the people of my riding and at the same time, it is my responsibility to listen to the voices of other representatives here because they in turn represent the people of their own riding.

I think what is important for me is that when my right to speak in this House is jeopardized in any way, it is not really just about me. It is about the people I represent. The people I represent are much bigger and much more important than whatever limitations and shortages I may have.

So with that, Mr. Speaker, I just want to be able to express what I was trying to say earlier today. I will have to ask for forgiveness because I am speaking without a lot of notes and I have not really prepared this and I may have some repetitions and I may ramble on. I think that a good thing about this is that there is no time limitation, so hopefully I will take the time to think about what it is that I am saying.

At the end of this, Mr. Speaker, what I want to do is speak on the issues that are really important to me as a representative. Concepts such as integrity, honesty, good government, the role of consensus government, my ability to represent the people who voted me in, and who are really the only people I am working for in this Assembly. Concepts such as Members' privilege, independence to speak, abusive power of those who have the power, the role of AOC maybe. I do not know. I am just going to start.

Mr. Speaker, what I was saying earlier was that, based on what I was hearing in the media yesterday and today, I was getting the impression that I was not as clear as I would like to have been about what I was trying to say. I respect the role of the media and I respect that they do not have all the hours in the day to report in their media about what it is that I am saying, even though I think that is the most important thing. So I just want to have an opportunity to put it on record about what it was that I was trying to say here.

Mr. Speaker, what I said was with regard to the opinion that was discussed in this House and, Mr. Speaker, I want to say for the record that I respect the right of any Member in this House to take a position on things because that is the power of us. That is the responsibility. I respect the right of Mr. Miltenberger to say what he had to say about the opinion that he had. At the same time, I have to respect my right to say what I think this opinion says.

So once again, Mr. Speaker, it should be made very clear that I am not challenging the soundness of the legal opinion Mr. Miltenberger tabled in the House. Incidentally, I think most of the Members on this side of the House agree the opinion should have been tabled.

Once again, Mr. Speaker, what I am challenging is the interpretation of that opinion that he has chosen to put on it. Mr. Speaker, I believe strongly that the opinion in question does not have the evidence to suggest that this Cabinet broke the law. I think that it is necessary to repeat this because this is a very serious challenge. We should challenge that and we should state that but when we do, we should be clear about what evidence we are presenting. Mr. Miltenberger has his own view on that. That is fine. I respect that. However, I have to say what I think of it.

I say that on the basis of having read the opinion, having listened to the legal advisor about what she says was considered in that opinion, and I say it in terms with the background of having worked in that executive position in Executive.

Mr. Speaker, secondly, I believe strongly that a legal opinion on such a law is complex but it does not say that there was any conflict of interest arising out of this issue. I reserve the right to say that. In fact, the opinions states to the contrary. I once again quote from the opinion, No. 5, page 9, "There is no direct evidence of any legal conflict of interest arising out of Ms. Sorensen's appointment." The fact is, Mr. Speaker, by saying that you have an opinion and growing power from an opinion that does not really say what it purports to say, the damage has been done.

There is a doubt out there about the integrity of this government and trust the people have in this government. It is important that people who do not believe that or agree with that opinion to speak out and say so. Mr. Speaker, what I was trying to explain in my conversations with journalists and in any other settings is that I really think that you should hear what the functions and duties of this position are. This is not clear because it is a new position.

It is something that is more commonly found in a party system. However, I do believe that any Premier, any leader of a government has the right and prerogative to work out a position that best suits them. The fact that that is unclear to the people because it is new, it is not defined, does not necessarily conclude that it is something else just because you do not have the facts to back that up.

I am really not interested in talking about this job because I think enough has already been said about that. I just wanted to say that based on the lack of understanding and lack of information about what this job is, the legal opinion is not complete and the opinion says that. This opinion says that they do not have the information to go on. They do not have the job description or whatever they need to go on and they admit that. So to say that it says conclusively what you want it to say is irresponsible.

Mr. Speaker, I am very concerned about what this has done to a civil servant and people that work for the government. I represent those people who work for the government. They should be protected from the kind of smearing and accusations that are hurled in this public forum.

We Members have very wide power to speak on any number of the issues and that is the best asset we have. That is a very important tool we have. We have to have the freedom here to speak on things that we feel are important for our constituents or our communities that we represent and our Territory. It is a total privilege and we have immunity from prosecution or retribution in saying what we do in this House because it is such an important value. However, in order for us to maintain that and to use that, we must also be responsible. Every privilege comes with responsibility. I am very disturbed by the trend that we have set here in speaking about a person, a position, and allowing it unchallenged for four days in a wide media. It is not really about the person, but does anyone feel safe about now coming to that sort of scrutiny?

This is not rumour, Mr. Speaker. I had a deep conversation with my assistant about this and she says she feels unprotected that someone will not attack her in this House. All of us in this House have clerical staff. Their job descriptions are varied. Everyone knows that. They do whatever the Minister or Member needs and the degree or extent of their responsibilities depends on where the Members come from, what the Member's background is, what the Member's interests are...any number of things, and how the Members choose to use that assistant. It is such an essential position for us to do our job here. So they should be protected. Infringing and violating the privacy of one person is not just about that one person. It is about everyone else and that we cannot take lightly.

