Debates of October 31, 2018 (day 47)

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

WHEREAS pursuant to section 61(1) of the Legislative Assembly and Executive Council Act, the Legislative Assembly recommends to the Commissioner the appointment of Members to the Executive Council Act. The Legislative Assembly recommends to the Commissioner the appointment of Members of the Executive Council;

AND WHEREAS pursuant to section 61(2) of the Legislative Assembly and Executive Council Act, the persons appointment to hold office during the pleasure of the Legislative Assembly;

AND WHEREAS the Assembly pursuant to these powers have chosen the honourable Member for Hay River South to sit as a Member of the Executive Council;

NOW THEREFORE I MOVE, seconded by the honourable Member for Deh Cho, that this Assembly formally revoke the pleasure of the Assembly from the appointment of the honourable Member for Hay River South as a Member of the Executive Council;

AND FURTHER, that this Assembly recommend that a Member be chosen to be a Member of the Executive Council.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and I would like to request a recorded vote.

Masi. The Member requested a recorded vote. The motion is in order. To the motion. Member for Kam Lake.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It brings me no great pleasure in bringing forward this motion to revoke the appointment of the honourable Member for Hay River South. As a Regular Member, I work regularly with the Members on this side of the House to work on issues of mutual concern to our constituents to find resolution to the leadership of the Members of Cabinet and their respective portfolios.

This is a difficult issue for me to speak to today. A problem of being a representative in a territory as small as ours is that many take personal what is a fundamental requirement of our duties as Members, which is to ensure that each Minister in this House upholds and is bound by the principle, a ministerial responsibility. The idea that, in a responsible government, all organizations are the responsibility of a Minister, and a Minister is accountable to his or her elected colleagues in the legislature.

This principle exists to protect the anonymity of the public service, of the departments under the Minister's purview, but it also ensures the accountability of the actions or inactions of departments to the public. In short, ministerial accountability exists to maintain good governance. It brings me no joy to rise and on the question of holding our honourable colleagues to account; accountability for the actions or inactions of their departments, agencies, or files. Rather, it is our necessary duty as elected representatives for the preservation of the principles of this legislature and the aspirations laid out in the principles of consensus government.

Under consensus government, we are unique in that the power is granted to the whole House itself over the appointment of Minister and over holding them ultimately accountable to the public interest. This is what we were elected to do. Some do feel that the disruption of activities normally associated with our roles in this House is merely political grandstanding or worse, scapegoating.

Given our small population, it is easy for people to get personally invested in the goings on of their friends and neighbours, thinking that Members of this House are merely making personal attacks on Members of their community, which there is only a desire for political gain in pursuit of a witch hunt.

Before I get too far into my statement, I wish to reiterate an earlier point: if any motion to remove a Member of Cabinet is successful today, I will not accept stepping into a ministerial position and I will not stand for election to the Cabinet. I know there has been much speculation and whispered hearsay to that effect. I felt I needed to get my response on the record.

Ultimately, having this discussion on the public record is how we, as a legislative body, ensure that government is best representing all peoples of our territory, and ensuring that the public will and the public good are maintained and in the forefront of our thought.

The honourable Minister in question has provided answers to our questions, provided briefings to our committees, and arranged meetings in his office to hear these concerns. However, it has become apparent to me and other honourable Members that there is only so far this Minister is willing to go in order to address our concerns. When disagreement emerges, a hard line is drawn by the Minister with no room for compromise and all further discussions have taken on a contemptuous tone. This has played out in many forums and question periods during committee hearings and in recommendations to legislative proposals and policy initiatives. This unwillingness to engage is often combined with dismissive responses and a bellicose attitude that undermines the principles of this legislature, laid out in our guiding principles and conventions, inspired by the open, honest, and full communications anticipated in a healing circle, a concept upon this institution is inspired.

Ultimately, having this discussion on the public record is how we will move forward.

Mr. Speaker, matters of confidence are difficult and highly contentious. The most serious issue of the performance of this particular Minister is the ongoing management of Marine Transportation Services or MTS under the Minister's Infrastructure portfolio. The highly publicized failure of MTS to completely resupply deliveries to Arctic communities, communities most vulnerable to the lack of essential supplies, has raised concerns among all Members of the House. These concerns are not only due to the thought of some of our residents being isolated without needed goods and fuel, as the winter begins, not to mention businesses in these regions that will miss out on thousands of dollars of economic opportunity, but also because of the millions of dollars this is costing taxpayers, this corrective action is taken to complete these deliveries by more costly means.

When questioned on the handling of this instance, the Minister in the House side-swiped answers, referring back to his private sector experiences as a business owner. Yes, as a business owner, one must be aware of fiscal responsibility. One must also be concerned about the ability to deliver on what has been contractually agreed upon. This House, unlike a business, does not just get to pick and choose who we serve. In business, if you fail a client, you are merely likely to just lose their business in the future. In government, when we fail our people, there are long-term consequences. Might I remind the House that winter is not coming; it is already upon us.

Mr. Speaker, at no point the Minister has stood up, taken personal responsibility for this failure, nor has he apologized to the residents who missed out on these crucial deliveries; nor to those who will not see their shipments until the ice thaws come the spring. Instead, he has insisted that the faults were due to unavoidable series of coincidences, and he is not to blame. In fact, to quote from Hansard from October 23rd, the Minister's response to his management of the situation was to say, "I'm not going to sit here and take it, that saying this was an error of our department."

If I understood the implications correctly, the Minister does not feel that he or the department must take into account foreseeable variables, such as changing seasons, the changing state from water to ice. These are all predictable occurrences in the North, Mr. Speaker. I need not remind you. The buck does not stop at the department. If it does not stop at the Minister, who does it stop with?

I believe the counterpoint is being paid that the buck only stops every few years during an election. How does this give confidence to Northerners? How is this example of responsive and responsible government?

If the Minister doesn't like the questions of our constituents, how does he feel when they are deprived of essential supplies and vehicles for an entire season? Are they just supposed to sit there and take it? Are they supposed to feed, clothe, and heat themselves with his best of intentions? The refusal of a Minister to accept responsibilities for the actions of his or her department is inconsistent with the principles of responsible government.

In this Chamber, in our system of consensus, Minister are accountable for their departments; not public servants, not departmental officials. In this matter, the Minister has refused even a simple apology for a grievous error in the management of MTS.

Since the acquisition of MTS, the department has prioritized private cargo deliveries over community resupply. Communities are getting the short end of the stick. The Minister has made excuses, but the truth of the matter is that MTS had ample opportunity to resupply Paulatuk and the other communities in Nunavut, but chose to put a higher value revenue opportunity presented by private contracts above the needs of Northerners.

