Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, in regard to statements that have been made so far today in regard to replies to the opening address, I for one believe that the consensus style of government is unique and it does work for the geographical makeup of the Northwest Territories, with our small population, our vast area, the distance between communities, from north to south, east to west, and also to ensure that we have a system that basically allows us to have the flexibility or the ability to develop agendas and issues that affect each one of us every day, day in and day out, and be able to establish an agenda of issues and items that we, all 19 Members, are able to have a say on how we are going to govern ourselves, and also how we are able to bring matters to the floor in regard to not having to worry if the issues you are bringing forth are based on a party system, in which one party may agree or disagree, but also allowing ourselves to work for the betterment of the people we serve, and the uniqueness of a party system, which does not allow you to really do that, because in most cases, you have to stick to party solidarity and stick to the party platform, which in most cases, once it is set it is set and there is no swaying away from that.

I think one thing that we have to realize as a government that makes us unique is also that we do have a system in place for accountability. We have a system that we establish through rules, regulations and policies and the way the decisions should be made through a system of checks and balances.

Yet, Mr. Speaker, what we see in most cases is that we are not following the rules that we set for ourselves and also the process that we allow ourselves through a decision-making process that allows input from our Members, allows us to have dialogue with the Cabinet Ministers through a planning process, a budgetary process and ensuring that we do have a system that really works.

Mr. Speaker, from what we have seen in the 14th Assembly is that we are not following our rules and following policies and regulations that we put in place to ensure that accountability is there.

One thing which I see which is troubling to myself is the amount of power that we put into the hands of the few by way of deputy ministers. Now we have a system in place dealing with how capital is going to be allocated. We have a deputy minister's committee which basically sets the capital priorities based on a room full of deputy ministers.

Before that we had a system in place which was a five-year capital planning process which allowed communities and governments and the MLAs to sit down and say, what does the community need through its capital planning process and go in there every year to update that plan. We for some reason have short-circuited that system to allow for deputy ministers to have the ability to sit in their room and say "Okay, what do you want, what do you want, what do I need?" but not allowing ourselves as Members of the Legislature to say, "Look, here guys. The capital expenditures you are making affects every one of us in the Northwest Territories by way of all communities we represent, the ridings we represent, and to be fair to the 19 Members in this House.

What I have seen coming from the 13th Assembly into the 14th Assembly is that we have had allegations made to certain Members in regard to calling for reviews by way of conflict complaints and at the end of it all we find out that there are all these recommendations made by way of setting rules and regulations so that this thing does not happen again.

The first thing we do going in from the 13th Assembly into this Assembly is we sort of chucked out the rules and said, "Well sorry guys, we will give all the power to a group of deputy ministers to tell us how we are going to do things, how we are going to expend capital dollars and you guys sit in the room with a bunch of cards and play poker amongst yourselves and say, "Hey, who is going to win once, who has got the biggest hand and who has got the better hand? We will win those capital projects." The Department of Justice seems to be doing a great job.

Now they are able to get a capital expense of some $50 million yet we are having problems in the area of health, social services, programs and services in our governments.

Yet, Mr. Speaker, consensus government works when we abide by the rules, not change the rules for the sake of changing the rules, but set the rules, give it the teeth and the ability to really mean something; to really have the ability to avoid these things from happening again.

I for one feel that we as a government have to ensure that we have a system that is open. That we do not have a room of deputy ministers sitting there by themselves allocating capital that has an effect on everyone in this House, and everyone in the Northwest Territories.

Mr. Speaker, I was totally amazed to go through a process where there was zero dollars. The highways in my ridings, Highway No. 8, that is the first time I have ever seen a zero relating to that capital infrastructure. Yet we find out that there has been million-dollar contracts signed to the tune of some $12 million to do work in regard to Highway No. 3. Twelve million dollars. Yet there is zero for Highway No. 8.

I think as a government we have to be accountable. We have to show we are not there strictly for the sake of excuses that it is based on a formula, it is based on numbers, it is based on need or greed. I am not too sure which one of those it fits into.

I think as a government we have to be able to have a system that for the little guy that is having a problem with accessing housing or someone having problems because they are not able to access social benefits, or someone who is not having access to our health and social services system because of the system being overrun by the bureaucracy and too much red tape.

