Mr. Speaker, I believe it is the manner of how we conduct ourselves in the question of confidence and matters which are discussed behind closed doors, in Caucus, which is open to all Members to have the ability to speak our minds freely and talk about issues, knowing that will stay within the room of Caucus and in issues that we feel, in order to have the ability to speak freely, knowing that is in confidence.

I think we have to realize that it is a question of allowing for us to be able to feel comfortable that we can discuss issues in confidence and that those issues are held in confidence in Caucus. For myself as a Member, I feel it is my right to feel that I have the security of raising issues in Caucus. That is being infringed on by what was said or who said what by bringing it out in this public forum. It disallows the respect of other Members of Caucus to be able to do that. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Krutko. I am having a bit of difficulty on your point of order because there is no rule that is being breached. We may have certain conventions that Members may follow but this is information that is not known to the House, what you are describing. There is no rule being breached by the honourable Member in her statements so far. Mr. Krutko.

Mr. Speaker, I believe there is a convention that we all follow as Members and I think this is one of them, that we have to ensure that we feel confidence that what we say behind closed doors or in the confidence of Members and that we do not misuse that trust by doing that. I think in this case, there is a convention that we all follow and I think that convention has been violated.

Thank you, Mr. Krutko. It may be that we have certain conventions that have been followed in the past. There definitely is no rule being broken here yet so you have no point of order. I will allow the honourable Member to continue her reply to the opening address, bearing in mind the concerns that have been expressed. Ms. Lee.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. In the spirit of showing the respect for the convention of this House, I will try to be discreet about what I say but I think that what I have to say here is of the level of importance that I must push the envelope to reveal as much as possible without disrespecting the process, Mr. Speaker. I take your advice as noted and I will make my best effort.

Mr. Speaker, I feel that it is really important that I stand here and speak because I want to prevent the approach in this House that serious allegations or expressions are made as to the confidence that Members have of the Premier or of the government, without having a forum for the Members to make their statements about why it is that they are questioning the confidence of the Premier.

Mr. Speaker, I was not thinking about doing this statement until I heard the Premier's emergency statement. It is obvious to me that the Premier is talking to the people and asking the people to respond about whether or not this Premier has the support of the people and therefore, this Assembly. I do not think that it is fair to ask the people to provide input without giving them information so I am doing this in the hopes that other Members might feel compelled to make their position known about where they stand on this government and what they think of the Premier so that we can move on and govern.

Mr. Speaker, I said yesterday when we were discussing the special committee report, I acknowledged that this House and the Members have a lot of power under what is known as power of privilege. However, I also firmly believe that for every ounce of power that we have here as Members under parliamentary privilege, we have to have as much, if not more, responsibility in how we use that.

All the power that we have comes from the people and people need to know. I respect the sense of fairness and sense of integrity and sense of rationality that people out there have to make a final judgment about whether or not what is being conducted here and what is being done here behind the scenes is something that should be condoned. I do not think that we could expect the people to make that decision unless all of us, and of course it is up to the Members, but I am taking the action to stand up and say this is what I know. I am prepared to be judged by the people out there and the people here and in the end by my electorate.

Mr. Speaker, if I am not out of line, I would just like to say that what is happening here is that there are Members here -- and the Members I have mentioned -- who feel that even though yesterday we went through the motions posed in the special committee report and had very detailed discussions about it. The last item in that report had to do with confidence in the Premier and the Premier's office.

It is a very innocently stated motion, Mr. Speaker, and every Member who voted on it explained where they stood on it and why. However, it seems like there was an ulterior motive to that motion and that is that a suggestion made for a certain action has to be taken by the Premier and if not, it is a vote of confidence on him.

All of these discussions were held in private. I am told that I cannot speak about it. I do not really understand why I cannot speak about it because if I do not speak about it and no one else speaks about it, how would the people out there know that there is a palace coup going on here with paper, in secret discussions behind the scene?

