Thank you. Mr. Speaker, today I want to make a Point of Privilege. I deny printed allegations made against me in an editorial in Monday's November 23 edition of News/North. I wish to clarify a misunderstanding which I believe has been created by the headlines in an article on page A-3 and by the banner headline on the front page of that same edition.
Mr. Speaker, I will deal first with the matter of the article on page A-3 which is covered by the headline "Marie-Jewell Accused of Interference" and the sub-heading which reads "Education Chairman Charges M.L.A. Tried to Save Brother's Job". The article deals with comments made by the chairperson for the South Slave Divisional Board of Education after I raised matters pertaining to the suspension of house parents at the Lutsel K'e student boarding facility in Fort Smith. The headline and sub-headline indicate that I have endeavoured to interfere in the operation of the divisional board for the purpose of trying to save my brother's job. Mr. Speaker, this is inaccurate, untrue and misleading. My brother is employed as a journeyman painter with the Department of Public Works. He takes pride in his work and he does not need anyone to save his job. I only hope that the careless journalism reflected in News/North's presentation has not caused him personal or professional embarrassment.
I would now like to clarify the basis for my own involvement in this matter. It is correct that allegations have been raised about the house parents and that there has been a temporary suspension with pay while these allegations are considered by the divisional board. It is no secret that my sister-in-law was under contract as one of the house parents and has been as such involved in this matter. However, I was not asked nor did I volunteer to look into the situation on behalf of my sister-in-law. I have made it very clear in all my correspondence and in my discussions with the Minister that my interest in this respect are on behalf of the other house parents who have been suspended. This individual is a long time resident of Fort Smith and is a constituent of mine. I believe that any resident of the Northwest Territories should be able to bring an issue of concern to their elected Member of the Legislative Assembly and to receive the attention and action to which they are due. What sort of elected official would it be who said "I am not going to help you with that one. My family is involved and I do not want to risk the political fallout." I struggled with this constituency request, Mr. Speaker, because I knew very well that it might open the door for persons embroiled in local politics to misrepresent the reasons for my involvement.
However, for me the choice was clear. Do I deny representation to a constituent because there is a potential political risk? Or do I trust that the media and the public will look at the facts and recognize that I am acting in an ethical and responsible fashion? I made the latter choice, Mr. Speaker, and I am not unhappy about that. I believe that it was my duty to raise issues that are important to the constituent who brought them to my attention.
I made this clear to the News/North reporter, Mr. Francis Thompson, when he asked me for my comments. Although my clarification is included in the last third of the article, either the reporter or his editors chose to represent the situation inaccurately in their choice of headlines.
I am also concerned about this article, Mr. Speaker, due to a quote attributed to the chairperson of the divisional board, Mr. Steven Cooper. Mr. Cooper reportedly stated that, "I think it was uncalled for to bring up this question in the House." As a member of the legal profession, Mr. Cooper should be aware that it is the privilege of Members to be able to raise any issue in this House, pursuant to the rules of the Assembly and to your rulings on procedure and convention.
If honourable Members will check pages 77 through 79 of the unedited transcript from November 19, they will see that my questions to the Honourable James Arvaluk revolved around whether appointments to the board's panel carried the sort of independence necessary for such a review. My question on pages 107 through 110 in the unedited transcript from Friday, November 20 were required only because the Minister had responded to the previous day's questions with inaccurate information about the status of the house parents' temporary suspensions with pay. In neither of these instances did I raise any matter that could have provided any specific benefit to the constituent who requested my involvement or incidentally, to my sister-in-law, other than to ensure that a fair and impartial review was held.
I also wish to emphasize that it is clearly stated within Mr. Thompson's article that I followed the protocol that should be expected of an M.L.A. who is following up on constituency concerns.
I will elaborate on that here as well. Upon first learning of this issue from my constituent, I called the Minister who was, understandably, in the east due to the Nunavut ratification vote. When I found he was absent, I contacted his Deputy Minister, Mr. Hal Gerein, who indicated that the appropriate contact person on this matter would be Mr. Cooper in his capacity as chairperson of the divisional board.
I contacted Mr. Cooper only because I was referred to him by Mr. Gerein. If the education officials now believe it is inappropriate for M.L.A.s to contact divisional board appointees, then they should work the snags out of their own referral procedures. When I contacted Mr. Cooper I made it clear to him that although my brother's family was involved I was acting at the request of the other house parent. If I should not have been talking to Mr. Cooper at that point to whom should I have been talking? The allegations that there was any abuse of authority or inappropriate protocol related to my standing as a Member of this House are totally false and misleading. Again, it is regrettable that this was not realized by either Mr. Thompson or by his editors when they are making decisions on how to present this matter to the public. Those are my comments on the matter of the article on page A-3, Mr. Speaker.
I also wish to comment on the editorial titled "Ethics A Wide Open Question for M.L.A.s" which appears on page A-7 of the same edition of News North. I will resist the temptation to comment on the overall substance of the piece which I found shallow, poorly researched and juvenile in tone. I will, however, take serious exception with the following reference: "then there is Jeannie Marie-Jewell, Fort Smith M.L.A. accused this week of influence peddling, an accusation she has faced in the past." To accuse an elected official of influence peddling is extremely serious. It implies illegal behaviour. I absolutely reject the allegation. In common usage the term "influence peddling" has been reserved for situations in which an M.L.A. has sold their ability to affect government policy or decisions in exchange for some material benefits in form of money or gifts.
Mr. Speaker, I want this House to be clear on the fact that I have never done that now or at any time in my political career. I can sleep with my conscience at night. Nor would I behave in such a fashion at any point in the future. I resent the editor's suggestion that by asking the Minister to make sure that contractor review procedures were fair and impartial I was trying to peddle or sell my political influence. That is absolutely untrue and it is an irresponsible allegation for this Yellowknife based newspaper to make.
Mr. Speaker, I realize that this is now considered to be the trend for the press to attempt to generate disrespect and suspicion about politicians. It seems to be something that is taking place at a national level and it is probably a function of the times we are presently living in. However, when the young and often inexperienced people who work for our northern media attempt to follow this trend without considering the facts, or when they go too far and use terms like "influence peddling" without realizing the implications of what they have written then I believe there is cause for all of us to become concerned. It is for that reason I chose to make this fairly detailed statement under rule 32(1) today. I would like to thank you for allowing me leave to do so, and my honourable colleagues for their attention.
In closing, Mr. Speaker, on a lighter note perhaps I should not worry too much about this. If lawyers and newspaper reporters are now both finding me intimidating, then perhaps I am doing my job effectively.
---Applause