I say this, Mr. Speaker, knowing full well that the Minister has denied this suggestion; the management decisions were behind the failure to resupply Arctic communities. I will provide both the Minister's excuses and the facts I have learned since looking further into this incident.

On October 17th, the Minister was first questioned in the House on the performance of the GNWT's marine transportation services. In response to questions from the honourable Member for Nunakput, the Minister said, "This isn't an error. This is a situation that happened because of unfortunate ice that came down. I have been on TV. I have been interviewed a number of times around this issue."

Later on October 23rd, the Minister repeated his refusal to accept that the failure of Arctic resupply was due to the management of MTS, stating in response to questions again from the honourable Member for Nunakput, "The Member keeps calling this an error and he keeps trying to blame MTS, and that is not the case." The Minister has relied on three reasons for the failure to resupply Arctic communities. I will use his words from Hansard on the Committee of the Whole review of Minister's Statement 103-18(3): "High water knocked all the buoys out. The delivery of fuel to the Hay River terminal that didn't meet specification that delayed the scheduling to all communities again and multi-year sea ice that came down."

I consider the Minister's three stated reasons for this incident carefully. I did my own research using ship schedules contained on NORDREG, the Coast Guard Arctic marine tracking system, along with consulting with private sector marine operators, who can be considered experts in the Arctic resupply.

I'm not arguing that the three factors the Minister is relying on to defend his performance were not present and did not play a factor in preventing shipping, but it only occurred when MTS had run out of time to complete its community resupply operations because it had become preoccupied with chasing private contracts in Alaska and the Sabina gold mine in Nunavut, putting business interests above the needs of everyday people.

What I'm saying plainly, Mr. Speaker, is that the Minister put the fiscal needs of the GNWT above the essential resupply of Arctic communities, which is and has always been the principal goal of the government's purchase of MTS. The Minister has clearly stated in the House and on the public record that as many as five ships were delivering freight all over the place, and has denied suggestions that the delivery to Sabina gold and other private customers did not affect the deliveries to the communities.

I want to be clear and present the facts to show quite the opposite. In reviewing the arrivals and departures of the MTS vessels, only two ships, the Kelly Ovayuak and Edgar Kotokak, were assigned to Arctic trips, not including private charters that were covering the areas of resupply. The Edgar Kotokak was sent to service a private contract to pick up a power plant in Prudhoe Bay in Alaska, and then it was supposed to go to Cambridge Bay to go up to resupply. The ship did not get back to Tuktoyaktuk until September 25th, taking so long to do the Alaska work that they were too late to resupply Cambridge Bay and Ulukhaktok, again, putting income generation above the needs of every day Northerners.

Meanwhile, the Ovayuak was deployed on a shipping run to Bathurst Inlet in Kitikmeot and service the needs of the Sabina gold mine and silver mine. This was before the vessel did its first trip to Sachs Harbour in Ulukhaktok. At the time, the second trip to Sachs Harbour, Ulukhaktok, and Paulatuk was supposed to start on October 1st, it was too late. If MTS had followed their original schedule that they published in the spring of this year, they would have finished all of their community deliveries. All deliveries were planned to be completed by the end of August. Instead, new contracts were added to increase government revenues at the expense of small communities in the NWT and Nunavut.

Compare this to the private charter, Investigator, that left Tuktoyaktuk in the same sailing season on September 20th on its final trip to the TMAC mine that completed that delivery successfully, without any delays caused by sea ice. It's clear that MTS had a very large delivery window, and this costly error cannot be blamed solely on environmental factors. The failure was caused by poor planning and a pursuit of private-sector contracts. This is especially troubling as the Minister has told this House that a private business could not have done any better and would have left our communities worse off.

Mr. Speaker, in actuality, a private charter was more than able to resupply their customers on time, without issue, in the month of September. The bottom line is, if MTS had concentrated on community deliveries instead of doing all this commercial work, the department could have completed the deliveries to our communities. The Members of this House have supported the GNWT's efforts through MTS to ensure the communities get their deliveries, but, in his zeal and fervour for the GNWT to enter into the private shipping market, the Minister has dramatically affected the ability of MTS to do its job in essential resupply. This has occurred in both years, 2017 and 2018, and again MTS has been pursuing these contracts under the government's watch, putting the needs of outside interests above the needs of our own residents.

This concern has been brought forward to the Minister's attention. He is well aware it exists, and he has defended his approach at every opportunity, sharply rebuking any suggestions that the choice to prioritize revenues over people is the wrong approach. On this point, Mr. Speaker, the Minister and I cannot be farther apart. When discussing the role of public government, it seems at all times the Minister may have forgotten what his title is in another portfolio, the Minister of Industry, Tourism and Investment, not chief executive officer of a for-profit corporation. The House's focus should be on the peoples of the NWT and on securing a future for the territories, not in pursuing revenue-generating schemes.

The Minister has blamed bad fuel as one of the factors in delaying shipping. Unfortunately, this occurrence is all too common in Arctic resupply operations, and the department should have made sure the fuel was on-spec when it was purchased because you only get one chance at resupply in the challenging weather conditions present in an Arctic environment. With the Minister's experience as a businessman, one would assume that, before deliveries were signed off on, steps were taken to ensure the delivery met expected standard, that this was the right product and it was required for the shipments. Not just the residents but businesses are without their supplies, crippling some businesses to deliver their products and services to market, leaving remote northern communities out in the cold. These explanations are an all-too-common rule of thumb in the private-sector shipping business.

I would be remiss not to quote the Minister from Hansard when asked about the risks of Arctic shipping on October 24th. He stated, "If I lived in the High Arctic, I'd realize there are substantial risks to getting my freight in." Mr. Speaker, the Minister was well aware of the tight timelines for resupply and the need to get fuel purchases right from the start. There can be no excuses for this as it is clear the Minister knew the risks. Poor planning or a lack of concern are not enough to justify this issue concerning fuel nor suggesting to Northerners in remote communities that it's their fault and that they should have known better when they chose to stay in their communities. This is contrary to so much of what we in the House are working for: strong, stable northern communities.

The Minister's tone and hard-line attitudes to these issues are saddening and very concerning to me and other Members of this House. Though the concerns of the residents of affected communities are driving the issue, the cost to airlift the missed deliveries is a concern to taxpayers everywhere in the Northwest Territories. Millions of dollars have had to be spent to send these missed goods by aircraft. While these costs are being paid out of two government revolving funds and will not impact the government's budget directly, they are additional and unnecessary, that directly affect the performance of these funds in question. As a business owner, I wonder if a cost-benefit analysis was completed prior to the prioritization of private ventures over the needs of the public. I wonder if profits made from private deliveries outweigh the costs associated with airlifting some supplies and the unknown-as-of-yet costs associated with freight which cannot be airlifted and will spend the winter in the government's possession.