This is not just about the removal of the Premier. This is not just about the removal of Mr. Stephen Kakfwi out of the office of the Premier. This is about overthrowing the government. This is about putting a halt to the discussions we are having with Ottawa on devolution, resource revenue sharing, Aboriginal Pipeline Working Group working with the government and the producers -- we are so close to arriving at a serious decision there. This is about stopping all of the work that we have done in the last two years and making this government a lame duck government no matter who sits on the Premier's seat.

One of the motives I have in doing this today, Mr. Speaker, is that I am simply sick and tired of this Legislature looking like it is a banana republic.

-- Interjection

A point of privilege has been raised by the honourable Member for Yellowknife South, Mr. Bell. What is your point of privilege?

Point of Privilege

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I rise today to raise a point of privilege. I believe the Member imputed motive on the committee when she suggested that we had ulterior motives in our recommendations. I do not think that is proper or acceptable. Thank you.

Okay. We have a point of privilege here. I cannot rule on that immediately. I just have to find out what is his point of privilege. Thank you, Mr. Bell. From the Chair's point of view, it does not appear that you have a point of privilege by what you described. You are not being impeded. Your business can still continue. You may have a point of order but at this point, it does not appear to be a point of privilege. Your rights are not being trampled on. Mr. Bell.

A point of order.

What is your point of order?

Point of Order

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My point of order is, as I have just suggested in attempting to make a point of privilege, I believe the Member has imputed motive toward myself and the committee with her suggestion that one of the recommendations had ulterior motives. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Bell. At this point, I cannot make a ruling on it because I would like to review the transcripts to see what was said. However, we can entertain debate on that point of order to see whether or not other Members have any comments on whether there is a point of order and what this alleged point of order is. Does anyone else wish to remark on that? The honourable Member for Frame Lake, Mr. Dent.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It may be essential to wait for a final transcript, but I believe that I too heard a suggestion that there was a motive, a hidden motive for the resolution that was adopted by this House. I would further argue that it may be improper for a Member to make that kind of comment about a resolution that has been adopted by this Assembly.

Thank you. To the point of order. There being no further debate on that, I shall reserve judgment on that point of order until the Chair has had a chance to review. Perhaps I can just caution the honourable Member, who will continue to speak, to remember the conventions and remember the rules that apply to the House as far as references to things of the nature that -- she has come fairly close, as the Chair heard, about hidden motive, the word, but continue on, Ms. Lee.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, my apologies. It was not appropriate for me to use the words ulterior motive, so I will retract that and refrain from saying that again.

Mr. Speaker, I apologize for having a very disoriented statement here because I really was not planning on doing this. What forced me to do this is in reflecting on what transpired in these hallways this morning. Understanding the seriousness of what is going on here, I feel compelled to get up and speak. Please accept my apologies if I do not sound as organized as I should.

What I would like to say to the people is that yesterday in this House, until the wee hours of the night, we discussed the report of the Special Committee on Conflict Process. This committee is a committee that was set up by this House to review two things. One is the allegation of bias made by former Minister Groenewegen with respect to the way she was being treated by the Conflict Commissioner.

The second issue the committee was tasked to deal with was to find out what had gone on and find out the details of the circumstances surrounding the taping by Minister Groenewegen of the private conversation between the Conflict Commissioner and the principal secretary, John Bayly.

Mr. Speaker, as I stated yesterday, this was a very unusual process in that it was without a lot of precedence. The committee had to figure out the rules as they went along.

It was apparent from the process that the committee decided to adopt a process known as a quasijudicial process, which cannot really be defined but it is something that mixes legal process and parliamentary process. All of this power comes from what is known as parliamentary privilege.

I feel very strongly, Mr. Speaker, that yesterday, the report itself was so heavy-handed that we have resulted in destroying the reputations and careers of not only the Minister but the Conflict Commissioner as well. We did serious damage to a CBC reporter, Lee Selleck, and we have damaged the reputations of many other civil servants.

