Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, I would like to table a document that was received by me from the Department of MACA dated November 17, 1998. It refers to the condition of the office space that I mentioned in my Member's statement and question. Thank you.

Thank you. Tabling of documents. Item 14, notices of motion. Item 15, notices of motion for first reading of bills. Mr. Dent.

Thank you. Notices of motion for first reading of bills. Item 16, motions. Item 17, first reading of bills. Item 18, second reading of bills. Item 19, consideration in committee of the whole

of bills and other matters, Tabled Document 37-13(6): Report of the Conflict of Interest Commissioner, and Bill 19, An Act to Amend the Public Highways Act, and the Motor Vehicles Act. By the authority given the Speaker by resolut ion 11-13(6), the committee of the whole today is permitted to sit beyond the normal sitting hours until it is prepared to report progress. Mr. Ningark is in the Chair.

I would like to call the committee to order. Under item 19, consideration in committee of the whole of bills and other matters, we have Tabled Document 37-13(6): Report of the Conflict of Interest Commissioner, and we will deal with that after we take a break. Agreed?

Agreed.

Thank you.

--Break

I would like to call the committee back to order. I have a short statement that I will read. We are dealing today with Tabled Document 37-13(6): Report of the Conflict of Interest Commissioner. I would like to take this opportunity to remind all Members of the process adopted by this House in resolution 12-13(6) for the consideration of this report.

1. That the debate in committee of the whole will be restricted to the sitting days of Friday, December 4, 1998, and Monday, December 7, 1998;

2. That the Member for Tu Nedhe is permitted up to 90 minutes for initial comments on Tabled Document 37-13(6);

3. That all Members are each permitted up to 45 minutes for initial comments on Tabled Document 37-13(6);

4. That at the conclusion of Members initial comments, each of the recommendations will be moved as separate motions; and,

5. That for the purposes of debate on each motion, Members will be restricted to a maximum of ten minutes each to speak to the motion.

I would also like to remind the Members to conduct themselves at all times in accordance with the rules of the House and in keeping with the dignity of the Legislative Assembly. By resolution of 12-13(6), I recognize the Member for Tu Nedhe, Mr. Morin.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to thank all the Members of the Legislative Assembly. I would like to thank you for giving me the opportunity to speak here today. It has been a long ten months. Each and every one of you were told in a Caucus meeting the other day to read the report. To come into this Legislative Assembly with an open mind. To come into this Legislative Assembly with a fair mind and do not come into the Legislative Assembly with conclusions being made already.

When I come in here today, I ask for two things, that is fairness and justice, nothing more and nothing less. Some have told me you are dealing with politicians. Some have told me that there are some that would come into this House with their mind made up. What did I say in return. I said, in my heart I have to believe that every Member comes into this House today with a clear conscience. They leave their politics at the door. They read the report. They came in here to listen to what I have to respond to in that report. That is all I can say and that is all I expect.

Last Thursday, I resigned as the Premier of the Northwest Territories. I did that for two reasons. One. I did not want to call on any friend, I did not want to call on my friendship with anybody to cloud their response to this report. Two, I wanted to debate this report very clearly and the process of how this report came about. I have been able to achieve that.

Back in 1995 when we first became Members of this 13th Assembly, we all came here, 15 new Members and the rest of us with some experience to the Caucus to start looking at some of the things that we had to do as a government. One of the tasks before us was to change the conflict of interest legislation and to pick a conflict commissioner. That task was given to the Management and Services Board, they came back and recommended to the Caucus, a person to sit in as a conflict commissioner in the Northwest Territories. At that time myself and a few other Members raised a concern. We raised a concern that no sitting lawyer in the Northwest Territories should sit as a conflict commissioner. It would be unfair to that person and it could perceive to be a very bad thing in the future because that person would have to sit as the conflict commissioner and there may be Members who had concerns about that. After debating off and on that issue for three days in the Caucus back in 1995, I was finally assured by the law clerk back then that if a complaint were laid against a Member, they could successfully oppose Anne Crawford sitting as a conflict commissioner. If a complaint was laid by a Member that felt that the conflict commissioner had a bias, they could ask for a different conflict commissioner. I was told that. That is fact, back in 1995.