I think as a government we have to do more to realistically say to ourselves, who elected us? Who are the people that put us here? Who are the people who, at the end of the day, put their trust and faith in us by voting for us, to give us the support that we need to be here representing them? Not the other way around, that once we get here we say, well I have a title now, I am a little bit higher up the ladder so basically you people down below there, if we have any crumbs left over we will sort of shove them aside, and if you get some of them, well you get to keep those.

Yet we are hearing about clawbacks, benefit agreements,. People have waited for years to finally get some real benefit from resource development in the Northwest Territories and what do we do? Claw back those benefits. There is something wrong with a system when the power of a department or the power of a particular bureaucrat is so fast that we have no real system of saying, well look here, what rule did you follow? What was the accountability process? What were the checks and balances to ensure there was a thorough review of those decisions, or a thorough review to ensure that there is a paper trail that you can say, that decision was based on these checks. Not a decision made that after the fact you find out there was no real accountability process, there was no real evaluation of what the cost benefit was or what the evaluation, what the loss of that program is to the residents of the Northwest Territories.

I believe, Mr. Speaker, that we do have to ensure that accountability is key. Consensus government works when the accountability is in place and we follow their rules that are established. What we are finding is that those rules are being breached and broken day in and day out by a system of government which needs to be made more accountable. If that means establishing more rules, then I guess we will have to do that.

What frustrates me, coming from the 13th Assembly into the 14th Assembly, is we never learned what happened in the 13th Assembly. Basically all we are doing is saying, "Well, that is their problem, we are sort of going to reinvent our own rules, regulations, our own agenda and we will move on whatever we feel like. If we feel good on a particular day, a particular issue, we will move on it, not really realizing what the implications to the whole society in the Northwest Territories will be from the small communities to the large communities to the programs and services, from health care to justice to ensuring that we have the dollars to run our programs and services.

Mr. Speaker, I for one feel that it comes back to a question of trust, honesty, accountability and also being able to work together.

I use the last word "work together" in the context of listening from all sides, hearing what people are saying, good, bad or indifference, but at least at the end of the day we walk out of the room with a consensus where we all can agree that the decision we made is a decision we can all live by.

Without that consensus, where we know that we are fractured to a point where we cannot agree, well, at least let's, at the end of the day, agree to disagree and move on and leave that matter to someone else.

I for one feel that, as a system of government, we cannot afford the luxury of party politics where big dollars and people who have power by way of affiliation of a specific party, the Liberal Party, the PC Party, the NDP. You can buy an election strictly by affiliation.

You can basically, at the end of the day, establish policies, procedures, which are strictly established for special interest groups, not the interest of the people but the interest of special interest groups who want their agenda driven through a particular party.

In regard to party politics, but yet in a consensus government, we can talk about the social issues. We can talk about the education problems. We can talk about programs and services that are either lacking in one area where we need a major cash influx in another.

I think that as a government, we have to pull back some of these powers and responsibilities that we have been devolving to deputy ministers, to bureaucrats in this government who, in my view, have too much power. They have the power to do whatever they feel they would like to do, knowing there is no accountability at the end of the day, where if it comes down to a vote in the House, or comes down to a decision through a supplementary appropriation, there is very little that we can do from this side of the House. As we found out, you can try to pass a motion or make a suggestion of cutting a specific dollar amount. At the end of the day, you do not really have that much power, being a Member on this side of the House.

The only power we have is through the dialogue we have through the capital planning process, and ensuring that the system of developing a budget, which we have a say in, but yet the direction comes from a department. The key is to get to the department before they make that decision, so when they come down to sit down with us with a budget, we had input, not after the fact a committee of deputy ministers stand around in a room and decided what the priority is based on their formula. There has to be a better system in place that allows ourselves as Members of the Legislative Assembly and Members who represent constituents, people in our ridings and people in the Northwest Territories, to develop a plan, a business plan, a budget, that we bring forth to this House which we know that we have covered all the bases. We have allowed for a fair distribution of the resources, so that it is distributed across the board fairly, not strictly sitting aside, allowing a committee of deputy ministers to make that decision for us, because that is where the problem lies in this government. We have too much power in the hands of a few. I for one feel that we have to develop a better accountability system.

