Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Today I want to follow the lead of my colleague from Hay River North from earlier this week, and speak briefly to the issue we are seeing every day in the media with regard to our country’s capital and the elected and appointed leaders there.

As a territory, we have a close working relationship with the Government of Canada through the party and leaders in power. We have most recently had considerable dealings with Canada in pursuing our aspirations for greater self-determination through our Devolution Agreement.

I am saddened as I watch the nightly news as the saga of the Senate expenses continues to play out. It’s sad that for a country of Canada’s stature and reputation on the world stage that it is threatened to

be tarnished by something that was so avoidable and, I believe, could be resolved without further collateral damage.

It seems that the line between the work of the Senate in dealing with legislation coming forward from the House of Commons, as one of the things they do, has been very blurred with the work of parties that the Senators are appointed by and work with. This confusion has led to a lack of clear delineation of expenses related to Senate work versus party work. A review of the role and responsibilities of Senators seemingly needs to be addressed. The fact that Senators are appointed on a regional basis creates the perception that they need to be from and residing in the province of origin when, in fact, the work before and during the Senate appointment may have required that they actually live some other place. So regional representation is a notion that needs to be more clearly defined.

It would be interesting to find out how many sitting and retired Senators actually took advantage of this capital living allowance improperly, as it seems void of any clear rules. If there had been rules, the claims of the Senators in question should have been caught by administration.

Although these Senators filed expense claims, they didn’t have any authority to pay themselves from the budgets of the Senate. They didn’t issue the cheques, and for those who did, where was the monitoring scrutiny that one would expect? Mr. Bouchard made reference earlier in the House this week, even in a small jurisdiction like ours, how the rules are set out and how they’re followed.

So now we find ourselves in a situation where a succession of serious errors in judgment has occurred and they threaten the stability of the party that governs this country. That’s a sad day for Canada, regardless of what political stripe you hold to.

This is an amazing country. We have a democracy, despite some recent challenges, that is really still the envy of many, many countries. The leaders of any of our national parties did not get to that level of leadership without having earned the respect of a lot of Canadians along the way. As a legislator, I have had the privilege to meet many party leaders on trips that they’ve made to the North, and as a keen follower of politics, even prior to entering public office, I can say without hesitation that each one of them were very impressive Canadians and leaders in their own right.

I’d like to seek unanimous consent to conclude my statement.

---Unanimous consent granted