Mr. Speaker, when this government decided to purchase MTS, it was through a special warrant. They did not come before this House for approval by its Members. This action was met with no small amount of concern by Regular Members, but, ultimately, we all decided to support the move to ensure essential community resupply could be maintained. The willingness of Members to support the government on MTS continued when the Standing Committee on Economic Development and Environment agreed to fast-track the bill to establish the MTS revolving fund that was allowed the bypass the normal 120-day review period by standing committee normally required of legislation. Part of this expediency was an agreement that all Members of this House would be involved in the future operations of MTS and the eventual governance model that would be implemented to run the operations. We have seen little willingness from the Minister responsible to work with Members on both operational and governance issues subject to MTS.

MTS is not a public institution subject to public insight. It is a part of the Department of Infrastructure, and Members have raised these concerns. The honourable Member for Nunakput, the honourable Member for Hay River North, they have both raised these concerns, and they have brought numerous complaints from clients, and even MTS employees, forward to the Minister. Again, these concerns have fallen on deaf ears and been met with dismissive rebukes. I, along with the honourable Member for Yellowknife North, the honourable Member for Frame Lake, and the honourable Member for Nunakput, again have again implored the Minister to take action to sever MTS from the Department of Infrastructure and transform it into a Crown corporation or special operating agency. These concerns are supported by an independent consultant's report. They have been dismissed sharply by the Minister. It seems to me there is much confusion on the part of the Minister. Maybe he is used to accounting only to shareholders, toeing a corporate line, forgetting that, in a public institution, we must be concerned with the good of all stakeholders and the public need, not solely the bottom line.

Regular Members have shown their commitment to working with Cabinet and the Minister on MTS through our acceptance of the special warrant and our consent to rush the revolving fund legislation, but we have little to show for it in return, Mr. Speaker. The focus of MTS on private contracts and the pursuit of profits over people are reflected solely by the actions of the Minister in question. He has never denied this is the case and refused to ensure the focus of MTS is focused squarely on essential supply and the people of the Northwest Territories. That is why this issue is so important to the Members of this House, and that is the main reason we have brought forward a revocation motion as a result.

Mr. Speaker, there are other issues regarding the Minister's performance. Unfortunately, the suffocating cloud of secrecy that surrounds our work as Members of this House prevents me from clearly demonstrating many of the serious concerns Regular Members have relied on in their support for this motion. The public has been kept from the full range of facts that surround the Minister's performance, and the Minister is all too happy to distort the issue of his performance in his portfolios to a partisan conflict between opposing camps of MLAs, a "he said-she said" divide motivated by personal ambition and political gamesmanship. These are arguments repeated all too frequently when these matters of confidence are brought forward, and those arguments could not be farther from the truth.

In secret meetings behind closed doors, the Minister has repeatedly refused to accept the recommendations of standing committees to improve GNWT policies, laws, and legislative proposals. Often, his reply to these concerns and the suggestions of Members is to say, "Not as long as I am Minister," almost as if he is goading Members to take action against an intransigent Minister who has demonstrated time and time again an unwillingness to collaborate with all Members to better serve the interests of Northerners brought forward by Regular Members who represent 31 of 33 communities, Mr. Speaker. This confrontational tone must be answered, and the Minister must be held to account.

Ministers are solely responsible to the questions of their departments in the House and to take responsibility for their departments' deficiencies. Sometimes, this can be accomplished through an apology and a commitment to do better. Other times, more direct and decisive action is needed.

Mr. Speaker, I am supporting this motion for revocation for the reasons I have laid out. I have done my best efforts to ensure that my position on the Minister's performance is clear and that this motion supports the interests of Northerners and ensuring they have a government that is accountable to its failures as much as it is entitled to its successes. This is not a partisan issue. These are questions fundamental to the duties and principles we swore to uphold. This is a statement of fact. I ask that the honourable Members of this House give full consideration to the decision that is being asked of them today in support of our consensus system and in support of ministerial accountability. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Masi. To the motion. Member for Deh Cho.

Mahsi, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this motion. I second the motion because I believe that our leadership and decision making could have been exercised in ensuring our remote communities were supplied with goods during the past summer barging season. I felt like our communities, left out in the cold and isolated, in terms of operational oversight and communication on this file. As a Regular MLA, I did not get assurances that everything possible was being done to transport goods to communities that rely on barge services. Now, I know that corporate profit trump resupply in remote communities.

In addition, I was not informed of the progress or issues along the way, and it became a debacle. For those reasons, I will stand in support of this motion. Mahsi.

Masi. To the motion. Member for Hay River North.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, in this Assembly, it's a fool's errand to try and remove a Minister. As the Premier stated in this House just a few weeks ago, "he who pays the bills, plays the tune," and we all know that Cabinet controls the cheque book. That's not how consensus government is supposed to work, but that's how it works. That's why no Ministers have yet been removed, and it's the reason that during the budget deliberations, Regular Members are relegated to fighting over scraps instead of addressing large, fundamental issues. The style of governance perpetrated by Cabinet is why we find ourselves in this situation today, and the reason why I would be shocked to see any changes to the status quo come from this exercise. However, the situation is before us, so I will try to make the most of it.

As you can imagine, this motion has put me in a difficult position. The Minister at issue is not only from the same community as me, but is the first Hay River MLA to serve on Cabinet in a very long time. Beyond that, I owe him a personal debt of gratitude because I would not be a Member of this Assembly if it were not for him. Mr. Speaker, you can appreciate that this is not a decision that I take lightly, and regardless of the outcome, I will continue to work with the Member to advance the interests of Hay River.

That being said, Mr. Speaker, the people of this territory, including my constituents demand that we hold this government and this Minister accountable. Since Cabinet is unwilling or incapable of ensuring the accountability of its own Members, it falls to us. I have no choice but to support the motion.

The issue that precipitated the situation was the failure of MTS to fulfill its contractual obligations to deliver goods to multiple communities. On its own, the failure would not have warranted a revocation motion, however, the Minister's handling of the situation followed a pattern of behaviour that is contemptuous to the residents of the NWT, and out of line with the principles of consensus government.

