Thank you, Ms. Lee. Item 8, written questions. The honourable Member for Sahtu, Mr. Yakeleya.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My questions are for the Minister of Industry, Tourism and Investment.

1. Can the Minister provide to me in detail what

renewable energy initiatives are planned for the Sahtu region in the next two years?

2. Will the Minister provide to me a comprehensive

alternate energy plan that will reduce the cost of living in the Sahtu in the next two years?

3. Will the Minister of ITI outline how the

department will work with the Arctic Energy Alliance to reduce the cost of living in the Sahtu; for example, training residents of the Sahtu to be certified energy advisors?

4. Can the Minister provide to me a final report on

the upcoming hydro symposium and an action plan to their recommendation?

Thank you, Mr. Yakeleya. Item 9, returns to written questions. Item 10, replies to opening address. Item 11, petitions. Item 12, reports of standing and special committees. Item 13, reports of committees on the review of bills. Item 14, tabling of documents. The honourable Minister of Justice, Mr. Lafferty.

Mahsi, Mr. Speaker. I wish to table the following document entitled NWT Coroner’s Services 2008 Annual Report. Mahsi, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you, Mr. Lafferty. Pursuant to section 21 of the Human Rights Act, I wish to table the Northwest Territories Human Rights Commission Annual Report 2008-2009.

Item 15, notices of motion. The honourable Member for Kam Lake, Mr. Ramsay.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I give notice that on Wednesday, November 4, 2009, I will move the following motion: now therefore I move, seconded by the honourable Member for Nahendeh, that the report of the sole adjudicator be accepted.

Thank you, Mr. Ramsay. The honourable Member for Frame Lake, Ms. Bisaro.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I give notice that on Wednesday, November 4, 2009, I will move the following motion: now therefore I move, seconded by the honourable Member for Yellowknife Centre, that this Legislative Assembly strongly recommends that the NWT Motor Vehicle Act be amended to ban the use of hand-held devices while driving; and further, that the Department of Transportation initiate a comprehensive public awareness campaign to inform the public about the risks of driving while distracted.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you, Ms. Bisaro. Item 16, notices of motion for first reading of bills. The honourable Minister of Finance, Mr. Miltenberger.

Thank you, Mr. Miltenberger. The honourable Minister of Justice, Mr. Lafferty.

Mahsi, Mr. Speaker. I give notice that on Wednesday, November 4, 2009, I will move that Bill 7, An Act to Amend the Summary Conviction Procedures Act, be read for the first time. Mahsi, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you, Mr. Lafferty. Item 17, motions. The honourable Member for Kam Lake, Mr. Ramsay.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I seek unanimous consent to deal with the motion I gave notice of earlier today.

---Unanimous consent granted.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

WHEREAS a letter of complaint, dated February 16, 2009, and signed by six Members of the Legislative Assembly, was addressed to the Conflict of Interest Commissioner, and requested that the Commissioner carry out a formal investigation regarding certain conduct of Mr. Floyd Roland, Premier of the Northwest Territories and MLA for Inuvik Boot Lake;

AND WHEREAS section 101 of the Legislative Assembly and Executive Council Act directs the Conflict of Interest Commissioner to conduct an investigation into such a complaint;

AND WHEREAS the Conflict of Interest Commissioner carried out an investigation and, pursuant to section 101(1)(b) of the Legislative Assembly and Executive Council Act, submitted to the Speaker a report, with reasons, directing that an inquiry be held before a sole adjudicator;

AND WHEREAS the report of the Conflict of Interest Commissioner was laid before the Legislative Assembly at the first opportunity, in accordance with section 102(4) of the Legislative Assembly and Executive Council Act;

AND WHEREAS a sole adjudicator, appointed pursuant to section 103(2) of the Legislative Assembly and Executive Council Act, conducted an inquiry into the matter;

AND WHEREAS the sole adjudicator has submitted a disposition report in accordance with section 106(1) of the Legislative Assembly and Executive Council Act;

AND WHEREAS the disposition report of the sole adjudicator was laid before the House by the Speaker at the first opportunity;

AND WHEREAS the sole adjudicator has dismissed the complaint pursuant to section 106(1)(a) of the Legislative Assembly and Executive Council Act;

NOW THEREFORE I MOVE, seconded by the honourable Member for Nahendeh, that the report of the sole adjudicator be accepted.