I must state that very strongly over and over. Mr. Speaker, we live in a very small community. In all of the Territories, there are only 42,000 people. The political community is very small. The civil service community is very small. Everyone knows everyone here. I know for myself, the only asset I have is my reputation and my name. I am not rich. I do not have a lot of property. I do not even have a huge family. Name and reputation is what I have. I have worked all my life to build that. In asking the public and everyone else to respect my reputation, I have to grant that to other people. I believe that whenever I ask for privilege and concession to be who I am, I have to give that to another person because otherwise there will not be any.

That is especially true for those who are elected. We have freedom to say what we need to say, but if it is going to target a person or the integrity of government, integrity of another person backed up by this legal opinion, then you had better be sure about what you are saying. You should be surer than if you are talking about a government policy or something like that. Mr. Speaker, I feel the need to say this also, because in my ten months as an MLA, I have been told over and over again that if you do not speak out that means that you condone it, that you are consenting to it.

You know, there is a rationality in that, Mr. Speaker, because obviously, not all of us can always speak on every issue on where we stand. Whenever you have a group of people speaking on an issue, then you know one or two people will speak for you, and then you generally agree. If you do not agree, you must speak out.

Mr. Speaker, I must say that I reject any notion out there that the AOC on this side of the House, and AOC meaning Accountability and Oversight Committee, is somehow a homogeneous and united body that has homogeneous sets of interests and political agendas. To accept that, Mr. Speaker, is to assume that the interests and needs of 11 Members are similar, and that is anyone with an elementary understanding of the communities that we represent, and the issues that we bring forward, and we know that cannot be the case.

I believe the AOC and all the committee structure that we have in this consensus government is borrowed from parliamentary tradition, which we do in many other areas. It is really there to serve us and help us do our job. It is an official way to organize ourselves.

People expect us to be accountable. People expect us to be critical of government whenever it is necessary. People expect us to represent our views on any given issue. In order to do that, all Members agree that it is a good idea to set a committee. I do not believe, Mr. Speaker, in anyway that says that we are a group as one and there are no other opinions, and that if the head of the AOC or any given Member of the AOC speaks on an issue that it is unanimously agreed by anyone else.

Mr. Speaker, I do not really know how long I have spoken here. I just want to make it clear that we as Members should have respect for other Members to speak. I have never made an attempt, and I do not always agree with all of the opinions that are spoken here, but I have never stopped another person from outlining their position. I would discourage any other Members from doing so.

Mr. Speaker, I just want to tell my constituents, that the fact that I am talking about this issue today does not mean that I do not care about other issues. On top of the agenda for my issues are regulatory process of the resource development, introduction of hotel tax, about which I have raised many objections in this House, and I have met with every stakeholder that I could think of and have discussed a lot. I will be raising objections to that, and my concerns, in due course.

On the top of my agenda also is family violence issues and the general social wellbeing of our residents. I feel that we have not done enough in our one-year mandate, and I look forward to having the opportunity to discuss more of that. Mr. Speaker, I have also raised the issues in this House about lack of funding in our health boards, and how it is necessary to look at it from a total perspective.

I also am very concerned about the lack of training opportunities we have, in order that the northern people are trained to take on some of the jobs that are available in the diamond industry and the oil and gas industry. I think we are experiencing a boom in many parts of this Territory, but that would mean nothing if our people are not able to take advantage of that, Mr. Speaker.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I just wanted to say that what is happening here in this House over the last four days has really brought to question the integrity of this House. There have been accusations hurled around based on a legal opinion that has at least a conflicting interpretation about what it is. I think that it has done a lot of damage to the concept of good government. In the end, I believe Mr. Speaker, that is all that we are here for.

We are here to work towards a good government, and in order to have a good government, there should be a check of differing opinions. It does not mean that one is free to hurl accusations and bring an accusation of dishonesty into it without evidence to say so. Whenever that sort of accusation is made, anyone who disagrees with that has an obligation to say that. You cannot just hide behind whatever you want to hide behind.

I think that the voters and the people out there have the right to ask us to opinionate. That is the only thing we can do. We have to have opinions on things. Where do you really stand on what the accusation is? This is not a good government. This government is being dishonest. It has broken its own law. That is a very serious discussion. That is a very serious issue, and where are the voices? What do you really think?

I am saying that the evidence as presented does not say that, and where are the opinions of others? I have a very serious concern about abuse of power. Power is always subject to abuse. People with good minds and good sense and a sense of respect for integrity should always challenge anyone who abuses their power.

Mr. Speaker, I will say once again, I will not tolerate any effort on the part of anyone in this House or outside of this House to muzzle me in any way. It is not about me. Once again, it is not about me. I can speak for myself on personal issues. It is about my power to represent my people. An effort to muzzle me is an effort to muzzle them, and they deserve better.

