Thank you, Mr. Chairman. On Bill 7, as a result of yesterday, I decided to do a little bit of history, I guess, on the supplementary appropriation, especially with some of the comments made in the House by Members of the Assembly. I wanted to find out when this came in, and again, sparked by some of the comments. I refer to unedited Hansard, page 945. The Premier was speaking to this and stated, and I quote:
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.
I checked on the definition of bestowed, and my understanding is it was something that was given as a gift, in a sense, or in that nature. When I was looking at the history of the Supplementary Retiring Allowances Act, I found out that in fact, in 1989, this bill was brought forward as Bill 28-89(2), and found out that it was the 11th Assembly that brought this in. We still have one current existing Member who was actually part of the crew that helped bestow this upon Members of that time. I must for the record state Mr. Premier was part of the crew. It is interesting. This thing does have some history.
As well, Mr. Chairman, looking at this situation and looking at what happened there, trying to find out if there was debate or what was brought in this area. Second reading of Bill 28-89(2), Supplementary Retiring Allowances Act, there was no discussion to the principle of the bill and everybody, I guess as I see it: "All those in favour? All those opposed? The motion is carried.", according to Hansard, November 1, 1989, page 486.
I found out some further history on this subject. On November 2, 1989, page 593 of Hansard, third reading of Bill 28-89(2), Supplementary Retiring Allowances Act, it was the Honourable Tom Butters:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I move, seconded by the honourable Member for Sahtu, that Bill 28-89(2), Supplementary Retiring Allowances Act, be read for the third time.
Then it was carried, Mr. Speaker. That was the establishment of the Supplementary Retiring Allowances Act.
We heard much debate yesterday in this House about re-establishing the Supplementary Retiring Allowances Act, and I just gave a brief comment that I would not be supporting it as my stance in the 13th Assembly is still the same today.
After some discussion with Members, and Members making comments that I should in fact double-check with my wife to make sure I was making the right decision, I did so. I have talked to my wife and also to other members of my constituency. I know this is not looked upon very kindly by members of the public and it would always be difficult, I agree with Members, that bringing something in of this nature would get any favour from a lot of people out there, no matter what the conditions.
My stance is still the same. This is not appropriate to bring in a Supplementary Retiring Allowances Act. There are times when I look at it and say yes, I have done as much work as previous Members of this Legislative Assembly, and based on that, maybe I should qualify for it. However, at the same time, my stance remains the same and in principle, I cannot support this bill. I would hope that Members would see that, but knowing as well from the events of yesterday, it looks like this is going to proceed.
It was interesting to hear the debate. I agree, Members had said they were interested in hearing this debate. I believe this is the first time in the history of the Legislative Assembly of the Northwest Territories that a bill of this nature has received so much debate. With that, thank you, Mr. Chairman.