You hear it from the Cabinet Ministers. They say that they have gone to the department demanding certain thing. They have stressed that they wanted the department to change, but yet at the end of the day, the department says "Sorry, folks, we are responsible for the department. All you are is a Minister." So if they have that much power, what does that tell us? That we have lost control of this government where the bureaucracy runs what goes on in this Legislative Assembly, what goes in our budgets, what is going to be allocated to any particular riding or community? That for me is where the bottleneck is. We have to re-look at this whole area of accountability, accessibility, ensuring that the public dollars are being spent and are being accounted for through a system that gives us that accountability.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleagues for giving me another shot at this. Mahsi.

Mahsi, Mr. Krutko. Item 9, replies to opening address. Item 10, petitions. Item 11, reports of standing and special committees. I will just take a bit of a pause here. Before we get into the next item, colleagues, I would just like to welcome to the visitors' gallery the presence of Major Hoeft, from the Salvation Army Mission here in Yellowknife.

-- Applause

Thank you. Item 11, reports of standing and special committees. The honourable Member for Inuvik Boot Lake, Mr. Roland.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I am pleased to present the Standing Committee on Governance and Economic Development Report on the Review of Bill 14, An Act to Amend the Revolving Funds Act. In the interest of time, Mr. Speaker, I seek unanimous consent to have Committee Report 13-14(5) deemed read and printed into Hansard. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Roland. The honourable Member is seeking unanimous consent to deem Committee Report 13-14(5) read. Are there any nays? There are no nays. The report is deemed to be read and printed into Hansard. The Chair recognizes the honourable Member for Inuvik Boot Lake.

Introduction

Bill 14, An Act to Amend the Revolving Funds Act is ironically a straightforward and simple piece of legislation. The amendment establishes the Lot Development Revolving Fund (LDRF) and sets the amount available to the fund at $4 million.

The Standing Committee on Governance and Economic Development had no concerns with the amendment itself. Committee concerns centered on the details of how the Lot Development Revolving Fund would work.

Background

The Members of the Standing Committee on Governance and Economic Development first heard of the proposed Lot Development Revolving Fund in the February 20th, 2002 Budget Address as part of a four part program aimed at encouraging the private sector to develop affordable rental accommodations in non-tax based communities.

On April 24th, 2002 the government provided the standing committee with a legislative proposal on amending the Revolving Funds Act. Also included with the legislative proposal was an attachment dated January 25th, 2002. The attachment provided a very brief outline of how the government envisioned the Lot Development Revolving Fund working.

On May 10th, 2002, the Standing Committee on Government and Economic Development met to consider the legislative proposal and program details contained in the attachment.

Members of the standing committee assumed the Department of Municipal and Community Affairs had time to develop further program details over what was contained in the January 25th attachment.

Consequently, in the committee letter of May 27th, 2002 the committee provided general support for the legislative proposal and directed the Government House Leader to proceed with the drafting of the legislation. Also included in the letter were a set of questions addressing committee concerns with program delivery.

These concerns included:

• • How the program would operate in communities that only had Indian Affairs Branch lands available for development;
• • Whether the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development had been consulted;
• • How the LDRF would be reimbursed once lots have been developed on Indian Affairs Branch land;
• • How the program impacts on land claim or self-government negotiations;
• • Concern was expressed that the LDRF would replace existing lot development initiatives offered through the Department of Municipal and Community Affairs. Members wanted assurances this was not the case;
• • How the LDRF would work for lots developed on Commissioner's Lands;
• • For any revolving fund to work properly the product or service must turn over on a regular basis to replenish the fund so that more lot development can occur. Members requested further information on interested communities and on which communities would see lots being developed in the summer of 2002;
• • How the companion Subsidy Bridging Program would work;
• • Whether territorial and federal boards, agencies and departments could access the LDRF;
• • How the government would lessen the potential for land speculation on lots developed under the program;
• • What stakeholder consultation had taken place or was underway;
• • Five year forecast for lot development in the communities;
• • Details on financial controls and audit procedures.

The government responded to the committee's letter on June 11th, 2002 the same day on which the government introduced Bill 14, An Act to Amend the Revolving Funds Act. Bill 14 was referred to the Standing Committee on Governance and Economic Development for review on the same day.