Thank you, Mr. Ramsay. The motion is on the floor. The motion is in order. To the motion. The honourable Member for Kam Lake, Mr. Ramsay.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. As the mover of the motion, I want to be the first to rise in this House and express my unconditional support for the disposition report of Mr. Ted Hughes. Mr. Hughes has served this House with great distinction and I want to thank him for guiding us through this difficult process. Mr. Speaker, I and the other MLAs who made this complaint said from the start that we wanted an independent view of the appropriateness of the relationship that developed with the Premier and the Committee Clerk of this House. We also stated that we would accept the final result, whatever it was. I accept the conclusions of Mr. Hughes and I will vote for the motion.

Mr. Speaker, I feel I owe it to the public to explain a little of what the report actually says. Some media outlets have reported that Mr. Hughes had found that the relationship was not a conflict of interest or not a breach of the legislation. This is not what the report says, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Hughes stated repeatedly in his report that the actions of Mr. Roland do indeed constitute a breach of section 75 of the act. On page 36 of the report, Mr. Hughes states, and I quote, “...the MLA for Inuvik Boot Lake performed his duties of office and arranged his private affairs in such a manner that he failed to maintain public confidence in his integrity, objectivity and impartiality as a result of entering into an intimate relationship with the Principal Clerk...without timely disclosure of that relationship.”

Mr. Speaker, on page 37 of the report, Mr. Hughes goes on to say, and I again quote, ”In my view Premier Roland made an error in judgment, as he weighed competing interests, the pros and cons and decided not to make the disclosure until he was satisfied that his new relationship was going to be a permanent one. For the reasons I have explained, I have concluded he was in breach of the identified section of the act when he did so.”

Mr. Speaker, I am not raising these matters to in any way rehash the inquiry or diminish the final result; I am raising them here to make sure that the public understands what the report really says.

The report finds that the Premier was in breach of the act, that he did fail to arrange his private affairs in a way to maintain public confidence in his integrity, objectivity and impartiality, and that he exercised poor judgment. In concluding that the error in judgment was made in good faith, Mr. Hughes is not saying that there is nothing the Premier could have done differently. He is not saying that anyone would have behaved the same way given the circumstances. He is not saying that a relationship of this kind is acceptable. In

concluding that the error in judgment was made in good faith, Mr. Hughes clearly states, on the bottom of page 37, that he believes that the Premier understands the error he made and realizes now in hindsight that he should have disclosed it earlier.

Mr. Speaker, I want to touch briefly on the motivation of the complainants in making this complaint. Much has been said about the reason why this complaint was brought forward. Suggestions have been made that the complaint was politically motivated and without merit. I am not going to relive that debate here today. I will, however, put on the record exactly what Mr. Hughes concluded on the matter.

On page 36 of the report, Mr. Hughes quotes from the closing argument of Ms. Bisaro at the inquiry; what he calls a thoughtful and well-reasoned submission. Ms. Bisaro is quoted as saying, “The failure of the Premier to understand the impact that the affair would have on the effectiveness of our institution and the failure to disclose it even to the Speaker, who had the ability to remedy the situation and would have treated it with the sensitivity it deserved, was in our opinion, wrong, and wWe seek your confirmation.” In response to this, Mr. Hughes writes, and I quote, “In this section of my report I have given that confirmation and the reasons for it with the result that the contravention referenced in the terms of reference for this inquiry is found to exist.” He goes on to say on the same page that, “In my judgment the concern of the complainants that prompted their complaint to the Conflict of Interest Commissioner and which in turn resulted in this inquiry was a fair and reasonable one to be taken to the Commissioner seeking confirmation of what they believed to be wrong.”

I will have some more to say, Mr. Speaker, in my closing remarks, but I hope that helps obtain a clearer picture of what the report actually says in the lead-up to this debate today.

I personally want to thank everyone involved in this difficult process, including the Premier and his counsel, for the professional way in which it was conducted. Mr. Speaker, these things are never easy. I hope the debate that we will have here today will carry that same tone.