Now we move to February, 1998, where I had a conflict complaint laid against myself. At that time, we had to gather a lot of information to put towards the conflict commissioner. Subsequently it went to a hearing and the commissioner heard the hearing, then made a decision after meeting with her lawyers separately, made a decision to take it to a public hearing. She saw at that time that there was something to investigate so she made the decision to take it to a public hearing. Once again, I raised the concern about bias, once again I raised the concern that I did not think it was a fair process. Once again, it was overruled. During that process there, it was observed at that time that a commissioner counsel, that is, a commissioner's lawyers, would meet independently then with the commissioner in their own room and then invite our lawyers in after to deal with it. I do not think that leaves a very good perception to people when the prosecutor is meeting with the judge. Then we went into public inquiry.

Shortly after the commencing of the inquiry my solicitors, my lawyers attempted to interview one of the witnesses. At that time the commissioner overruled and said you are not allowed to interview a witness while the witness is under oath. Later on the commissioner would change her direction and allow her own lawyers to interview witnesses while they were under oath. I am advised that throughout the inquiry private meetings were held between the commissioner and the commission counsel. I think that in itself would show bias.

Also, as Members know, you cannot believe everything in the press. The commissioner made a decision to put the public inquiry on the Internet. When the public inquiry was over all the information was on the Internet for the public to access that in the Northwest Territories and throughout Canada, except for two things, Mr. Mrdjenovich's lawyers' final arguments, my lawyers' final arguments. They were never put on the Internet so people can get the facts. The only times those were put on the Internet is just hours before the final report came out. Why would that be? Because then everybody would skip over those final arguments and go right to the final report. That is working the public fairly well. I can go on and on and on about the details of the public inquiry. What I saw sitting there that would blatantly show that the public inquiry, I thought, was carried out in a biased manner. It set out to prove a point and it tried its best to prove a point. As far as the public process goes, I do not want to waste a lot of my time on that issue.

I would like to take my time today to address the report of the Conflict Commissioner. There are many interesting things in this report. The number one thing in this report, the first agenda to be addressed is the bison herd in Fort Resolution, and then it goes on to address Nova contracts. Because the commissioner, the report says there is no conflict in either one, I will brush over those for now.

I will go right into the Fort Resolution office complex. I guess this started in June of 1995, when my community expressed an interest of building a mini mall. At that time, I worked with the chief and the subchief and supported that project from day one. They did the work and then came back to us with that work at a later date. Prior to May 16, and this mini mall was supposed to be built on the same land that Treaty 8 was signed, that was very important to the band in Fort Resolution. That was the intention, to build a mini mall with a store in it, offices and retail space for other people. That was what the main intent was at the beginning of this project. That is how the community was proceeding as well. This was going along quite fine until the negotiations for the Bay store ran into some problems in negotiations with the Northern Store. Prior to May 16, 1996, I received a call from my Chief, Don Balsillie. At that time Chief Balsillie told me that they were having trouble with the Northern Store. He asked me at that time if I was interested in selling our land in Fort Resolution. I advised him I was not interested at all in selling our land. I encouraged him at that time to go and deal with the Northern Store, try to come to an agreement with the Northern Store that is the best for our community. At the same time, I advised Don Avison, who was the principal secretary to Cabinet at the meeting. Don Avison's job as principal secretary also included giving Ministers and myself advice on conflict issues and he had done that to many, many Ministers.

On May 16th, there was a Cabinet meeting. I was advised at that time by Mr. Avison if Chief Balsillie approached you to sell him your land, do not go to the Cabinet meeting. Stay away from that meeting because you may be perceived to have a conflict. So the May 16th Cabinet meeting, I walked in there prior to the meeting starting and I told the people there at that time that I have a conflict on item 6 and come and get me after it was done. On May 24, 1996, the band made an offer to Larry Jones for his land in Fort Resolution. I did not know anything about that.

Approximately on May 26th, to the 28th, Chief Balsillie called me again. At that time he asked me once again if I was interested in selling my land in Fort Resolution. I told him I was not interested in selling my land in Fort Resolution and he continually said that, if we do not get access to that land, this project is in jeopardy. At that time I told him I would consider it, but I would have to check because the biggest problem I had is this may be perceived as a conflict if I was to sell him our land in Fort Resolution. At that time I talked to Mr. Avison again and I asked Mr. Avison for advice on how I should handle this situation.