The committee considered the June 11th response from the government to the concerns raised by the standing committee at its June 13th, 2002 meeting.

It became apparent to committee members that the development of the actual program details had yet to be undertaken. Essentially, by recommending passage of Bill 14, the committee would be giving the department carte blanche to develop the program.

In light of the amount of money involved in the LDRF and the lack of community consultation, committee members were reluctant to give this approval in the absence of definitive program detail.

In a June 13th, 2002 letter, the standing committee conveyed their concerns to the Minister of Municipal and Community affairs and requested further information from the department. members wanted to determine whether public hearings were needed, or, depending on the Department's response, whether the committee would proceed with the clause-by-clause review of Bill 14 and refer it to committee of the whole for consideration during the June session.

Neither the Government House Leader nor the Minister of Municipal and Community Affairs responded to the committee's letter until August 26th, 2002. Obviously this was too late for the committee to consider the bill during the June session or to hold public hearings outside of the capital city over the summer months.

On August 27th, 2002 the Standing Committee on Governance and Economic Development held a public hearing on Bill 14, An Act to Amend the Revolving Funds Act in Yellowknife. The Department of Municipal and Community Affairs provided the committee with a briefing on how they saw the Lot Development Revolving Fund and its companion programs working. Members were concerned as it seemed the existing way of financing lot development through MACA was being changed without any community consultation. Other Members were concerned by the impacts the program would have on tax-based communities that were in close proximity to eligible communities.

Once again, the further information provided by the department gave rise to more questions on the part of committee and meant that Members were not prepared to do a review of Bill 14 and report it to the Assembly.

On August 30th, 2002 the Standing Committee sent a letter to the Minister of Municipal and Community Affairs outlining the committee's concerns. The letter also requested the department provide the committee with a technical resource person conversant with the details of the Lot Development Revolving Fund and its companion programs so that the committee could hold public hearings in some affected communities.

On September 16th, 2002 the Government House Leader responded to the committee in a letter stating that the government planned to take some time to review the proposed approach and consider the issues raised by the committee.

The committee wrote the Government House Leader on October 8th, 2002 to ask whether the committee could expect a response to its August 30th letter and whether the government even wanted Bill 14 to be dealt with during the fall sitting.

The Government House Leader responded on October 16th, 2002 by requesting a meeting with himself and the Minister of Municipal and Community Affairs to discuss the committee's outstanding concerns with Bill 14.

At the committee meeting on October 21st, 2002, the Minister of Municipal and Community Affairs informed Members the government would not be funding any new initiatives because of fiscal restraint measures put in place by Cabinet. These restraint measures meant that companion programs designed to ensure the success of the Lot Development Revolving Fund would not be funded. This caused the department to reconsider whether the lot development program could be successful if implemented in isolation.

Conclusion

It appears that the government will not be proceeding with the lot development scheme proposed in Bill 14. The committee, for obvious reasons, concurs that the bill should not be proceeded with at this time.

The reason the Standing Committee on Governance and Economic Development has chosen to deliver a report on Bill 14 is to educate the public on the processes that impeded passage of this bill.

The members of the standing committee were asked to approve a $4 million revolving fund without any definitive details on how the program would work. The committee has a responsibility to ensure that the government spends its money prudently and that government programs are equitable and fair to all Northwest Territories communities.

It was apparent to the committee that the Department of Municipal and Community Affairs was developing details of the program on the fly. The committee does not fault the work of the department and must admit real progress was being made. However, in light of fiscal realities it is clear the department has to re-examine how it will fund lot development in the non-tax-based communities.

Committee members noted that new funding in the amount of $300,000 for a Subdivision Subsidy Program was included in Supplementary Appropriation Act, No. 1, 2002-2003. These funds were approved during the June sitting. It is strongly recommended that the Department of Municipal and Community Affairs use that funding to advance the development of lots and subdivisions in non-tax-based communities. The committee will be seeking clarification on how this money is expended.

In closing, the committee looks forward to reviewing a new plan for lot development in the near future.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I MOVE, seconded by the honourable Member for Range Lake, that Committee Report 13-14(5) be received and adopted. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Roland. We have a motion. The motion is in order. To the motion. Question has been called. All those in favour? Thank you. All those opposed? Thank you. The motion is carried. Item 11, reports of standing and special committees. Item 12, reports of committees on the review of bills. The honourable Member for Frame Lake, Mr. Dent.