I also want to thank the many constituents and residents of the Northwest Territories who have been so supportive throughout this process. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you, Mr. Ramsay. To the motion. We will go to the seconder of the motion, the honourable Member for Nahendeh, Mr. Menicoche.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. This is the conclusion of a process that began about a year ago with the Premier acknowledging that there certainly was an affair, and many Members...My

colleagues were extremely concerned that there was an absolute appearance of conflict that launched this inquiry.

I am a strong believer in our institution. We went down that road there, Mr. Speaker. I think, for my constituents and my leadership, they have told me over the years and they, in fact, coming into this fall session, is that we’re not interested in the drama that’s happening there, we’re interested in programs and services and real action of ourselves as an Assembly. That has always been my focus when I share with my colleagues about where I was going to stand. I was public about it and I told my constituents where I was going to stand.

So now, before us, we have the report. To me, yes, Mr. Hughes had to go down many roads, he had to listen to many views. It’s a semi-legal institution that we went through, but for me, his conclusion was that he had no choice but to dismiss the complaint based on the factors he listed in his report.

It may be a technicality, Mr. Speaker, but at the same time it’s a...Legally, this happens all the time in court, lots of people that have even admitted that they’ve done a wrong but at the same time, technically, they get dismissed. So it’s easy for me to stand up here to support the report and tell the people and my constituency that he recommended it be dismissed, and that’s the end of it. That’s the approach that I’m taking and that’s the approach I’d like to see.

We have been chosen as MLAs to serve in this House. It is a great honour. But as is often said, we got a little bit of a price and we have a ransom glory, Mr. Speaker. That means we are public figures. So that’s the cost of the glory, of the honour that we serve.

Again, when I came back here for the fall session, my constituents, as I travel around, told me up front that we’re here to work together, we’ve got to use our best energies and skills to better the lives of our community and our people, and I continue to maintain that focus. I’d like to see that we take this point, we went down every road we could to find out about was there a breach, was there certainly conflict here, and we exhausted all those avenues, Mr. Speaker. My constituency is not happy that we had to use resources, time, money, the energies of the House to continue this debate, but at the same time, we went down that road to explore and we had to see. So, once again, the people want our Assembly to put this behind us now. I believe that I’m up here to say that we’re going to have to start doing that. We have to concentrate. We’ve got just less than two years left and if we’re going to continue to use our energies on spy drama, Mr. Speaker, then we will be doing exactly that, we’ll be using our energies.

One other important point is that we cannot change the result of the report, Mr. Speaker. It’s dismissed,

it’s over and it’s time to move on. I know that they’ve told me, my constituency has told me time and time again, it’s not relevant to our government and, once again, we’re using our time and energy. I think the cost of doing that inquiry is something that the public is always watchful for. Those public funds could have been better used for programs and services. That’s what my constituency is telling me.

Because we’ve come to this point of almost a year of this issue, it’s not going to serve us to continue rehashing it, Mr. Speaker. For myself, it’s has been dealt with. I know that the complainants, my colleagues, certainly are not happy with the outcome of the report, but the report is the way it is there, Mr. Speaker. The greatness of Mr. Hughes, who led the inquiry, he listened to all and he’s bound by our legislation as well.

In closing, Mr. Speaker, overall, I’m content with the content of the report. Yes, there was a perceived appearance of conflict but, at the same time, I think the people of the NWT and my constituency still want us to move on, concentrate on programs and services, concentrate on our communities, concentrate on our people to improve the lives and make life better for the whole Territory by working together, Mr. Speaker. Mahsi cho.

Thank you, Mr. Menicoche. To the motion. The honourable Member for Great Slave, Mr. Abernethy.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. In signing my name to the conflict of interest complaint against the Premier, I accepted the process in place to deal with these types of concerns. On Friday last week we received the final ruling of the complaint that was filed by the six complainants. As I understood the process and agreed to it beforehand, I am willing to support the conclusions of the adjudicator. Therefore, I will be supporting this motion today to accept the report. However, in doing so, I want to be clear that I support the report in its entirety, not just the fact that the complaint was officially dismissed as a result of 106(1)(a)(ii), but also that the adjudicator was incredibly clear throughout his report that, and I quote from page 36, which I know has already been done but I’m going to do it anyway, that, “...Floyd Roland, the MLA for Inuvik Boot Lake performed his duties of office and arranged his private affairs in such a manner that he failed to maintain public confidence in his integrity, objectivity and impartiality as a result of entering into an intimate relationship with the Principal Clerk, Committees of the Northwest Territories Legislative Assembly in the summer and/or fall months of 2008 without the timely disclosure of that relationship.”