Mr. Avison wrote a letter to Mr. Fournier, the then Conflict of Interest Commissioner, and he wrote that letter approximately between May 28th and June 6th. In that letter Mr. Avison requested the Conflict Commissioner to assist us in what we were to do to sell the land. The letter goes further to our brief conversation on May 28, 1996, I write to seek your advice regarding a matter which the Premier has asked me to raise with you. He goes on for quite some time how the Deninu K'ue Band Council of Fort Resolution have been involved in the development of a plan to build commercial space in the community of Fort Resolution. At one point they had arrangements to develop their proposal in association with the Northern Store, which as you know does business throughout the Northwest Territories. The Northern Store was to have occupied a significant amount of the space and the balance would have been made available to office space. As the GNWT would likely be one of the occupants of these facilities if, in fact, they were constructed, it goes on to say the land is owned by the Premier and Mrs. Morin, and the very bottom of the first page which I tabled yesterday, the Premier has started to think that perhaps he should accommodate the band. That is when I started to think that I should accommodate the band. I still had not made a decision to sell the land. I could not make that decision until I got advice from the Conflict of Interest Commissioner. The Conflict of Interest Commissioner wrote back to us on June 6, 1996. He laid out four things.

- The land be sold at a fair market value. Fair market value would be established by an independent appraisal.

- The Deninu K'ue Band Council will have to provide a letter detailing that after due diligence they have been unable to locate any other suitable land.

- In the event that the transaction does take place and the GNWT does, in fact, become an occupant of the building to be constructed, the Premier, if the matter arose in Cabinet would declare a conflict, the nature of it and excuse himself from the meeting.

- It follows, of course, that outside of Cabinet he should have no involvement with any aspect of the matter.

That is exactly what I did, Members of the Legislative Assembly, I followed that advice to the complete detail. The report on the other hand, describes the selling of land as a complicated transition, to myself I believe it is fairly straightforward. I did declare my interest in Cabinet, I confirmed that I received a letter.

That we confirm and respect his Cabinet decision in the above issue, Premier Don Morin declared a conflict of interest and left the meeting room taking no part in the decision or the discussion.

It is very clear in our conflict legislation that if you are not in a meeting you do not have to declare an interest. I did that, I walked into that Cabinet meeting room in the morning when that decision item was on the paper. I knew already that it would raise concerns. So I walked in and stayed out of the meeting. I did not even take part in the meeting and the minutes also reflect that, that the Premier came in after that item was discussed. How could I even be in a meeting to declare a conflict if I was not there? I did stay out of the meeting and I did do exactly what that letter says. So then we move on, I did that.

Now I get another phone call from the Chief again and he says once again, if we cannot buy that land, this project will not go ahead. At that time I told Mr. Avison to write to the Conflict Commissioner and get advice. He did do that. The Conflict Commissioner sent us some advice and I followed all the advice that the Conflict Commissioner sent us. Was I in conflict in selling of the land in Fort Resolution? The report says I was not in conflict for selling of the land in Fort Resolution. I had every right, myself and my wife, to sell our land in Fort Resolution. The report goes on to also say that, I was in conflict with how I dealt with it after I sold it. What was I supposed to do? I knew I could not talk to people about this. I knew I was suppose to stay out of the Cabinet meeting room. Why would I go into a meeting if I was supposed to stay out? I did not go into that meeting and I did not talk to people about it. After the Conflict Commissioner wrote back to us and told us what we were suppose to do, I instructed Mr. Avison to talk to the band, and that is in testimony as well that the Chief gave, to talk to the band and tell them what the Conflict Commissioner said. Mr. Avison was to talk to the band and tell them if they were still interested or if they were interested in buying our land in Fort Resolution, they would have to go and get an independent appraisal. They would have to provide a letter saying they exhausted all avenues of looking for other land in the community. They did both those things and they sent it to us. I, on the other hand, had to withdraw myself from the whole process and I did that. Mr. Fournier told me to do that and I did that. In his letter, he says in here:

It follows, of course, that outside of Cabinet he should have no involvement with any aspect of the matter.