The Minister has repeatedly stated that no mistakes were made, and that a series of issues beyond the control of MTS caused the delay. He has also said that there are lessons to be learned, and that they are creating an emergency contingency plan for next year. If nothing went wrong, what is there to learn? If creating an emergency contingency plan will avoid the situation in the future, then doesn't not having such a plan this year constitute a mistake? This non-mistake is costing taxpayers millions of dollars, but no one is taking responsibility, and neither the Minister nor the Premier is holding anyone accountable, and the public is expected to just swallow it. The Minister's department got in over its head, and is bailing itself out with public funds. I promise you that he would not extend the same courtesy to a private business. In fact, his department is continuously nickel and diming local employers, often to the benefit of southern companies and to the detriment of Northerners. This hypocrisy and lack of accountability cannot continue unabated.

However, the Minister obviously does not agree, and Cabinet is fine with doing business in this way. Earlier this week, the Minister commented to a news outlet that he works hard and sees no reason why he should lose his job. He does work hard, Mr. Speaker. I can attest to that, but I'm not here to hand out participation ribbons for hard work. I'm here to keep the government accountable. The fact that he doesn't understand why he's in this position is a prime example of why he's in this position.

As I alluded to earlier, Mr. Speaker, the failure to deliver goods while a major issue onto itself is not the sole reason that this motion was brought forward, but it was the straw that broke the camel's back.

Time and time again, the Minister has demonstrated that he does not grasp or does not care to abide by the principles of consensus government, and treats engagement with standing committees and Regular Members as a box to be checked, and not an opportunity to collaborate. Just look at how every discussion about government procurement has unfolded on the floor of this House. Half a dozen Members have raised it as a concern, and in his speech for the Premiership, the Premier noted it as an issue that needs to be addressed. Yet, every time we raise our constituents' concerns about this issue, the Minister tells us that the business community is not concerned with the government's procurement practices. We stand here and tell him that we've heard concerns, and he responds by essentially telling us, we haven't heard concerns. What conclusions can we draw from this bizarre, ongoing denial? I'm not sure whether the Minister honestly believes that we just stand up here and lie, or if it's a way to ignore our concerns.

Procurement is just one example. We've all heard a Member ask the Minister to consider an option, and him respond by proclaiming, "Not as long as I'm Minister."

I admit that, when our goals are aligned, the Minister is open to working with Regular Members; however, if our opinions are at odds with his, there is little, if any, room to work together.

I believe that much of the problem is that the Minister has never served as a Regular Member. Throughout the year, often for weeks on end, the Regular Members sit together in a room and discuss the concerns of our constituents, and how to address the issues facing the territory. Cabinet Ministers, on the other hand, spend most of their time with senior bureaucrats, and it's my impression that, if they're not vigilant, they will grow to become more concerned with management than with governance. The Minister has developed a narrow, bureaucratic mindset, and appears to be more concerned with the GNWT than the people of the NWT. We have enough bureaucrats, Mr. Speaker. We need leaders.

Mr. Speaker, I don't like this situation. I wished we didn't have to do it. I wanted to let the Minister know that this is not personal. If it was personal, I'd throw my full support behind him.

I am supporting this motion because I believe it's what is right for Hay River and for the NWT, and because I hope that this will be the wake-up call the Minister needs. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Masi. I'd like to remind people in the gallery, the public, that we have a few Members still who need to speak, and refrain from making noise because it is distracting to this House. Out of respect, please, thank you. To the motion. Member for Nahendeh.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, I stand today in support of this motion. My support doesn't come from a personal grievance, but I have to stand up for the people of the Northwest Territories. I know that a debate like this will risk becoming a painful, combative experience, but I am confident that this Assembly can raise above that to make the best possible decisions in the Northwest Territories.

What do I want to see come from this debate? I am looking for accountability. I want to see respect toward this side of the House and questions answered. I want residents' concerns to be heard and looked at Members' ideas and suggestions on important issues should be considered in the spirit of consensus government.

The failure of Marine Transportation System to deliver the full load of goods ordered for the coastal communities will have a very serious impact on the residents and businesses. Air freight costs will run into millions of dollars. I've been told today, $3.4 million. I believe this situation was avoidable. I want the Minister to say, "This happened on my watch. I take full responsibility." I'm looking for an apology to the coastal communities.

It worries me for our future when I see so many contracts going to southern companies for Infrastructure projects without enough attention to jobs, northern businesses, and benefits to our residents. These decisions have a rippling effect in our communities and government services. Without work, people have to go on income support. Our youth and their education are impacted. This needs to be changed, but not to the detriment of the northern businesses and families.

As I prepared for today's debate, I considered the action of past Assemblies and past Members. I looked at the leaders who came before us and the precedents they set. In 1992, the then Member for Yellowknife South resigned from the Executive Council. When he made his statement in the House, he took ownership of the problems facing his department. He spoke of his responsibility to his constituents, and his recognition that he could not carry out his duties as Minister without the full support of other Members. I would like to quote from Hansard for that date, December 1, 1992. The Minister said, "I believe in good government and clean politics. I'm going to walk it and talk it with no compromises."

Those words, I think, we should all live by. Those words I want all Members to reflect on as we vote on this decision. Mr. Speaker, as we move forward, it's about ownership, it's about what we do for the residents, and if Ministers over there are our leaders, they're the ones we've put in those seats. However, we've seen this issue we've seen a number of issues that other colleagues talked about, and we need to move forward, and we need to respect the dignity of the residents of the Northwest Territories. For that, I will support the motion. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Masi. To the motion, Member for Yellowknife North.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, clearly, it's not pleasant to be here speaking on this revocation motion today. It's clear that my colleagues have serious concerns about the performance of the Minister in question. It's a serious matter to bring a motion like this to the floor of the Assembly, but it's one of the few ways that Members on this side can call the public's attention to how serious the issue is and the question that it raises about the Minister's performance and the accountability of his respective departments.

However, while I experienced the concerns my colleagues shared today, I have to say that I still have the confidence in this Minister. Over the past three years, I have had many occasions to work with this Minister. The Minister has been forthcoming and collaborative in working with me. As the MLA for Yellowknife North, I have frequently raised questions of general concern and public safety on the Ingraham Trail and the Niven to downtown stretch of Highway No. 4. The Minister in both his capacities as Minister of ITI and of Infrastructure has addressed my concerns and provided answers to my constituents, and always in an efficient and effective manner.

Although I am very respectful of my Regular Member colleagues' positions, and their valid reasons for this motion, the Minister has not lost my confidence, and, therefore, I will be voting in opposition to the motion. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Masi. To the motion, Member for Sahtu.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I, too, feel saddened that we have come to this situation on siding one of our 19 Members in this House. This institution is led by the elected officials to best serve the residents of the Northwest Territories. In this part of Canada, we truly have many challenges, challenges faced by addictions, remoteness, isolation. Those are fundamental principles that are really facing the communities' endeavours to progress.

