Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I would like to ask a question of the Minister responsible for forest fire management. Mr. Speaker, on Monday, June 12th, I asked the Minister whether or not he would give us the status of Bird Dog officers with respect to flying with the DC-4s. I would like to ask him for an update with respect to the status of Bird Dog officers. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I would like to ask the Minister of Finance a question. Mr. Speaker, last week I asked the Minister of Finance whether or not he received a request for a review of the request for proposals for the land-based tender that went out this past winter, and the Minister of Finance indicated that he will be making a decision on that this week. So I would like to ask him whether his department has decided to do a review on the tender process with respect to the request for proposals for the air tanker base contract. Thank you.

I am troubled when I see basic common-sense decisions -- like the decision to expel an elected representative who sexually exploits children or assaults another person -- are now being codified in the written laws of our land. Mr. Speaker, the power to exercise those common-sense decisions should be left in the hands of the people who elected us, not the courts. That's especially true here in the north where, for centuries, our elders and leaders did not have to rely on written law. They don't need to have some university-trained judge to tell them what is morally or right to do. Mr. Speaker, those decisions should be with the people who elected us.

Mr. Speaker, I find it absolutely regrettable that Cabinet should vote as a block to defeat the principle of recall, which would have reinforced the people's power to remove a Member. If we had embraced that concept, Mr. Speaker, I don't believe that Bill 32 would have been necessary. Choices about the potential expulsion of MLAs would have remained where they should be, with the voters of the Northwest Territories. I want to put on the record that I will be voting in favour of Bill 32 at third reading, Mr. Speaker. Because, as I said, I believe that when all things are said and done, it is a good bill. But, I will be voting with a feeling of concern in my heart and I hope all Members will take at least a moment to ponder the direction

in which we are moving, as we enact this legislation. Thank you.

---Applause

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to congratulate my honourable colleague for Yellowknife Frame Lake, Mr. Dent, on what I expect to be the imminent passage of Bill 32.

--- Applause

As you know from your own experience as a Member, Mr. Speaker, it's not always easy to bring forward a private Member's bill and I applaud Mr. Dent's effort and conviction in doing so.

At the same time, though, Mr. Speaker, I remain troubled as I see this bill go on to third reading.

Mr. Speaker, I will always support any endeavour which serves to preserve and enhance the integrity of this House. In retrospect, I believe that Bill 32 will do that. But I remain very concerned about a loophole that exists with regard to Members who may receive a conditional discharge, and I am certain that the legal profession will make every effort to capitalize on it.

I am also concerned, as I stated during standing committee hearings and again during debate in this House, that Mr. Dent's initiative does not go far enough. I believe that there is a far broader range of offences, including bootlegging, impaired driving, illegal possession of drugs, fraud and others that should have been included. I believe that any Member found guilty of these should not be allowed to sit in this House.

I have already stated my concerns over the potential interpretation of threatened violence or attempted assault, and I wonder what our constituents must think when we become so buried in legal definitions and case law that we're not even sure whether our laws reflect what we mean.

But, Mr. Speaker, what troubles me most about seeing Bill 32 passed through this Legislature is that just one more signal of a disturbing trend in Canada; a trend that is pushing all difficult decisions into the courts to decide.

Mr. Speaker, while I applaud Mr. Dent's efforts, this bill runs contrary to the basic belief that I have in our democratic system. It is my belief that it should be up to the people who decide when an elected representative is to be removed, not an outcome of a sentencing hearing in a court. Decisions to expel a Member should occur through an election or when other elected Members choose to exercise the rules of the House.

I am troubled by the increasing Canadian trend of pushing almost every decision into the courts through Charter challenges, constitutional interpretations and so forth. We will take a 10-minute break, please. Mr. Speaker, I seek unanimous consent to continue.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I think it's important to have on record the definition and interpretation of this bill, where it is developed from, with respect to the words "attempted" and "threatened" because they can be misinterpreted in the future in the court process. I think it's very important for the public to understand clearly the meaning of the bill when those words will be interpreted for future reference. With that, I have no further comments. Thank you.

Further to that, Mr. Chairman, I'm wondering whether or not Mr. Dent has determined if there is any case law which influenced him to use the words "attempt" and "threatened" in his bill?

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Just to follow up on some of the comments from yesterday's discussion, I would like to know whether it's possible for Mr. Dent to clarify and be specific with regard to giving explanations or, possibly, examples with respect to the definition in his bill of "attempted" and the definition of "threatened" in clause 2.(b). Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. That probably helps my constituents somewhat. The Minister stated that there have been no discussions between the two parties. Is he aware of a possible request to the board of governors of Arctic College for this funding? Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I would like to ask the Minister of Education, Culture and Employment a question about the budget commitments of Aurora College. Mr. Speaker, tomorrow night there will be a public meeting in

Fort Smith to discuss the proposed new recreation complex. In the pamphlet that has been circulated by the community, it appears that $400,000 will be allocated from Aurora College's budget. Many of my constituents asked me whether or not Aurora College is, indeed, granting $400,000 towards the town's recreation complex, and I indicated to them that I would ask the Minister because nothing had appeared in the budget books.

I would like to ask the Minister if he can indicate to this House whether or not $400,000 has been committed from the Aurora's College's budget for the new Fort Smith recreation complex. Thank you.