It’s important to acknowledge and learn from the findings of the adjudicator in this case. It’s important to be aware that the precedent is set for future Assemblies. It’s clear from this report that it is

inappropriate for a Member of the Executive Council to be in an intimate relationship with the Clerk of Committees of the Legislative Assembly and, by the way, I’ll suggest that this precedent also applies to other staff that are present at committee meetings such as the research staff. Ultimately, it is an important precedent for the future operations of the Legislative Assembly.

I was pleased to see that in retrospect it was even confirmed by Ms. Russell. On page 19 of the report, Ms. Russell is quoted as stating the following when asked questions by the adjudicator, and here’s the quote:

Sole adjudicator asked: “Well, assuming your relationship with Mr. Roland continues, is it your view that you should ultimately be back performing the duties as Clerk of the House?”

The answer: “While Mr. Roland is a Member?”

The sole adjudicator followed it up with, “Yes.”

And then the following answer was: “I accept that it would be better for me to stay at Elections. I fully accept that.”

To me this demonstrates an awareness of the inappropriate nature of a relationship between the Clerk and a Member of the Executive Council. I hope for the remainder of this Assembly and in future Assemblies that Members, including Members of the Executive Council, remember this precedent and perform their duties of office and arrange their private affairs in such a manner as to maintain public confidence and trust in the integrity, objectivity and impartiality of those Members.

Since this situation first came to light, I had a number of conversations with the Premier. I’ve always been consistent in my approach and response to this clear and obvious breach. The Premier and I have always disagreed as to whether or not a breach had, in fact, occurred. Obviously, I believed, and have been proved correct, that the Premier had failed to arrange his private affairs in a manner to maintain public confidence and trust in the integrity, objectivity and impartiality of the Member. I’ve constantly indicated that in the absence of a formal apology, that acknowledges the severity of this behaviour and the negative impact it has had on the institution, that the Premier should, in fact, resign. I still feel this way today. I believe this report clearly demonstrates his guilt and, as a result, I feel that he should do the right and honourable thing.

Believing the Premier to be an honourable man who made a poor judgment call, I expected him to come forward with an honest apology or resign. Clearly, the Premier disagreed with me, which is his right, and felt that he had arranged his affairs in an appropriate manner. I respect his position and his belief and, as a result, obviously, no resignation or apology occurred.

After no apology was provided and no recognition of wrongdoing was provided, I was left with no option; therefore, I signed the complaint. To ensure the credibility and integrity of this government, I had no choice but to sign the official complaint.

For the sake of the families and the people of the NWT, I had honestly hoped that we wouldn’t have to come to this point. Shortly after signing the complaint letter and prior to the beginning of the hearing, I had an opportunity to speak with the Premier on the topic. I once again expressed my opinion and I also indicated that if I was wrong and the adjudicator ruled that the Premier did arrange his affairs in a manner to maintain public confidence and trust, that I would be first in line to apologize and I would go so far as to make an official apology in this House.

We have a decision from the adjudicator which clearly indicates that the Premier failed in this regard. This is once again confirmed by the adjudicator on page 35 when he states, and I quote, “Notwithstanding all of these factors that should have been apparent to Premier Roland, particularly the opportunities to disclose his relationship in early October, he chose to continue it in secret for another six weeks. Once he passed up these opportunities, it is my” -- Hughes’ -- “opinion that he foreclosed the possibility of any subsequent assessment of his actions relating to his disclosure from being judged as having occurred in a timely way.”

The fact is, he did not make the disclosure until he was satisfied that his relationship with Ms. Russell had cemented into a permanent one. What, of course, was wrong was that his primary responsibility to his colleagues in the House, the democratic institution they serve and the maintenance of public and trust of those who he was elected to lead, took second place during that period of time. To me, this means that the Premier’s primary responsibility to his colleagues in the House -- and those are Mr. Yakeleya, Ms. Bisaro, Mr. Jacobson, Mr. Hawkins, Mr. Beaulieu, Mrs. Groenewegen, Mr. Ramsay, Mr. Menicoche, Mr. Bromley, Mr. Krutko, the three Mr. McLeods, Mr. Miltenberger, Ms. Lee and Mr. Lafferty and even the Speaker, Mr. Delorey -- took second place during that period of time from September through the entire month of October and the 2008 October session until late November 2008, arguably even up to the receipt of this ruling. What’s more scathing, in my opinion, is that the public trust of those who he was elected to lead also took second place during that period of time. That’s a tough one for me.