I had the opportunity in one of my positions in the 1970s to work for NTCL, a Crown corporation, later becoming a private corporation, and now a public corporation. Since then, I've experienced harsh conditions in the Arctic coastal communities having not been there, but knowing people who did, and explaining those harsh conditions which create barriers in front of the ships.

However, we are back to the issues at hand before us today, led by issues that are in question. As I reflect as a first-time MLA into this institution, operating underneath a consensus government style, I've learned to respect each and every individual in this House for the simple fact that they do work hard. I've seen it; I've witnessed it. My predecessor, I have often wondered, what did they do outside of the televised sessions. I've seen that first-hand through participation. The determination of other 19 MLA in this diversified, culturally-traditional environment should be respected, and I do respect the other 18 Members on the fundamental issue that you have chosen to represent people that really matter in your respective area. Again, as a first-time MLA, I've seen how Cabinet operates, family members themselves, limitations to the access of their families because duty calls first, and they serve those duties respectfully. Those duties can be seen by the images and the presentations they deliver when talking about the progression of our government, in Ottawa, more specifically.

More specifically, again, to the Indigenous partnerships that we are trying to engage in developing and build on the strengths of trust.

Through consultation with the people that I represent and what I've seen, we in the Sahtu will stand behind this Minister. Thank you very much.

Masi. To the motion. Member for Mackenzie Delta.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, to this motion, I cannot support it after also speaking with my leadership in my riding. They feel that it's better to work with the Minister in any portfolio. You know, to get what we need in our ridings, we always have to work with one another, whoever the Ministers are, and at this point in this Assembly, we don't feel it's right to replace the Ministers. Say, if we were to replace one of the Ministers today, it would take anybody at least six months to nine months to get familiar with that portfolio. We're less than a year away from our next election, and we'd really waste a lot of time, especially in the portfolio the Member for Hay River South is facing that has many portfolios.

Sure, we don't always get the answers that we want on this side, and the other thing is, just because we're the majority on any side, we can't be controlling what Cabinet is doing all the time. In my riding, we don't always get what we want to get in our budgets, but we try our best to work with the Ministers.

I know that sometimes when we ask questions we always joke around with one another. Yes, sometimes it does upset us when the Ministers laugh, but we always do the same, especially after you keep bringing up different things through statements. How many times have I brought up Willow River? The Minister knows that file very well, and, sure, he might get a chuckle in there every once in a while when I bring it up.

To be serious, it does upset us once in a while when Ministers do that, but we all have to work together here, and I don't think it's right, just because we're a majority, to take out one of these Ministers with less than a year to go.

Mr. Speaker, in the early part of July, I had a feeling we were going to be in this situation because I live in Tsiigehtchic on the Mackenzie River and I saw buoys floating by the communities. So, of course, I was wondering to myself: how long will it take to get these buoys back in place? With updates from the Minister, it took 10 days to two weeks to get these buoys back in place. So of course that's going to have some effect on the barging system.

The other thing was: we had an extremely cool summer up in the Beaufort Delta. Of course, that is going to have an impact on the weather, you know, with ice conditions. The other thing is: I know it cost so far a little over $3 million, but it could have been worse. You know, if we didn't fulfill those other contracts -- just today, we had a briefing with the Minister. It could have been worse. It could have been in the $20 to $30 million range.

You know, I am not defending the department, but I am sure in the communities, like, I haven't spoken to any of my friends in those communities. I am sure this also created some employment. I mean, we haven't looked at that fact yet. You know, as we move forward, Mr. Speaker, I am sure we will get that information. For today, I cannot support this motion. Thank you.

Masi. To the motion. Member for Frame Lake.

Merci, Monsieur le President. I have tried very carefully to choose my words here today. I take the issue of removal of a Cabinet Minister very seriously.

There is nothing personal in how I have arrived at my decision on the two Ministers up for review. This is about getting results for NWT residents and whether we have the right team in place for doing this for the remainder of our term. I personally like the Minister under discussion. I believe he brings valuable experience to this Assembly and has made a valuable contribution. However, I must assess his progress objectively on mandate items and handling of several important files.

I supported the purchase of the NTCL assets and the formation of Marine Transportation Services. This was a necessary step to ensure that we can continue to resupply our communities for a reasonable cost. I have no problem with MTS competing for private shipping contracts to ensure an efficient use of our assets. That should drive down shipping costs for our communities. What I do have issues with is the lack of involvement of Regular MLAs in developing a long-term approach to MTS and accountability and transparency around MTS. I disagreed with the way the MTS revolving fund was fast-tracked, and decisions that any surpluses not be used for environmental remediation.

At the same time, I also have concerns about the way Cabinet continues to use appropriations for expenditures that should be rightfully assigned to the revolving fund and how large capital items are amortized over very long periods of time. Reporting to the public and MLAs definitely needs to be improved, and the recent shipping failure to coastal communities is a prime example of poor communications. I heard about problems through the media. I asked the Minister for clarification and had to wait days for a response. I don't think we are out of the woods yet, especially with very significant airlift costs yet to be assigned to at least two revolving funds without an overall plan for now and into the future.

I have worked very hard to convince the Minister that we need real economic diversification for the NWT that includes much greater investment in tourism. The Northern Frontier Visitors' Centre was in my riding. If the funds now being spent on that building had been invested even 18 months ago, I am convinced we would still have a functioning centre here in Yellowknife. I just don't understand why we spend more on a visitors' centre in Dawson, Yukon, than we do in our capital city.

I have openly criticized the overwhelming focus of the Minister on large infrastructure projects, roads to resources, and the lack of social infrastructure investments and submissions to the federal government, particularly in the areas of housing, tourism, culture, and building the knowledge and conservation economies. Roads scaled to our capacity to retain benefits and in areas with fewer serious impacts can provide economic development opportunities. However, the relentless pursuit of large projects such as the Slave Geological Province Road and Taltson expansion have not received adequate analysis and have precluded any serious efforts at diversification.

I am deeply disturbed by the so-called Resources and Energy Development Information, REDI, initiative that is more about promotion of resource development than about providing balanced information and tools to enable citizen participation in resource development decisions. It also includes the use of educational materials in our schools that are about promotion of mining rather than giving our students balanced information and skills to make informed decisions.

The Minister has also refused to carry out any kind of review of onshore hydraulic fracturing, even though it is part of our mandate and while our government has agreed to a science-based, life-cycle impact assessment review of offshore development.

