Mr. Dent, I do not think that this is meant to be a question and answer period as such, so we will stick to speaking to the motion. Mr. Premier.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I should clarify that Cabinet has not made formal Cabinet decisions or positions. I meant to say that we took the liberty to discuss the report and how we might approach it and if any of the recommendations were relevant to our conduct as Ministers. We generally decided that some of the recommendations were not necessary or in our interest to vote as Ministers. The first one is clearly one that is up to us individually as Ministers or MLAs, the one regarding Lee Selleck and the CBC. The second one regarding our colleague was of interest and we did talk about taking a collective view on that, which is not relevant any longer. The third one, regarding the Conflict of Interest Commissioner, that we all agreed was up to us individually as MLAs to comment on, so we will be doing that. The last was agreed reflected on myself as a Premier, so we discussed a collective view on that. Thank you for the chance to clarify that.

Thank you, Premier Kakfwi. I will go to Mr. Steen.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I speak to the motion and I am not sanctioned. Mr. Chairman, I have questions very similar to what was expressed by other Members as to where do we go with Mr. Selleck from here. I do also have concerns as to what was expressed in the report and how serious the committee says that Mr. Selleck's testimony was needed, and how it may have helped resolve or provide some information to help the committee arrive at a decision. Then, to simply sweep him away, if he decides he does not want to come, I suggest, Mr. Chairman, that Mr. Selleck did not do this lightly.

The report suggests and states that he had counsel. I am not sure whether this means that CBC was in fact paying for that counsel, but it does bring into question whether Mr. Selleck was acting on his own or whether he had the support of CBC. So maybe the question is not so much Mr. Selleck as it is CBC. I am sure he was not acting alone. I have to give some credibility to Mr. Selleck and his professionalism. He is not a greenhorn reporter. He has been around for awhile. He has been in this type of situation before.

I have to give a lot of weight to the fact that we are simply going to walk away from this with no explanation from Mr. Selleck or the CBC. We are going to just let the item die. I believe that this is not the forum to follow up on it. I believe, like Mr. Bell suggested, there was opportunity and there is opportunity for other forums to follow up on this. It is not necessary that it be dealt with at this point in time.

On those grounds, I feel that the recommendation is not appropriate. It should not be part of this report. I am not supporting the motion. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Steen. Ms. Lee.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, I think this is a very serious matter. There are lots of paragraphs like this in regard to what the committee sees of Mr. Selleck's conduct. I do not know if it is fair to suggest that, "Well, I could come up with any kind of sanctions I want, if I want to."

Paragraph 6.9 reads, "The committee has the power to recommend sanctions to the House and these sanctions are very broad." It says, "This action is contemptuous of the committee and of the House itself which duly constituted the committee." But,

The committee has chosen, however, to deal with the more significant issues and not waste the valuable time and resources of the House on a contemptuous act that is based more in ignorance than malice. It is, however, indicative of a reporter and media corporation that simply lack both in professionalism and a fundamental understanding of civics and the democratic values that underpin our system of governance.

Someone should just read this over and if they would like to have this written about them in a Legislature by 19 elected Members and say, "Well, we have said everything we think about it but we are not going to do anything about it, so go away and..." I think that it is shameful for anybody to use the power of privilege we have here to speak and write and opinionate and just strew about your opinions.

What I see here is that you punish with your words just because you can, because we have the power to say whatever we want, we will say it. We have no recourse. This is exactly the kind of abuse of power that I was mentioning and we are answerable to the public on that. The public has to listen to this paragraph and this is just one of the hundreds of paragraphs in this book that just lash out at everyone who came in the path of this issue. Opinions are thrown about, not only about their conduct but their professional integrity, their understanding about civics and democratic principles.

Paragraph 6.0 says that, "The refusal of a witness to answer questions before a duly constituted parliamentary committee is a serious affront to the dignity of the parliamentary process." Our dignity has been jeopardized. What are we going to do about that?

Penal jurisdiction of the House is not confined to its own Members, nor is it confined to offences committed in the immediate presence of the House by its Members. It is extended to all contempts of the House whether committed by a Member or by persons who are not Members, and whether or not the offence constituting the contempt was committed within the House or beyond its walls.

I did not realize that we had this much power, but apparently we do. This is what I mean by us having to use this power responsibly and not to do it as an abuse of power.

Once again, Mr. Chairman, I think this is very serious and I will make this argument over and over again. There are two other things about this. One is that if he is that important, this committee made very serious recommendations and decisions with a lack of information from its key person. If the committee felt it was a waste of time to suggest any sanctions, it was irresponsible on the part of the committee to make such all-encompassing, scathing, inflammatory, scandalous statements just because the committee had the power to say it. I cannot condone that. This is not a small matter.

Free and independent media, free from intimidation and smearing, is an integral part of a constitutional democracy. As it is already, the Northwest Territories does not have the kind of media, the wide and powerful media that we should have because so much of their business depends on government. I believe that even if they never say anything that I would like to hear, they have to be protected. All media has to. This is just so irresponsible. I cannot say enough about it. I will just end it there. Thank you.

Thank you, Ms. Lee. Mr. Braden.

Mr. Chairman, I have already stated that I feel that this is a matter that should not be left unattended. I would like to propose an amendment to the motion as put forward by Mr. Bell, seeking his approval to it. I believe our process is then that we could debate this.

Just a quick preamble to this, I understand that the CBC, as a national news organization, has an ombudsman and that the purpose of that office is to bring problems with coverage and performance of the CBC to its audience and its clients. I would like to propose the amendment.

I move that the Law Clerk of this Assembly be directed to discuss the issue with the CBC ombudsman and bring back recommendations to committee of the whole.

If that amendment would be in order, I am quite open to suggestions on how it might be tuned up, but essentially what I am suggesting here, Mr. Chairman, is that we go to the CBC and their ombudsman to find a way through this that can satisfy both parties. Thank you.

Mr. Braden, could you supply a copy of what you are proposing?

Yes, of course, Mr. Chairman.

The committee will recess while we get the motion drafted and copied, and come back at the call of the Chair.

-- Break

I will call committee of the whole back to order. Mr. Braden, could you read your amendment for the record, please? Mr. Braden.

Thank you, Mr. Braden. This amendment, Mr. Braden, goes beyond or opposite to the motion on the floor. I will rule that the amendment is out of order and we will go to the original motion.

-- Ruled Out of Order

Mr. Braden.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Just prior to voting on this, I would like to advise committee that I would vote against this motion. I have a new one I would like to bring in place which will hopefully allow us to reach some conclusion to this one. My comment, Mr. Chairman, is that I am going to vote against the original motion and I would urge the committee to do so as well. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Braden. To the motion. Ms. Lee.

Mr. Chairman, I would just like to request a recorded vote on this motion, please.

A recorded vote has been requested. Are we ready for the question? Mr. Ootes.

Could you clarify -- I was distracted for a moment -- could you clarify where we are at, at the moment, motion-wise?

Thank you, Mr. Ootes. We are now dealing with Committee Motion 20-14(4): "Mr. Chairman, I MOVE that no further formal action be taken with respect to Mr. Selleck and the CBC." To the motion. Question has been called. All those in favour, please stand.

All those opposed, please stand.

All those abstaining, please stand.