Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Actually, it’s interesting that we are talking about this. It’s not about the power and it’s not about the rate increase. I think this is about the procedural step that Members feel denied. We shouldn’t cloud the issue with whatever goodwill and intent was provided by the Minister and his argument based solely on the fact to shelter constituents would be an argument worth any opportunity to make time and time again.

Are we worried about why we did it or what method it was done by? I think the merits of why it was done perhaps says, yes, we had to find a way to ensure citizens were protected.

The crux of our Assembly is built around process, procedure and how we work together in the context of consensus government. That isn’t necessarily written letter by letter, page by page throughout the Assembly. It’s written in the ethics of how we do our business and how we relate with each other and how Cabinet members document that speaks about relationships.

I would say we should not cause ourselves to get caught up in why the action and the result it delivered. We should be asking ourselves what process was missed and how Members were perceived in that matter.

On that merit, Mr. Dolynny has a case by saying that Members were not informed through proper process. I give the government points for the initiative they were trying to tackle, yes. They deserve credit for that, but at the same time,

I think Mr. Dolynny’s

argument should withstand any criticizing and look at what was really missed here: the relationship, the opportunity for the two groups to work together

properly. Members on this side of the House feel like their rights have been denied.

That’s why Mr.

Dolynny’s argument should stand. Thank you.