When the Members who signed the complaint letter, without assistance of the government-funded lawyer, were able to provide enough evidence to clearly demonstrate that the Premier did fail in this

regard, the Premier’s government-paid lawyer was unable to convince the adjudicator that he should find that contravention had not occurred. Fortunately, he did have a great lawyer working for him. The lawyer was able to convince him -- and that’s Hughes -- and I once again quote from the report, specifically page 36, “Rather than me” -- Mr. Hughes -- “recommending to the Legislative Assembly the imposition of a punishment as provided for in section 106(1)(b) of the act, she” -- Ms. Peterson -- “submitted that my” -- Hughes -- “focus ought to be on section 106(1)(a)(ii), which sets out reasons why, notwithstanding a contravention of the provisions of the act, the complaint should be dismissed.”

Given that the complainants are not lawyers and we did not have any provided to us like the Premier, we failed to recognize the importance of this argument and as such did not make any response to it. Frankly, I don’t really understand the value of clause 106(1)(a)(ii). If it existed in the Criminal Code, criminals who can demonstrate that they didn’t mean to commit the crime -- that is, they were distracted or they didn’t mean it -- would be, like, go. To me, it’s an odd clause. It’s a bit of an odd escape clause that was put in place by former Legislatures and, quite frankly, I don’t understand it. But, regardless, in the end, the adjudicator has based his decision on the evidence and the arguments presented to him. I believe he came to the right conclusion and his decisions are the right ones based on the evidence and the arguments provided. In the absence of any counterarguments or reasons outlining why 106(1)(a)(ii) should not apply, the adjudicator had no other choice but to accept it and dismiss this complaint. Therefore, as mentioned earlier, I will be supporting this motion.

However, before I sit down, I would like to once again send a message that I have sent previously. I would like to encourage the Premier of the Northwest Territories to do the honourable thing and take responsibility for the damage that his failure to arrange his private affairs in such a manner that maintained public confidence in his integrity, objectivity and impartiality has caused. This can be done by way of a sincere and general apology that acknowledges his actions or if the Premier is unwilling to provide that sincere and genuine apology, he could always resign in the best interests of the Legislature and the people of the Northwest Territories and to those people who took second place. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you, Mr. Abernethy. To the motion. The honourable Member for Weledeh, Mr. Bromley.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I will be supporting this motion. First I would like to recognize the good fortune this government has of having a Conflict of Interest Commissioner with the

experience, qualifications and wisdom Mr. Gerrand exemplifies and of having the opportunity to call upon an equally esteemed individual such as Mr. Ted Hughes for the duties of an adjudicator when one is called for.

The Legislative Assembly and Executive Council Act provides the legislation and guidelines for conduct of Members of the Legislative Assembly in relation to conflict of interest and maintaining public trust in our democratic process. When questions of interpretation arise, it provides a way to resolve these questions and this has been done in this case.

The issue here was that in the absence of any recognition of wrongdoing by Premier Roland, Members, out of concern for the impacts of the Premier’s conduct on a democratic process, raised the question with the Conflict of Interest Commissioner. Mr. Gerrand, after a thorough review, agreed there was a serious question to answer and moved the question into the hands of adjudicator Hughes. The results are clear. A grievous error of judgment was made by Premier Roland, as reflected in the following quote from the decision tabled in the House on Friday last, and I quote from the report, “In a thoughtful and well reasoned closing submission Ms. Bisaro, on behalf of the complainants, in a manner that was devoid of any adversarial flavour, made the same point in the following words:

‘Mr. Roland’s commitment to his family apparently shown by the lack of disclosure of the relationship until he decided it was a lasting one, while commendable for the family values it may reflect, disregards his obligations and duties to the people of the Northwest Territories and the institution of public government. He had opportunities to amend his travel plans and business commitments to make it a priority to deal with his personal situation, to advise his colleagues and family, but he chose not to. We believe it not only contributes to the loss of public confidence and trust, but also shows a lack of respect for all.

