Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, I commented on this motion yesterday so I'll be very brief. Those wishing to read my previous remarks in full can do so in the October 17th Hansard. I've also commented extensively on the Mid-Term Review process which was the impetus for this motion, so I won't repeat it here, but it's available on my website.
The Mid-Term Review, of course, resulted in Mr. Sebert receiving a vote of non-confidence. Now, if our system of government was based on political parties, then a non-confidence vote would dictate the removal of the Minister and this motion would be largely academic. However, we are a consensus government, so it's erroneous to conflate the non-confidence vote with a revocation motion. The Cabinet is not the ruling party and the Regular Members are not the opposition. We should not sit idly by for two years before we address Minister Sebert's performance in one seven-hour long exhibition; we should have used the tools of consensus government to make government work. Instead, we neglected those tools and blamed the consensus system for our woes. Further, we can't forget that history indicates that revocation motions deepen the tension between Cabinet and Regular Members and undermine future prospects for consensus. So will revoking Minister Sebert improve government? If a Regular Member takes over multiple departments two years into a mandate, will that improve government more than working with the Minister to improve his performance? I don't believe it will. I believe that working with the Minister and all of Cabinet who also bear some responsibility for the non-confidence vote is in the best interests of the residents of the Northwest Territories. I will not support this motion. Thank you.