Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, I would like to speak very briefly in support of this motion. Mr. Speaker, I support this because I believe this is one more step and a more formal step to reiterate the concerns that the Members of this House have about the way the rules about special warrants are set out as they exist now, Mr. Speaker. Also, I must tell you I was quite -- what's the right word, because I don't want to be overdramatic -- I was quite surprised yesterday by the statements made by the Minister of Finance in response to the debates we had. I'm reading the responses from the Minister of Finance, as well as Mr. Dent, who appeared before us. I don't get the feeling that the Ministers on that side really understand the deep concerns we have on this side of the House.

Mr. Speaker, we debated the supplementary bill for three or four days. I thought the concerns that were raised were very legitimate, not politically motivated. I don't understand what that means. It certainly was not a personal attack on the credibility of the Minister of Finance, which is what he indicated in yesterday's debate and it's written in the Hansard. Mr. Speaker, I take it though as valid what the Minister of Finance said, which is that all the money that he brought forward under the supplementaries is within the rules and guidelines. There is nothing that he is doing outside of the rules. I accept that and if that is the case, then there is something wrong with the rules. This is what the motion is trying to indicate.

A government, as the rules exist now, could actually bring supplementary appropriations for half of the money. They could bring it for half-a-billion dollars if they wanted, if such an emergency was to happen. All we could do on this side of the House is to just rubber stamp it. We can't really do anything about it. We can't debate the merits of it. We could just go on and on and on and in the end they know that the money is committed, the money is spent and they are following the rules. Too bad, so sad. Mr. Speaker, in consensus government I don't think that is acceptable.

I understand that under the system we have, the Members on this side have a lot more say and a lot more input than any other jurisdiction. But as long as we have this system and as long as we're operating under a consensus system of government and as long as we're supposed to have a real and qualitative input into this process, I believe it is essential and crucial that changes be made to the Financial Administration Act as is indicated in this motion to say that there has to be some kind of cap. They cannot bring in multimillion, multiyear capital projects, for example, without going through us. The rules, as they exist now, Mr. Speaker, say that the government cannot move money over $500,000 without talking to the Legislature. Well, they could do special warrants of multimillions without ever talking to us.

I support this motion in its merit and I think it sends a very strong indication that the Members on this side have awakened to what's going on and they're not going to take it anymore and they expect changes next time around. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

---Applause