Thank you, Mr. Speaker. In the first Assembly I served in 1987, I remember arguing about some of the benefits that Members and Ministers were providing to themselves. Just before Cabinet was elected, we had some discussion about it. I argued that there was no need for pensions, for supplementary pensions, unmarked cars and other benefits that were apparently available at the time. One of the Members from the Eastern Arctic came over and said "You know, Steve, we are all going to support you for Minister, but if you think you are going to do away with the pension, then we might have to reconsider that". It was an interesting introduction into the Legislature.

The benefits and the way that business is done in this House has not really changed that much. I know that it was of my own free will that I chose to offer to serve the people of the Sahtu and the people of the Northwest Territories. It had nothing to do with the salary and the pension plan. I chose to make the offer. It has been an honour to serve since 1987, both as an MLA and as a Member of Cabinet. It does take many hours of our time -- days and weekends, it is true, but it is our choice. That is how we choose to do our work.

There has been discussion at the beginning of the previous Assembly about cancellation of the supplementary pension. I had argued against it at that time because I believed that Members were entitled to a pension that reflected in large part the commitment and the difficulties of the work.

Many of the Members came from sectors where there was no pension and went back to remote communities, having lost the only jobs they had available to them. Since it was bestowed upon us by previous Assemblies, it was difficult, as Mr. Antoine has indicated, to stand there and talk about what we thought we deserved or did not deserve.

Since the Members have brought this issue forward, I must admit that I have not given it a lot of thought. My initial response was I was in support of keeping it. In the first instance, it was voted away from Members in any case. If the Members were talking about reintroducing it, then I would be inclined towards supporting it.

What I wanted to say is that today, I thought there was a good discussion. There is, unfortunately, sometimes a little bit of animosity amongst ourselves about the way we phrase things. That is unfortunate because I believe that we owe it to the public to have a full, free debate without intimidation, without ridicule.

Personally, I admire people like Ms. Lee who, as a new Member, raises issues with a lot of passion and clarity. Perhaps raising the venom of some Members about the way she phrases things, but I think that is allowed. We have the freedom to express ourselves with all the passion and determination and conviction, as we should.

Those of us who will vote for it will do that. Those who speak against it gave their reasons. I sat here and listened to everybody and enjoyed the debate.

There are many issues that go on beyond this Legislature. We are facing collective bargaining. We did away with the supplementary pension for deputy ministers at the beginning of this government. We are facing a deficit in the next year or so. Those are important considerations to have as people look in and listen to us, watching us from the communities.

There is not enough money for those who are in dire need; housing, day cares, many of the needs we have, but as well, it is true that there will never be enough.

We have an issue here that is not new, as I have said. If it was a new pension that was being proposed, I would object to it because I never brought it forward, never asked for it. It is here. The one sentiment that I think I disagree with is the one expressed that since the majority are going to vote for it, I might as well accept it and sign up for it anyway.

I think it is very important that when we vote, we vote according to our convictions and not take a fatalistic approach that it is going to happen anyway. It is important to stand up and speak our mind at the very first instance, because we know that when it comes to legislation and budgets, even if everyone is in support of a piece of legislation or a budget issue, if we view it as wrong or inappropriate, then we have an obligation and a duty to speak against it.

It is also true that once it passes, that once legislation becomes law, it is our duty to uphold that. There is a big difference between what is proposed and what is passed. The distance between the two is often what measures us in this Legislature. I do not have any particular feelings about this issue. The fact is the pension was there before. It is being suggested to be continued. It was terminated. It is now being offered to be continued. I will support the motion at this time. Thank you.

-- Applause