Mr. Speaker, I must say, many days and many hours of my work here, there were times when I just wanted to say nothing. I wanted to be one of the group. I wanted to please some people, or maybe not others, I do not know. It is really difficult when you have never been in public before, in public life, to opinionate and try to seek independence. When there is any dark moment or doubts about my ability to represent my people and speak on issues, I have to say over and over again, it is not about you. It is about the 460 people who went out and put an "x" next to my name. I still cannot believe people did that. People put a trust in me to say "We trust you. We trust that you are going to go into the House, and speak for me, to speak for what is good for our city, and speak for what is good for the Northwest Territories, and speak for all."

In order to do that, I had to be so much bigger than myself. Everyday I have to say it is not about you, it is about the people, and you have to speak up. If anything happens to diminish my power, which in turn diminishes the power of the people, then I have to speak up. Throughout it all, I want to protect the integrity of the people, the individual and the form of government we have.

Mr. Speaker, I think I have said enough. I appreciate the opportunity to do so. I hope that in doing so, I have made my points clear, Mr. Speaker. Thank you.

-- Applause

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, the Report of the Review of the Auditor General of Canada to the Legislative Assembly for the Years 1997 and 1998.

The Department of Resources, Wildlife and Economic Development have a number of programs that provide financial assistance to businesses in the Northwest Territories. These include the NWT Development Corporation, the NWT Business Credit Corporation, the Business Development Fund and Community Futures. It became apparent during the discussions that the roles and mandates of the different funds are not clear. Is the intent of these funds largely social, to assist communities where there is not much economic opportunity, or is it support for qualified northern businesses? Committee members feel it is time for these programs to project a clear idea of what the intent of these funds are; a social vehicle or an economic vehicle.

The NWT Development Corporation Act prescribes that regulations be developed for subsidies paid by the corporation. Despite the Act being in force since 1990 and this issue being presented in the 1996 Auditor General's Report, regulations have not been developed to date. Instead of developing regulations, the Financial Management Board issued a record of decision (ROD), dated November 14, 1989, to set the limits on the subsidies. The use of RODs and directives rather than regulations to govern subsidies is of grave concern to the committee. RODs are not public documents. Despite assurances from the comptroller general that the content of the ROD was made public, it was not done so in the avenue created in the legislation. Regulations are more available to the public thus more open and transparent.

Corporations are intended to operate at "arms length from government"; but there is the potential that they may then feel that they do not have to comply with Financial Management Board RODs and directives. In his appearance before the committee, the president of the NWT Development Corporation indicated that the ROD and directives issued for subsidies were seen as "guidelines". The rules governing NWT Development Corporation subsidies have slipped from a legislated requirement for regulations to a record of decision to mere "guidelines".

There is a difference of opinion between the comptroller general and the president of the NWT Development Corporation. The comptroller general indicated to the committee that the NWT Development Corporation should be following the directives explicitly. Should there be a legitimate reason why the directive would be inappropriate in a particular investment circumstance, the NWT Development Corporation should acquire an exemption from the Financial Management Board Secretariat prior to issuing funds. The comptroller general further stated that to date, the NWT Development Corporation has never sought such an exemption.

As stated earlier, the issue of the using RODs instead of regulations has been raised in previous Auditor General's reports. This causes the committee to question how seriously the government considers the Report of the Auditor General and its review by the committee. The comptroller general has indicated that it would not be difficult to transfer the RODs into regulations and "it should be able to happen before Christmas".

The Standing Committee recommends that the present Financial Management Board's record of decision setting the limits for subsidies issued by the Northwest Territories Development Corporation be transferred into regulations by December 31, 2000.

The Financial Management Board record of decision stipulates that operational subsidies and investments from the NWT Development Corporation to its subsidiaries be based on each job that the subsidiary creates. The job may be created directly or indirectly. The Auditor General noted that the NWT Development Corporation has not collected information on the number of jobs created. Therefore, it cannot be determined if the subsidies and investment monies exceed the limits stipulated by the FMB. The comptroller general stated to the committee:

"...we cannot provide to you the reports from the Northwest Territories Development Corporation that would verify that the jobs were actually created in the numbers that they anticipated".

Compounding the situation, the Financial Management Board and the NWT Development Corporation have not reached an agreement as to the definition of "job" for the purposes of measurement. In spite of the requisite information failing to being collected and a lack of agreement on the definition of job, monies continued to flow to the corporation.

As a result of information not being compiled, neither the government nor subsequently the committee has any concrete evidence as to how effective the NWT Development Corporation is in fulfilling its mandate. Further to this, it has to be questioned why monies continued to flow to the corporation when it was in contravention of the Financial Management Board's record of decision governing its subsidies.

The Northwest Territories Development Corporation Act requires the corporation to obtain Financial Management Board approval when subsidies to subsidiaries exceed the maximum amounts approved by the board. During the year ended March 31, 1996, the corporation exceeded the approved subsidy for Northern Forest Products Limited by $747,320 without acquiring the proper approval from the FMB.

For these violations of expenditure guidelines to occur, there must have been a complete lack of monitoring and a disregard for legislative authority. Concerns were raised as to how many other government programs are operating under the same parameters as the NWT Development Corporation. This issue is addressed again in this report under the heading of "Monitoring Third Party Compliance".