The most serious issue with the leadership of the Minister, in my view, is the failure to undertake any review of the resource revenues that we now can control following devolution. Such a review was promised when I asked questions early on during the life of this Assembly and was even within the scope of the issues to be addressed in the Mineral Resources Act.

While billions of dollars of resources are extracted here each year, revenues to our government have been described by an international expert as paltry and our management as "one of the world's most charitable fiscal regimes for the mining sector." We need to start acting in the public interest and ensure there is a fair return for this one-time natural capital. I have recommended an independent review to the Minister on numerous occasions, but he has refused to do this during the life of this Assembly. I believe that refusing to even look at the idea in the face of learned evidence challenging the adequacy of our revenue regime is an instance of stubborn refusal on the part of this Minister, for which I hold him accountable.

If we are going to have a Minister who is responsible for both promoting and regulating resource development, we need that Minister to take a balanced approach where the public interest is put before the interests of the private sector. I want mining, too, as much as anybody else, but we must do a much better job at retaining the benefits and doing it in a sustainable way. We have failed to evolve after the devolve and truly demonstrate we can responsibly manage our resources.

Mr. Speaker, for all these reasons, I cannot support the Minister continuing in his current role. Mahsi, Mr. Speaker.

Masi. To the motion. Member for Yellowknife Centre.

Mahsi, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, with the information that I now have, I am satisfied the Minister has managed an effective solution to the stranded cargo for the High Arctic, which will not increase the expense to customers. Further, he has taken steps to be better prepared in the future by stockpiling fuel in the Arctic communities. Therefore, I will be voting against this motion.

Masi. To the motion. Member for Tu Nedhe-Wiilideh.

Marsi cho, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in favour of this motion. I believe that there have been mistakes made in the delivery of goods to the High Arctic communities. Initially, when NTCL was purchased by this government, I was surprised. I believe it happened around Christmas a couple years ago. I was surprised that NTCL was purchased and then, further on, surprised that MTS was created out of NTCL.

At that point, I thought, well, I guess it would be a positive thing since NTCL may not be able to continue operations, but I also felt that, with our growing debt, I thought it would difficult for our government to buy all these things, considering that we often hear on small initiatives that we need, in our small communities, for employment.

Little initiatives like small roads, access roads, and things like that, docks, these are little items that we had requested in the communities. Often, I am not able to get it through the budgetary process. I think a Member has indicated that we ask for things and that our small items are often refused, while it was easy for the Cabinet to purchase NTCL and put it into operation.

I also know that some of the equipment that was purchased from NTCL was likely grandfathered and not something that we would be able to bring in new into the system at that point. We bought a lot of equipment like that that would probably not be usable the next time the regulations are upgraded or even maybe beyond use now. For that reason, I know that the federal government is supporting our government to buy new barges.

I thought that the shipment of the items into the High Arctic communities, I felt that was a mistake because I thought that then it happened so many times. This happened so many times by a company that was in the business of doing it and knew how to do it. They were successful in delivering the items into the communities.

We, on the other hand, had only the second opportunity this year, this summer, to be able to deliver the materials. At this point, we have essentially a 50 percent failure rate on delivering things to the High Arctic communities. Even that is, you know, there are a lot of factors involved in that. The solution, and what kind of got to me, I know that flying everything in would be expensive, but as another Member said, maybe there's a way. There are some costs offset and it may not be as expensive as possible.

The refusal for this Minister to actually listen to solutions was what kind of made me wonder if he was serious about trying to solve the issue or was just insisting on defending himself, or saying, "No, it's not my fault, so there's no reason for me to come up with a solution." You know, I had the question and I asked the Minister: how about a regional operation out of Inuvik as an example? An example, I thought that just pretty well all of the Mackenzie Valley communities could be serviced by winter road right up to Fort Good Hope. Then when you get to Tsiigehtchic, an all-season road and all-season road to Inuvik, all-season road to Tuktoyaktuk. The only other community on this side of the Northwest Territories that needed to have barge service is Lutselk'e. Lutselk'e, I believe, gets one, maybe two barges, but mostly one barge per year handles that community. I thought a small scaled-down operation in Hay River and then a smaller operation out of Inuvik to address the Arctic communities who had no other options. Lutselk'e and the Arctic communities that didn't get their items this year on a barge have no option except the barge.

The government spends a lot of money building winter roads. All of the Sahtu, all of the Tlicho communities are all winter road communities, and they don't barge in there, but they manage without a barge. I thought that a nice solution might be to set something up in Inuvik and then out of Inuvik to be able to barge out of there and have a small regional operation there. One in Hay River seemed like a good solution for me. I felt that it would also be a lower cost to the Marine Transportation Services. I guess there was the private business that that company was after, or the department was after that, you know, wanted to continue to barge out of Hay River all the way into the Inuvik communities.

I felt that the Minister could have listened and at least maybe given us a response to say, "Yes, I will look into it." That would have been essentially all that would have satisfied me, the idea of looking into it, the idea of having a small scaled-down operation in two locations and still run by the government and not compete against a private business of other people, needed items and private items. See, the items they could get a private shipper to bring the stuff to them.

Our reason for backing MTS was to provide a service to our citizens, citizens in the Northwest Territories at the best economic possibility, but the Minister indicated to me in the House here that wouldn't happen as long as he was still Minister.

For that reason, we are here today because we felt like we needed to find some sort of solution to the issues that were created. Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

Masi. To the motion. Member for Nunakput.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, a lot of this has stemmed from the issues in, you know, the delivery to Paulatuk, Ulukhaktok got some of their goods. Paulatuk didn't receive a lot. A lot of my pressures on my colleagues and mainly to the Minister is coming from my constituents. I have had some difficulties working with the Minister on some of the issues. I'm sure one of the reasons might be they didn't have answers at the time. However, I believe that, you know, in this Assembly, we are all equals. What separates one side of the floor to the other is our roles as Regular Members and as well as our roles as Ministers and Premier.

Mr. Speaker, I believe, you know, when issues come like this, the Premier himself should, as well, too, look at his Cabinet and say, "Well, how can we make this better?" How do we make a system like this better where we have this many Ministers on this side and we have, there are a lot of portfolios that are actually very, very humungous in departments within the GNWT, and some that may need to be restructured so that they can be managed more effectively for the residents of the territory? At the end of the day, sometimes money loss or goods not delivered has social impacts on the people who depend on it; on, you know, receiving their snowmobiles, their vehicles, their quads, their boats, and all the things like that that give them the opportunity to go out and harvest. As well, maybe even take on contracts within the GNWT or the programs that are around the Northwest Territories.