Thank you, Mr. Dent. The Chair recognizes the honourable Member for Frame Lake, Mr. Dent.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, I would like to seek unanimous consent to waive Rule 93(4) and have Bill 28 considered in committee of the whole today.

Thank you. The honourable Member is seeking unanimous consent to waive Rule 93(4). Are there any nays? Thank you. Mr. Dent, I have just received notice that it was the wrong number. Would you take the floor again, Mr. Dent?

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, I understand it is actually Rule 70(5) that I wish to ask for unanimous consent to have waived, so that Bill 28 may be considered in committee of the whole today.

Thank you. The honourable Member is seeking unanimous consent to waive Rule 70(5), moving Bill 28 into committee of the whole for today. Are there any nays? There are no nays. You have consent, Mr. Dent. Bill 28 has been moved for consideration in committee of the whole for today. Item 12, reports of committees on the review of bills. Item 13, tabling of documents.

Colleagues, I wish to table a discussion paper on revitalizing aboriginal languages in the NWT entitled Keeping our Minds Strong, and it is prepared by the Office of the Languages Commissioner. This document is in English and in French.

Item 13, tabling of documents. The honourable Member for Thebacha, Mr. Miltenberger.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I wish to table the following document entitled Doing Our Part: The GNWT Response to the Social Agenda. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you, Mr. Minister. Item 13, tabling of documents. The honourable Member for Weledeh, Mr. Handley.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, as required by section 32.1, subsection 2 of the Financial Administration Act, I wish to table the following document entitled List of Interactivity Transfers Exceeding $250,000 for the Period April 1, 2002 to September 30, 2002. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you, Mr. Minister. Item 13, tabling of documents. The honourable Member for Mackenzie Delta, Mr. Krutko.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, I would like to table a response to a question I asked in the House, Question 342-14(5), regarding the chronology of events in relation to the NWT Power Corporation.

Thank you, Mr. Krutko. Item 13, tabling of documents. Item 14, notices of motion. Item 15, notices of motion for first reading of bills. Item 16, motions. The Chair recognizes the honourable Member for Inuvik Boot Lake, Mr. Roland.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

WHEREAS section 1 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees rights and freedoms set out in subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society;

AND WHEREAS section 3 of the Charter provides every citizen of Canada with the right to vote in an election of Members of the House of Commons or of a Legislative Assembly and to be qualified for membership therein;

AND WHEREAS the 14th Legislative Assembly of the Northwest Territories was elected on December 6th, 1999;

AND WHEREAS all Members of the 14th Assembly took an oath of office to solemnly and sincerely promise and swear that they will duly and faithfully and to the best of their skill and knowledge, execute the powers and trust reposed in them as Members of the Legislative Assembly;

AND WHEREAS the term of the 14th Assembly expires on January 5, 2004;

AND WHEREAS under section 9(3) of the Northwest Territories Act, the Governor in council, after consultation, may dissolve the Legislative Assembly, thus causing a new Legislature to be elected;

AND WHEREAS the Legislative Assembly is of the view that the electorate of the Northwest Territories must continue to hold the Legislative Assembly accountable for its actions;

AND WHEREAS by exercising their democratic right to vote, the citizens of the Northwest Territories are permitted through the ballot box to express their views;

AND WHEREAS the Members of the Legislative Assembly must continue to hold the confidence of the electorate;

NOW THEREFORE I MOVE, seconded by the honourable Member for Yellowknife South, that the 14th Legislative Assembly request the Governor and Council to dissolve the 14th Legislative Assembly by January 31, 2003, to permit the issuance of writs for a general election for the 15th Legislative Assembly of the Northwest Territories;

AND FURTHER, that the Speaker transmit this resolution to the Governor in Council.

Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Roland. We have a motion. The motion is in order. To the motion. The Chair recognizes the honourable Member for Inuvik Boot Lake, Mr. Roland.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, I have talked a number of times around this issue and I will not use the whole allotment that would be given to me as mover of the motion.

