Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I, for one, have had an opportunity to review the report and I feel that this report has come to a juncture in our history where, basically, these events have not only occurred during this 13th Assembly, but it has occurred in previous Assemblies. Hopefully, we can avoid it from occurring in future Assemblies. I am talking about the whole perception that the public have on government and decisions that government makes when it comes to contracts, leases, who is getting appointed to boards and agencies, and also looking at the role that Cabinet Ministers and Members of this House, play.

When we all took office, we swore allegiance and there are some clear rules that we know we have to follow. One of them is declaring issues in any instance that we feel we may have a conflict, in which the process is spelled out, regarding the conflict of interest guidelines, that we all agreed to follow.

It is critical, from this experience that we have had in the last three years, with the deficit reductions we have made and how we have seen how people are able to manipulate the system to make personal gains, by not only who you are, but who you know. We have to realize that we do have a role to play in regards to representing our constituents. I believe that role is to ensure that we benefit our constituents as a whole and not benefit individuals, groups and companies. We have to realize there are certain guidelines in place that, basically, restrict the role of government and Cabinet when making decisions and those guidelines have to be followed. The guidelines I am talking about, are in regards to the guidelines that, basically, are in place from former government employees. Yet, we see and hear of how former government employees have left the government and find themselves with contracts, or appointed to special boards after an election. The public perception of government is, in order to get anywhere in the territories, or in government, you either have to know someone in government, or have access to someone with power. Power lies in the hands of those people that, basically, have control over other people. The people I am talking about, are people in Cabinet and people who have access to decisions which are made in cabinet, like principal secretaries, deputy ministers, and assistant deputy ministers. There have to be some clear guidelines regarding the role we play in the limelight of our public lives. Once we become a politician or work in the public limelight, there is a stamp that is nailed to our forehead that says, what can you do for me, not what can I do for you. I think that is what the public has a real problem with.

In my time in this House, I have raised several issues, especially how contracts are being awarded and how programs and services are being cut. One thing I feel is lacking, is why is it that not only this government, but previous governments have gone through a similar process? Is it a question of trust, or is it a question of lack of trust? We have to ask ourselves, what role do we play to ensure the trust of the people that elected us is seriously being considered, and not considering the interest of individuals. There are a lot of people out there that wish they have opportunities because of who they know or, basically, how they are able to get ahead.

In my statement today, I made reference to consideration of an independent review of the policies and guidelines that govern this government, regarding decisions that are made by government and at what time does the interest of the public be perceived as hazy.

There are a lot of issues that were raised in this House three years ago, which at that time, if it was headed off and there was a process in place to allow for those issues to be dealt with before it went any further, I do not think we would be here today. I believe that if we were up front, honest and, basically, said maybe we made a mistake, maybe we should go back and review a lease or maybe we should go back to see if all the guidelines and principles that this government followed, has been followed by an independent person outside of government, so that bureaucracy did not govern itself, that someone outside of government has the ability and knowledge to conduct such a review. I am talking about people who have done it as a career like judges and former judges. The people can make a ruling based on fact and also the information that is in front of them, to determine how those policies and procedures are carried out.

In this case, a lot of policies and procedures have been broken. It is critical that we have such an independent review in regards to the process, the review of this investigation and the outcome of this investigation by some sort of independent individual or individuals.

Mr. Chairman, I, for one, feel sorry for Donnie because I see Donnie has been used by certain individuals because of his position within this government and because of having friends, or friends of friends, who knew the system. The system was used in a way which was an advantage to an individual or individuals. Because of that, we find ourselves here today because of the system, not the individual, but the system. It is important that the system has to change as soon as possible and the rules have to be either tightened up, or put in the way that we have public processes which, basically, makes the public feel they are part of the process, either through contractual arrangements where we talk about the lease that was good for government. In the light of one person, it may not be good for government in the light of another person. It is critical that we have some clearer guidelines and a process for public involvement in those guidelines, to ensure they are involved in all aspects of the decisions made by this government.

There was a comment made about a certain individual that received certain treatment regarding a lease. I, for one, still strongly feel that there is an argument about the lease. I was one of the individuals that, basically, jumped on it when it became public because of the contacts I had with the Dene Development Corporation. The Dene Development Corporation was also talking to the Department of Public Works about getting into long-term leases by purchasing government assets, or assets to lease to the government, but they were told outright that the government of the day was not interested in any long-term leases. Then, for the record, I find that not two months after the fact, the discussion with DDC was in May, in July, we find out that Mrdjenovich and Bailey are in discussions with Lovely on such an arrangement. I found that totally unacceptable.

We talk about open government allowing people, corporations, aboriginal organizations and interested groups to be more involved in government, to take a more of a role of involving themselves in business and in the public infrastructure and community initiatives. Yet, in this case, a group of people which consisted of a large portion of the western population, was excluded from that process to benefit two individuals. I still feel there should be a review on that lease and that there should be a call for tenders to open it up for other people to acquire such space through a public tendering process. All people in the business of renting real estate, or, basically, office space, will have an opportunity to bid.

Another item that was mentioned, is a question about a visa which was given to Mr. Mrdjenovich's relative. I have stood up in this House on a particular matter of an individual, a constituent of mine, who had her children abducted from the Northwest Territories and taken to the Czech Republic. I received no help whatsoever from this government to try to find a way of getting them back into Canada and into the Northwest Territories; yet, I find it amazing that this individual had such power and influence in getting one of his relatives into Canada. It is critical that on such issues and items, as much effort was put into an individual, or a group of individuals, and people that we serve in the same sort of energy so that we can serve all people fairly.

The question about the fishing trip with Mr. Roland Bailey, I believe it is clearly spelled out in section 76.4, in regards to disclosure of benefits under the conflict of interest guidelines that that should have been disclosed at that time because the disclosure documents itself.

In closing, Mr. Chairman, I, for one, feel that there has to be a review of all aspects of government, not only of an individual, and that there has to be changes in the government and the way government made its decisions and also who were involved in making those decisions. There has to be a clear open public process regarding how these guidelines are being implemented and who are implementing these guidelines.

I do not see how it is possible to allow an inmate to sit on a committee, looking at the parole guidelines that are in place, similar to governments establishing guidelines to basically regulate themselves and then say these guidelines are good for everybody else because we reviewed them. It has to be done by someone outside of government who does not have an interest in government but also has a background in law to understand how those guidelines were suppose to work or should work in a context of the public interest that it serves.

It is critical for us as Members of this Legislature to realize that we have spent many dollars regarding this inquiry, into other public processes and yet it is the little people that we serve who are out there asking for help or assistance in trying to find a job, or are trying to ensure a health community or a healthy lifestyle for the people they serve or the people in the communities that they live in. I think for us to get back to the principle of dealing and serving the people who elected us, and get away from the notion of helping those individuals who have access to information and using that information to benefit themselves and their friends, we would not be in this position today. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.