I would like for the Premier to take a hard look at that. Mr. Speaker, I believe looking at that and restructuring the, you know, the current structure that it is right now. What seems to be failing is why we are right here right now.

Mr. Speaker, I won't take up too much time of everyone's here. This afternoon, right after the briefing, the leadership from my region actually came into my office and they said, "This is how you are going to vote and this is what you need to do to work with the Minister and Cabinet and the Regular MLAs." You know, I vote on behalf of my constituents who I represent, and I believe that's fair business.

Mr. Speaker, I didn't bring too many notes, but I believe that, you know, the current Minister and the other Minister who is in question today, I believe that we need to really work together to get things done. A lot of the times, we are the ones doing a lot of the groundwork with our constituents, you know, with the regions. The Minister, I think they need to be more open. I think that's where the Premier can give us better access to his Ministers, so that we are more effective in the work that we do. It takes teamwork to work together. It doesn't take one or two people. It doesn't take the Premier or it doesn't take the MTS Minister to get something done. It actually takes teamwork to plan. Sometimes, they have the expertise within their departments. We have the expertise on the ground. That's where we can actually work together and collaborate, and actually, you know, maybe even cooperate together. Sometimes, this is one of the reasons why we are here is a lack of cooperation on both sides and lack of accessibility to the Minister, and sometimes the Premier. I think we need to really structure this government, you know, going into the next year.

Mr. Speaker, I believe that I can make a good MTS Minister out of the MLA from Hay River South by working together and ensuring that we don't lose this last year and actually plan to ensure that we are strategic in accessing and looking at funds, federal funds. You know, we talk about sovereignty in the North. We talk about ports. We know that we are a long ways away from a deep sea port. That doesn't mean that we can't start now.

What we need to do is be forward thinking. Right now, we are looking back. Okay. How do we fix this? Let's use that, bring it forward and ensure that the Minister has everything that he has to work with to make a better plan.

I know there were multiple errors on this operation that brought us to where we are today. I think that's what we need to focus on and pinpoint those and really, really focus on how we can improve those and make them stronger, you know. Rather than firing, I think we can make a really good person out of them and really good team player and even a leader of a department. You know, we could actually really do that. I believe that we have that here in us today and looking forward.

We have a year left in this Assembly. I believe that, you know, after having a chat with the leadership from Nunakput, they were like, "Well, what are we going to lose? What's lost?" They are the ones who have a lot of knowledge on the ground, too. They have projects that are ongoing with the government as well as with the federal government, and as well outside of the country. I think we need to really, really sit back and look at this day and say, "Well, you know what? Let's make this better for everybody else."

I looked at this motion this morning. I was like, "You know what? Hey, I'm going to go for this," but now I'm like, "Well, after listening to my constituents, I believe that, you know what? What my job will be for the next, you know, the next two quarters is to ensure that the Minister is accountable and ensure that the Minister is working with the people from Nunakput to make a better plan for MTS. Not just for MTS, but being strategic about how we supply the northern part of the territory."

Mr. Speaker, Canada is so vast and wide. The Northwest Territories are vast as well, too; north and south. There is a system here on Great Slave Lake which is good, which is in the Minister's riding. There is also the Mackenzie River, which supplies the northern part of the territory.

Mr. Speaker, what if there is a drought one year and they cannot get the barges from Hay River down the Mackenzie River to the port in Inuvik or to the port in Tuktoyaktuk? We can have them as a logistical point. I believe I'm about logistics. I think we need to look at all of those hard and look at this mistake, which costs right now maybe $3.4 million, but what we know, it might up to five by the time you pay all of the subcontractors. I believe that the Minister has it in him to come to us and start to work with us. He serves our people all the time.

Mr. Speaker, he spends a lot of time with the leadership in our region as well, too. I believe that what we need to look at is the GNWT or Cabinet working more closely with Indigenous governments as well, too. There are oil and gas possibilities in my region. You know what, I have heard that some of those talks went awry, but also we need to look at the cost of living in the territory and really focusing on that. Not so much on the bottom line of the Government of the Northwest Territories, but the social impacts that it has for our residents.

Mr. Speaker, I'm not going to support this motion, just because I believe that I can work with the Minister. The Minister, I hope, is more and more willing to spend time with Regular Members, especially when he travels to Ottawa.

Sometimes, there are projects in some parts of the territory that are in Regular MLAs' regions. I think that the Ministers need to look at that and work together more closely, as well as with our mayors, as well as our Indigenous leaders. We really need to restructure how we work together, because right now, two week ago, I was upset. I was saying that, you know, Cabinet has become living in a cocoon. They are not really working outside of anything, but now we are sitting here. I believe this is our time to open them up and start to work together more and more closely. We all have our faults. We all have our strengths, but that doesn't mean that we don't work together. We are someone strong. We help where there is a weakness. I think that is how we need to kind of look forward together.

Mr. Speaker, even yourself as a Speaker of the House, you see that. You have been here a long time. I believe that we have a chance to work together. I am not demanding, but I am requesting that the Minister work more closely with Regular MLAs, so that we can be more effective for the people of the Northwest Territories. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Masi. To the motion. Member for Hay River South.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Thank you for the opportunity to speak to this motion of revocation today.

The first thing I want to get out there on the record is, you know, we have a democracy system here, and I believe it. The question I was asked by a number of people is: why? I said there is a process in place that allows Members of this Legislative Assembly to bring a motion like this forward to have this discussion. That is what we have done today.

Every Member has spoken on this issue across the floor. They have all voiced their opinion. They have all mentioned who they are going to vote for. This motion of revocation has brought up a bunch of issues today on the floor of the House; not just about what is happening at MTS.

MTS, I could stand here and defend it all day long as I have had in the House and where I have in the press. I encourage everybody in this Assembly today to go to the public briefing that will be posted by the Legislative Assembly. It clearly lays out everything that has everything and everything we plan on doing, so I am not going to get into that debate.

On the other side of it, the Members have also brought other issues forward of concern with not just myself, but with this Assembly and this Cabinet going forward. That is what this Assembly is for. It is here for the people of the Northwest Territories to have those public debates back and forth to come to some kind of consensus. Consensus doesn't mean everyone has to agree on it, to where we are going to take this government and our policies and legislations, and that is what we are doing.

Not everyone is going to be happy. To be in this business, you have to have thick skin, and I mean thick skin. Even to stand here today to defend myself, you have to be able to handle that.