I would, Mr. Speaker, like to reference why I feel this is necessary for us as the 14th Assembly to move to a general election. To clear some of the concerns raised out there, there has been some talk that if we do go to an election, that will cost us more money. Well, Mr. Speaker, all we do is move up the election year from the next year up to the upcoming election, if this motion is adopted, which would be mid-February, I believe, would be the time that they could put this into place and possibly have a new government in place by mid-March.

Mr. Speaker, it is important for us, as we read through the motion, that we maintain the confidence of those who put us here. Mr. Speaker, it is not an easy job to try to set up your private life and business life to match and equal what is expected of us, but it is required of us to do just that. Mr. Speaker, I have mentioned this a couple of times, but to get to the point, I will just read a couple of things to try to draw attention to that.

Under the Conflict of Interest Act, obligations of Members, section 75(a):

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.

Further in that, under 75(d):

Each Member shall make all reasonable efforts to resolve any conflict of interest that may arise in favour of the public interest.

Mr. Speaker, under section 77(3):

Where the Premier has a conflict of interest in any matter relating to the performance of his or her duties as Premier, he or she shall:

1. (a) Disclose the general nature of the conflict of interest to the Executive Council;
2. (b) Delegate to a Minister designated by the Deputy Premier the responsibility to perform his or her duties in respect of the matter; and
3. (c) Refrain at all times from attempting to influence any decision in respect of the matter.

Mr. Speaker, even though we have heard some Members say that this is something they wanted time to consider, because it may be deemed as new from the Auditor General's report, unfortunately, it has been an ongoing item. And that is why the committee recommended to this House the recommendations it did.

Mr. Speaker, when we look at the actions of our government, and again, for the record, it was unanimously accepted by this House that the Auditor General's report be accepted as it was written. There was no disputing the facts, but the House decided that there was no need to go any further, that the resignation of the Premier was not required. And that, in fact, in speaking to the committee recommendation, there was some discussion about the possibility -- would it really fix things to remove one Member, the Premier? Maybe we should look at a general election or go out and get a new mandate. Those comments were made around this House, were made in the media as well, and I think this gives opportunity, Mr. Speaker, to restore that credibility back to this institution, to go back to the people of the Northwest Territories and tell them, or see what they tell us, if this is acceptable behaviour, if we can in fact look at our rules and say, "Well, for this instance, we have decided to step back and just continue on."

I heard Members in this House talk about concerns of impacts of this government's policies that cost them an extra $20 when they need to get something changed, a document of this government, but, on the other hand, we will let go an added benefit of $250,000. That is not including the pension that person would get because of the way the termination is set up. In fact, while we are here continuing to work, and if we continued our mandate, that person would still be eligible for a pay and all the benefits of a GNWT employee, even though we would be out on the election trail, so to speak.

Mr. Speaker, it has been ongoing, and I laid it out already, in this House, when we have been told one thing and now told another. It is not acceptable. It is not acceptable that we have laws that we can bend for our own purposes, but yet expect our residents to follow the rules.

It is not acceptable that we can tell someone who has applied for income support that they do not meet the policy and they have to be excluded for another month or two, or they just do not qualify, period, because the policy is firm. But in our own instance, when it comes to taking care of business in a sense of ruling on our own behaviour or our own actions as government, we seem to fall short.

Well, here is an opportunity, Mr. Speaker, that we can all put that trust back into the system. We can all go out and seek a new mandate. We can all do our best to restore, to the best of our ability, the confidence that the people of the Northwest Territories would hold in this office, and they expect us to hold while we are in this office.

Now, I am not asking anybody here to suggest that anybody wanting to come back should walk on water. It cannot be done unless you are walking on a frozen river or lake.

Mr. Speaker, it is a matter of following the rules we set before us and accepting those consequences, accepting what we have done. As Members of this Assembly have accepted the report and what has happened, and not accepted that we should impose a penalty on the fact that actions were taken that did not fit our policies and guidelines as a government.

Here is an opportunity, Mr. Speaker, that all Members, as independents not held down by any rule that you have to vote with a party or anything like that, but as independents, to represent the people who put you here, to step up to the plate.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I am hoping that Members will do the honourable thing and restore, accept this motion and restore credibility back to the institution that we are in. At the appropriate time, I will be seeking that we have a recorded vote. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Roland. To the motion. The seconder of the motion, Mr. Bell.