Now, I understand that with the parliamentary privilege, apparently we have the power to do that. However, like I said before, we have to be responsible in how we react to this. I hope I am not out of line in saying that in listening to what went on yesterday and listening to the Premier's answer, there are people here who feel that he has lost the confidence of the House. I respect that we always have the option to question the confidence of the Premier or any of Ministers. However, I do not accept that any of that process should go on by secret ballot or that all those discussions should take place behind the scenes.

Mr. Speaker, just to give an idea about how unfair and what an abuse of power this process was that was conducted in this House by honourable Members here -- I respect the right of the Members here to speak. It is important to me that I have the right to speak and I have to give that right to everyone else.

Mr. Speaker, yesterday by a motion in this House, the House ruled that the Conflict Commissioner should be removed from office. This is a person who has had 20 years of legal experience, who is very new on the job and at the stroke of a pen, without any due process, we have voted her out of this House.

Ms. Lee, I am going to stop you here. I am looking at rules and it is becoming evidently clear that the Speaker has a duty to intervene under Rule 23: "In debate, a Member will be called to order by the Speaker if the Member, under section (c), is persistent in needless repetition or raises matters which have been decided during the current session."

I refer further to section (f): "Reflects upon previous vote of the Assembly except for the purpose of moving that it be rescinded."

I am not sure whether or not you are making the best use, in the Chair's opinion, of replying to the opening address. Although it does allow for very wide berth, a very broad spectrum of things that the honourable Members may speak on, I continually hear certain phrases that are difficult for the Chair to accept as part of what is normally a reply to an opening address. Certainly raising the matters which have been decided upon during the current session, these matters were discussed at length yesterday and we continue to hear them now. I would ask you to perhaps focus on something other than that, if it is possible, Ms. Lee.

Point of privilege, Mr. Speaker, unless I could speak to ask you for clarification. Am I to understand that I am not able to speak at all about the decisions that have been made by this House? Is that what I am in breach of? Could you please clarify that?

Thank you, Ms. Lee. The Chair has been listening to your return to the opening address and it appears to be focused persistently upon on a matter that has been dealt with already by this House. Certainly a vote has taken place yesterday and the Chair is wondering if this is a good use of that time. Ms. Lee.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My apologies, I am not in any way trying to abuse the process or trying to question the authority of the Chair, Mr. Speaker. I just feel that it is very important for those outside of this House who are not aware of what is going on in this House.

In light of what Premier Kakfwi has stated today, in which he is seriously considering his future as a Premier of this jurisdiction, I feel it is my duty as a Member of this House to explain, in the best way possible, what I feel the people need to know in order to respond to this situation. I do not mean to repeat what went on yesterday but I believe because people were not really listening and there is a lack of information out there about what is going on. So if I may, Mr. Speaker, I would just like to recount...

I will interrupt you again. The Chair continues to hear references to palace coup and to innuendoes that may suggest that there are hidden motives by the honourable Members of this House towards other honourable Members. The Chair is having difficulty trying to relate that to your reply to the opening address which was delivered by the Finance Minister, the honourable Premier, at some point some time ago, of matters of relevance to your constituency. The Chair is not aware of what the public out there may or may not have heard yesterday during the lengthy debate on this matter but the Chair is satisfied that the matter had been dealt with yesterday at great length, as you well put it.

However, we keep referring back to certain -- you are bordering on allegations of Members surreptitiously doing things. I am asking you to perhaps focus on matters that may deal with the opening address. Ms. Lee.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My apologies, Mr. Speaker. We came into this House and we all agreed to a document and basic principal that we would work together for the benefit of the people of the Northwest Territories. I believe that it is our job to make sure that the conduct of this House -- not conduct, I am sorry, but the business that goes on this House is in the interest in meeting the needs of the people in that we look after the economic development and resource development and economic future of this Territory. I do believe that is what the constituents of Range Lake expect me to do.

What I need to tell them is that I am compelled to take the opportunity of replying to the opening address to tell them that there are issues happening in this House that are affecting the campaign promise I made to work towards good government and responsible government.