‘The failure of the Premier to understand the impact that the affair would have on the effectiveness of our institution and the failure to disclose it even to the Speaker, who had the ability to remedy the situation and would have treated it with the sensitivity it deserved, was in our opinion wrong, and we seek your confirmation.’”

Mr. Hughes continues, “In this section of my report I have given that confirmation and the reasons for it with the result that the contravention referenced in the terms of reference for this inquiry is found to exist. That is to say Floyd Roland, the MLA for Inuvik Boot Lake performed his duties of office and arranged his private affairs in such a manner that

he failed to maintain public confidence in his integrity, objectivity and impartiality as a result of entering into an intimate relationship with the Principal Clerk, Committees of the Northwest Territories Legislative Assembly in the summer and/or fall months of 2008 without the timely disclosure of that relationship.

“In my judgment the concern of the complainants that prompted their complaint to the Conflict of Interest Commissioner, and which in turn resulted in this inquiry was a fair and reasonable one to be taken the Commissioner seeking confirmation of what they believed to be wrong.”

Further, Mr. Roland’s legal counsel suggested that were Mr. Hughes to find this conclusion, he must also conclude that the error was made in good faith and that the complaint must be dismissed as per the legislation. Such was in fact the case as per the following quote in the tabled document, and I quote from page 37, “...I have also concluded that Premier Roland had an appreciation of the error he had made when he posed the question during the presentation of his evidence of whether he had arranged his affairs appropriately. In answering his own question he acknowledged that in hindsight he probably should have come forward sooner with his disclosure. As he spoke, his sincerity was both apparent and real. In making that acknowledgement, in the manner that he did, he left me with no doubt that his error of judgment was one made in good faith.

“What occurred here is, I believe, the type of situation that the legislators of the day had in mind when they placed section 106(1)(a)(ii) in the act. It follows that the complaint is dismissed.”

Mr. Speaker, I have every confidence in Mr. Hughes and I fully support his conclusions based on the evidence presented at the hearings. With this acceptance, I am sure we will hear from Premier Roland a clear and coherent apology to our public for his actions, an apology which reflects the clarity of Mr. Hughes’ report, a new depth of understanding about how his actions breached public trust and confidence in his integrity, objectivity and impartiality.

Mr. Speaker, I have to comment on one further issue. At the same time admitting that while I fully accept the adjudicator’s report within the context of the information available to him on this case, we in the Assembly have a much more thorough and ongoing record of behaviour and, in my opinion, questionable judgments by Premier Roland. Within this context, my enthusiasm for the less significant part of the report entitled “Disposition” is somewhat dim. I asked myself, did we fail in making the full context of Mr. Roland’s record available to Mr. Hughes and, if so, how or why? During the course of the lead-up to the public hearings, I learned that while legal counsel would be provided to Mr.

Roland, it would not be provided to the complainants, apparently because of an unintended consequence of a recent revision of the Legislative Assembly and Executive Council Act. Legal counsel was also provided to the adjudicator. As I learned during the hearings, the hearings are essentially legal proceedings with an adversarial relationship between the complainants and the defendant. Mr. Speaker, in such a venue, to prohibit legal counsel to any party is to undermine their rights and effectiveness in upholding the law. That is, it is unfair. In my opinion, that is unfair. As a consequence, I will be writing to the Board of Management urging them to address this shortcoming of the legislation.

In summary, Mr. Speaker, I thank the Conflict of Interest Commissioner and the adjudicator, Mr. Hughes, for their important service. I thank them for the clarity they have brought to our question and the confirmation that, indeed, a breach of public trust in competence has occurred. This is a significant finding that I anticipate will help avoid such contraventions in the future. I fully accept the adjudicator’s report and I look forward to the Premier’s apology and will vote in favour of the acceptance of the motion in the House here today.

Finally, I want to thank the public for their support and their forbearance with respect to the personal and financial costs that resolution of issues such as this bring. I know they are aware of the need for resolution of fundamental and important questions for a healthy democratic process, one that is fair to all in order for it to proceed. Mahsi.

Thank you, Mr. Bromley. To the motion. The honourable Member for Frame Lake, Ms. Bisaro.