Thank you, Ms. Snider. Mr. Roland.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. So all executive assistants of the Government of the Northwest Territories would fall under your monitoring and dealing with when it comes to dismissals?

Thank you, Mr. Roland. Ms. Snider.

Thank you, Ms. Snider. Mr. Roland.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I guess that is where my line of questioning is going, because the Premier in this House on a number of occasions has categorically stated that the chief of staff position is an executive assistant position. I quote from November 14, 2000, Hansard, page 877, Further Return to Question 270-14(3), Information on Chief of Staff Contract, the Honourable Stephen Kakfwi. If you go through the first paragraph right to the second-last sentence, "The contract says that it is an executive assistant position. This position, because it is tied to the Premier's office, is re-titled chief of staff."

I am having some difficulty here. In the House, we have had the Premier standing up on numerous occasions, and I can quote chapter and verse from Hansard in the sense of the amount of times the Premier has stated that this is an executive assistant position re-titled. In fact, in this case, it seems to be a different reporting mechanism that falls into place. Now, what is it?

I have tried to get information on this to find out if in fact this is a deputy minister position that would deem to be reporting directly to the Premier because that is where deputy ministers report, and are excluded or are the at pleasure positions.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to get some clarification. As far as I am concerned right now, I have not received any. If we go to November 16, 2000, Hansard, page 952, the Premier states:

The contract says she is chief of staff and that she is an executive assistant to the Premier and that is the function. Where there is reference to deputy minister, it should read chief of staff instead of deputy minister, regarding conflict of interest requirements.

Once again, Mr. Chairman, the terminology seems to be getting mixed around here. I think that it is time for the government to get it straight and classify this as what it is. Maybe then it will fall into the category it was initially set up of. I would like to know. Has any other executive assistant position had this type of contract in place? Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Roland. Mr. Handley.

Mr. Chairman, I think it is a little bit moot, because first of all, the position no longer exists. It was an executive assistant position, but was somewhat unique in that it was a senior political position as well. I suppose there was some uncertainty about exactly what the status was, but on October 29th, the position was done away with. It no longer exists. We do not have any other executive assistant position like that to my knowledge. There are no other ones. It just does not exist anymore. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Handley. The Chair will recognize Ms. Lee.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, my question will start with the Minister. I gather from the information that we have been receiving in the House yesterday and today that this separation package, or termination package, followed a normal process, and that there was confidentiality involved in this contract, in that any release of the information of that contract may be subject to the Privacy Act provisions and so forth.

Also, I think we can establish from the facts, reading the Hansard and discussions, that it is the Minister's position that any release of that information requires notice to the third parties. First of all, I would just like to establish whether or not that is what the Minister has been saying. If he does not agree with those findings of fact.

Thank you, Ms. Lee. Mr. Handley.

Yes, Mr. Chairman, I think that is essentially right. We could not make the information in the contracts public without the agreement by the third party, or I suppose the other way it could happen would be if it followed all the way through and ended up being ordered in court, but beyond that, no, we cannot. I think what Ms. Lee has said is accurate.

Thank you, Mr. Handley. Ms. Lee.

What appears to be a normal separation package, I am just wondering, I have been around the block for a long time, I do not remember another situation where senior officials left the government and entered into a termination contract where it became the subject of debate in the House. Is the Minister aware of any cases like this? Or perhaps Mr. Voytilla, in his 10 years of experience, could tell us whether or not putting this sort of thing in a supplementary appropriation is a normal practice that is usually followed? Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you, Ms. Lee. Mr. Handley.

Thank you, Mr. Handley. Ms. Lee.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I think the Minister might have misunderstood my question. My question is whether or not it is the normal practice to add separation benefits and compensation in the supplementary appropriation.

Thank you, Ms. Lee. Mr. Handley.

Mr. Chairman, I am sorry, I did misunderstand the question. Yes it would be normal to add this into a supplementary appropriation. If the money was not in the appropriation of that department, we would have to. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Handley. Ms. Lee.

Could the Minister provide us with an example of a case where such a separation agreement, or any separation packages for senior officials, went through a similar supplementary process? Thank you

Thank you, Ms. Lee. Mr. Handley.