Everyone knows that we operate under what is known as consensus government. I really do believe that as long as there is a serious question here all the time about who should be governing us or who should be the leader or who should be the Minister, without cause or having a public debate about it, then we will fester and we are not meeting the needs of the people.

I know that I am not going to be meeting the needs of my constituents in Range Lake if I am having to spend my time here as an MLA constantly having to defend myself and defend the interests of the people, rather than taking care of the issues of the day.

Mr. Speaker, I believe that it really goes to the heart of our political and economic future that if the affairs of this House are so distracted that we are not able to look at the important issues, such as the social agenda or how to revitalize our health system, or any other agenda items that the Premier has stated in his sessional statements way back in March and two days ago, if we are not able to consider any other obligations that were laid out in the Minister's statement because we are constantly in the back room talking about whether or not we have confidence in the job that is being done by the Ministers.

Mr. Speaker, I think we are well aware that consensus government works in a way that sometimes this government looks like it is a minority government. I would actually say that it is worse than a minority government because at any given time, the government can never know whether it has the support of enough Members to do its job.

For those who are watching us from afar, whether they be multi-national corporations that are coming here to invest, whether it is oil and gas companies or diamond companies, whether it be federal Ministers or the Prime Minister, they cannot figure out from one day to the next who is governing this Territory as long as there is this question every month, every six months, every year as to the legitimacy of this government.

I do not believe that I could do my job as the MLA for Range Lake and I cannot do my job to help the government meet the agenda as stated in the sessional statement unless we put this to bed. That people, that Members here, should be compelled to get up and speak about where they stand on these issues and be judged about it.

Mr. Speaker, I just find it really imperative that we understand that there are 19 of us here who have access to this Hall. We have to be very careful about what we do in this House. I feel very terrible that we have, in the process of doing what we were doing in terms of looking at the allegation of bias against the Conflict Commissioner and discussing things around this House, managed to destroy careers. I do not think it is responsible.

I do not think that the people of Range Lake or anywhere in this Territory should accept that the 19 Members they have elected to come to this House to serve them and serve their social and economic needs, to look after their educational budget, to look after their health budget, that we are using this forum to destroy people's reputations. I have to ask myself to be a good legislator, how do they get a chance to answer for themselves?

We have a point of privilege being raised by the honourable Member for Thebacha. Mr. Miltenberger, your point of privilege.

Point of Privilege

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, I have been listening since the beginning to the use of terms like palace coup, which in themselves imply violence, bypassing and overthrowing the legitimate elected officials by force, by other means. Now we are being accused of wilfully and deliberately destroying lives.

I do not mind a free exercise of parliamentary debate, but it should not impute motive and it should not imply that the Members of this House or the Members on a committee wilfully and with malice and whatever other kind of adjective I could use to indicate the degree that we have done something to be hurtful, to wilfully attack and destroy people. I think to me is an affront to myself as a legislator, to my colleagues, to this House, that it would be implied that we would do that.

We were tasked with a job. I do not mind the give-and-take of debate, but I think there has to be some civility and there has to be some basic common terminology that does not take us down to that level. It detracts from the House and it detracts from the debate and it only makes us all look bad. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Miltenberger, on your point of privilege. I am not sure whether you do have a point of privilege from where the Chair sits. I would want to say, however, that the honourable Member is pushing the Chair's envelope, so to speak, with the latitude that the Chair has allowed already by continually making subtle references here, and some not so subtle, to the motives of Members of the House towards other Members.

I would rule at this point that, Mr. Miltenberger, you do not have a point of privilege. I would again caution the honourable Member for Range Lake to not continually make references to the perceived, by herself, intentions of other Members towards the House or towards the government. You are making it difficult here to allow you to continue making your reply to the opening address if the Chair continues to hear this. I do not want to continually interrupt you so I will allow the honourable Member to continue on, asking her to be cautious as to her use of certain language. Ms. Lee.