Thank you, Madam Chair. To the amendment, I do think the amendment does improve on the previous recommendation. Once again, the previous recommendation -- or the main motion is very prescriptive. It's the Assembly encroaching on how Members run their offices. It's saying you will share an office in a central location. We've already seen a bit of that encroachment occur today, and so I'm happy that actually the Member reversed course and went a different direction on this one because I think it is an improvement.
I do have an office downtown in Hay River, a constituency office. I made sure that I had one that was easily accessible, so it's ground level. There's no barriers. It's in a public place. So people can see it and they can come by. People don't always want to seek out their MLAs. Sometimes they're walking by and they say, I'll just pop in. And that's when you can have some good conversations. You hear about things you might not otherwise, and I think that's important. So I don't really have an issue with the motion.
My only issue is this: You know, there have been other opportunities where we could discuss this and this could have been raised. So I don't know how much this would cost. I don't know what budget implications are. I don't know if there's going to be any assessment of whether or not people are ever in their offices. Maybe someone rents an office and the CA and the MLA are here all the time in the Legislative Assembly, and that office is vacant.
So if this does -- you know, if we do approve this recommendation, there's going to need to be guidelines developed regarding how BOM approves places. We need to determine whether or not it's actually worth it in the long run. So the idea itself is not a bad starting point but I think we need to put some meat on the bones. Thank you, Madam Chair.