All right. Thank you. And please let me know at think time if there's any change in -- no switch? Okay, perfect.

I will now open the floor for general comments. Seeing no general comments, we will review the supplementary estimates by department. The committee has agreed to forgo general comments in each department. Does the committee agree to proceed to the detail contained in the tabled document?

Thank you.

Supplementary Estimates (Operation Expenditures), No. 3, 2021-2022, Legislative Assembly, Office of the Clerk, not previously authorized, $70,000. Does committee agree?

Supplementary Estimates (Operation Expenditures), No. 3, 2021-2022, Legislative Assembly, Office of the Speaker, not previously authorized, $806,000. Member for Yellowknife North.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I'm going to make a few comments here. I actually won't ask the questions to the Minister of Finance because despite finance being responsible for almost everything under the sun, they are not responsible for the spending of the Legislative Assembly. But we have $800,000 here, and this is largely stemming out of the complaint against the Member for Tu Nedhe-Wiilideh that resulted in a public inquiry which the public figures about how expensive that was, and I guess I would just like to make some comments that, you know, I believe this is only the second time that that has happened. Certainly, it was never this expensive and we, as an Assembly, have to look through back on that process and see how we can change it. I think when we all see this bill, many of us would not have ever headed down that road. There's a couple things that we -- I believe we need to do as an Assembly, through the Speaker and the board of management, is to firstly cap legal costs. The vast majority of this is legal fees. And I don't believe we should have paid so many lawyers so much for that dispute.

Secondly, I think there's some sort of alternative measures or diversion or dispute resolution mechanism needs to be made available so there can be a bit of an off-ramp during this process that is cheaper than a full public inquiry.

And lastly, I think conversation needs to be had, in most jurisdictions the Integrity Commissioner themselves actually holds the inquiry and they can make decisions such as whether it's written submissions, whether it's a full oral hearing, or -- but in our jurisdiction, the Integrity Commissioner just makes an initial finding of whether there's a case to be sent for a public inquiry, which then we have to go find someone to hold it which is a more expensive to add that other step. So I think there's an argument to be made that whoever is the Integrity Commissioner could just do it all at once and we could have a little bit of a contract negotiation with them to make sure it doesn't cost an additional $800,000.

Those are just comments, Madam Chair. And I'll just note that this is not really the Department of Finance's ending, so I don't have any questions. Thank you.

Thank you. Minister of Finance, did you have anything to respond?

Madam Chair, I appear to have caused quite a number of people some consternation because there is actually witnesses available should the Members wish to ask questions on this matter, and I forgot. I apologize.

Thank you. Did you want to switch out a witness for this item?

[Audio]

Madam Chair.

Can you please switch around the witnesses. Thank you.

Member for Yellowknife -- oh, just wait.

Due to a straightening out our witness situation, I will give it back to the Member for Yellowknife North as you may have different -- change your questions now. Thank you.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I don't want to belabor the points I just made. I guess I will ask one question to the Speaker, who was joined us, about whether it is a priority of the board of management to review, you know, in light of this cost and the recent public hearing and Integrity Commissioner report, review the methods and, you know, perhaps look for a way to make sure that they are not so expensive going forward. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you. Member for Frame Lake.

Yeah, thanks, Madam Chair. Yeah, I too have some comments I just want to make on this, and I don't really want to get into what happened. But I do think that, you know, we did -- the last Assembly made changes to the code of conduct. We made changes to the Legislative Assembly and Executive Council Act. We renamed the statutory officer. It used to be called the Conflict of Interest Commissioner, now they're called an Integrity Commissioner, changed the process a bit. And what I can say is that consensus government worked. It was painful but it did work, and it did cost some money but that is the price of democracy in some ways. But I agree with a lot of what my colleague said in terms of trying to learn some lessons from what happened. And I too agree that I think it's difficult to cap legal costs, particularly around the public inquiry. You want to make to sure it's a fair process. If we don't have a fair process that in itself can be challenged. But I do think that some of the policies might need to be clarified.

I did hear the Speaker say that the Board of Management is going to review policies, and I certainly appreciate the hard work on the Board of Management in looking at all of this. It was a very difficult situation and stellar work; I want to thank them all for the work that they did on this and will continue to do on this.

I guess I do agree too, though, that we may want to consider a look at how other jurisdictions deal with disputes and whether there's alternative measures or mediation or, you know, whether it's even like of council of elders that might provide advice or be available for advice as an alternative form of dispute resolution.

So I think I heard the Speaker say that the Board of Management is looking at policies. But I'm hoping that the Board of Management would also look at the legislation itself because that's where the process is set out, you know, of the sole adjudicator -- the Integrity Commissioner, sorry, hearing a complaint first and then if there's merit it can go off to a sole adjudicator, and I'm not a lawyer but I think I got that right. But that's set out in the legislation. And if we do want to really provide for alternative dispute resolution, I think that may require some legislative change.

So I guess I would like to ask the Speaker, or our witnesses, whether the scope of the work that they're doing is going to look at potential for legislative change as well. Thanks, Madam Chair.

Thank you. Mr. Speaker.

Yes, I'm sorry about that. Go ahead, Mr. Rutland.

Thank you. Member for Frame Lake.

Okay, thanks. Yeah, and I was in the last Assembly where we did review it and make some fairly significant and substantive changes. So the scope of the review though, will that include consideration of any lessons learned from this experience? Thanks, Madam Chair.