I believe this Assembly is working hard for the people of the Northwest Territories. One of the greatest things that I think that has happened in this Assembly is the Premier clearly laid out that we had to go out and visit as many people as we can. I can stand here with true honesty and say I have been to all 33 communities in this Northwest Territories.

We have had an open and public process. We have had open public appearances by Cabinet with residents of the Northwest Territories in many communities. We get feedback on a regular basis. We have just had an economic summit with all the leaders of the Northwest Territories. We are continually reaching out. Collaboration is what this government is built on. We will continue to do that, but like I said, you have to have thick skin.

This is consensus. Not everyone in this room has to agree on a decision. I stand behind the decisions that I have made. Maybe they don't make everyone happy in this House, but I believe I get all the accurate information and make a decision based on what is presented in front of me. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Masi. To the motion. Member for Yellowknife South.

Mr. Speaker, in December of 2015, through a territorial leadership committee, all 19 Members voted to select a Premier in Cabinet. During the mid-term review, I said that the whole of Cabinet is greater on the sum of its parts, Mr. Speaker. As a Cabinet, we challenge each other to perform to a high standard for the people of the Northwest Territories. We are able to put our political and philosophical differences aside to focus on what is best for the people, regardless of what we may believe personally.

Regular Members have a similar role, and have also worked to keep Cabinet accountable for their decisions. Accountability and democracy are inseparable. The people who elect us to exercise power on their behalf place enormous faith in each one of us. Collectively and individually, we need to earn and maintain that trust by submitting our decisions and actions to the judgment of the people we serve openly and transparently.

Every four years, the people of the Northwest Territories have the opportunity to directly convey their judgment about our actions in a territorial election. This is accountability at its most immediate and direct. There is nothing like facing an angry voter on the campaign trail to remind you who is boss and how hard we need to work to earn and maintain the trust our constituents place in us.

Accountability between elections is no less direct and no less real. As a government, we are accountable to the people in the Northwest Territories through their elected representatives in this House. Every time we are asked a question, we are being asked to account for our decisions and actions. Every time our budgets and plans for implementing them are examined and debated in committee or in this House, we are being asked to account for our decisions and actions. Every time government legislation is introduced for debate and disposition by this House, we are being asked to account for our decisions and actions.

At almost any moment on every day that this House sits, Regular Members have ample opportunity and the tools to hold Ministers to account for living up to the expectations of the Assembly and the people who elected us, including the ability to remove anyone one of us from Cabinet at any time. Accountability needs to be about more than personality, Mr. Speaker. Accountability is about keeping our promises. For the 18th Assembly, our mandate is our promise to the people of this territory.

I believe Minister Schumann has been doing a good job and should remain as Minister. Minister Schumann has worked hard to fulfill the mandate commitments his departments are responsible for, including critical commitments to bring federal investment to the Northwest Territories and grow and diversify the economy to create a strong future for our residents. He has also led planning work to transform our energy system so that we can reduce our reliance on diesel in our communities, reduce our greenhouse gas emissions, and address the high costs of living residents face.

Minister Schumann has also been one of the most effective advocates for the Northwest Territories and his people as a Minister. During this Assembly, he has helped deliver hundreds of millions in federal investment to our territory and secure close to $1 billion in federal funding, including over $115 million for road construction projects, like the Canyon Creek access road, Wrigley to Mount Gaudet access road, and Great Bear River Bridge, as well as funding for environmental and planning studies for the Mackenzie Valley Highway, a long-standing priority and one of our mandate commitments. He recently announced the federal investment of $23 million under the Low Carbon Economy Leadership Fund with Minister McKenna. This money will support energy efficiency retrofits, renewable energy, and carbon sequestration through forestry regeneration. He has also secured a $19.5 million investment in marine infrastructure improvements and almost $800,000 towards phase 2 of the transportation monitoring program to study the effects of climate change on permafrost and transportation infrastructure.

In the life of this government, he has also worked to secure a total of almost $13 billion in federal investment in economic development for the territory through the Canadian Northern Economic Development Agency and programs like Growing Forward 2 and the strategic investments in northern economic development.

Minister Schumann, like each Member of Cabinet, has brought valuable strengths to the collective whole. He is a strong and decisive leader who makes the decisions in the best interests of this territory, based on strong principles. He takes his job seriously and works hard for our residents, Mr. Speaker, and Cabinet will be voting against this motion. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Masi. To the motion. I will allow the mover to make quick closing comments on the motion.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and thank you to all of the honourable Members of this House for weighing in with their thoughts on this and on what is by its very nature a divisive issue but a conversation that we must have from time to time.

I wanted to address some of the thoughts and comments that were made here and one that members of the public have also been talking about keep coming back to. It's this notion that now is not the right time for a Minister to be removed from the privilege of serving on the Executive Council because there is only one year left. Well, Mr. Speaker, the mid-term review people said, "We can't do it now. There's only two years left." When do we remove Ministers in a consensus government, after six months? What is the window? Because that is not in our protocols.

When there is a significant issue and a significant crisis of confidence in a Minister's performance, that's when the motion comes forward. Every Minister on that side has just spoken or, sorry, the Premier has spoken about the hard-working nature of his Cabinet. I can certainly stand up and speak to the hard-working nature of my colleagues over here. There are many files and pieces of legislation that we work on, that we tend to know more of the intricate details than the Minister sponsoring the bill or the Minister bringing forth the proposal because that is our job, to scrutinize and to hold to account. Anyone, anyone who is elected by their constituents, by voters, is capable of taking a seat on the other side of the House, so I reject the notion that there is a time-bound requirement and that elections are the only proper time to allow for a Minister's performance to be judged.

It's part of our system of government. It's part of responsible government, which is a founding principle of consensus, and it dismays me that the issue at play here, which is a clear, factual performance issue that the Members have talked to, and, more importantly, how it was handled. Still, I half expected an apology today or at least a recognition of contrition around how this has been handled, and still nothing. We have a guarantee that things are on track. Millions and billions of dollars the federal government has put in their budget are flowing into the Northwest Territories.

These are real issues that still remain unaddressed, and I hope that this motion is a wake-up call as my honourable friend from Hay River North said, that this is a wake-up call, that eventually this will hit the floor, and, even if these motions do not pass, they are taking time away from the rest of the business of the House because they need to be heard. They need to be brought forward so our constituents can have their concerns raised around accountability, and Ministers who continue to refuse to answer questions, to dismiss the concerns that are brought up time and time again as we sit in this House year after year, that this will be the inevitable consequence. Even if that motion does not fail, it must be heard. Accountability is demanded of us in our roles, and I still stand in support of this. Mr. Speaker, again I request a recorded vote so the record will show who else stands in support of this motion. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.