This is why Mr. Avison and I agreed that my wife Gladys had to deal with this matter and she dealt with this matter. After Mr. Avison talked to the Band in Fort Resolution, the subchief of Fort Resolution came to Yellowknife. My understanding is they received an appraisal on the land approximately on July 12, 1996. They came to Yellowknife on July 23, 1996, and made an offer to my wife, which she accepted. One thing this report is silent on, and I did everything I could to report that properly, and it is reported properly, but one thing this report is silent on, is the FMB meeting. The FMB meeting in August. Was Don Morin in that meeting? No, I was not. Why? Because it shows, clearly, and that evidence came out through me into the inquiry. The Conflict Commissioner's lawyers would not bring that evidence forward because they knew it would help to exonerate me. They knew it would prove that I did everything possible to declare my conflict. In the August FMB, it is clear in the minutes that I declared my conflict, left the room and came back after. That is when the money decision was made and the government to declare the conflict. I have done everything possible in this process to declare a conflict.

Also in this report, it goes on to say that I did not take proper action to inform my office of how they are to deal with this. I took the proper action. Who was the person tasked with dealing with conflicts from Ministers? It was the principal secretary of the day. He was the person tasked because he had legal experience. We all used him for that. He was to deal with this issue.

The report goes on to say that Mr. Danny Beaulieu phoned to have a meeting, I believe it was around July sometime. We cannot stop people from phoning our offices. Even when you MLAs call our offices, what is the first thing that happens when you talk to staff? The staff automatically get a briefing note. The report goes on to say that I used my office to influence the decision. The office never influenced any decision of this government. The office, through the principal secretary, asked for information. That was it. They asked for information. There was no evidence that says we influenced the decision. On the Fort Resolution office complex, I am not in any conflict for selling my land. What is alleged is that I am in conflict for the way I handled it after I sold it.

Would anybody, in their right mind or any MLA in this House, walk into a conflict of interest, would walk into it intentionally? I do not think so. I know I would not. I would never do that intentionally. I tried everything that I knew to follow the rules. The rules of the day were very clear to me. The rules of the day were laid out by Mr. Fournier, and I followed those rules.

In hindsight, after reading this report, and the Conflict Commissioner says a memo should be sent to all the people, I agree with that. It should have been but was I told to do that then? No. I was told three specific things to do. The land to be sold at a fair market value. I did that. The Deninu Ku'e would have to provide a letter detailing after due diligence they have been unable to locate any other suitable land, I did that. In event the transition does take place, the GNWT does, in fact, become an occupant of the building to be constructed, the Premier of the matter raised in Cabinet would declare a conflict and the nature of it and excuse himself from the meeting. Cabinet meeting, I was not in the meeting. I walked in before it, I told them I had a conflict, call me when that item is done. I took care of that.

The FMB meeting that is not in this report. On August 16th, declared a conflict, left the room, came back after the item was dealt with. It follows the course that outside of Cabinet, he should have no involvement with any aspect of the matter. I did that. I asked Don Avison, the principal secretary to deal with it and get my wife to deal with it, as well. That is the advice I got from the Conflict Commissioner of the day.

I submitted all of these documents to declare it at the end. These documents are true documents. There is nothing deceiving or nothing unusual about these documents which I submitted to Mr. David Hamilton, as Clerk of the Legislative Assembly. This report raised issues with the second paragraph of the November 19th letter. My wife dealt with this matter, but did so in accordance with the advice which we sought and received from Mr. Fournier in the capacity he then had as Chief Conflict of Interest Commissioner. I did ask for that advice. I did receive it and I asked my wife to deal with it. It is very clear, in this last paragraph, that I did do that.

As far as I am concerned, am I in conflict with the way I declared I submitted these documents, I do not think so, Mr. Chairman. I have done everything possible. You will also have to put in your mind, would a reasonable person, an MLA, each and every one of you, would you actually, intentionally walk into a conflict? I do not think so. I know I would not. I did everything possible under that issue to try and make sure that everybody knew that I was declaring a conflict.

On the house, Mr. Chairman. On the house. The report says the Premier acknowledged that he had discussed and taken political heat over the house with Mrdjenovich and they began their discussions about the construction. In fact, Mr. Chairman, I said that there may be political heat at the time or about the time the lease was signed. The reason I said that, Mr. Chairman, is that I know that anybody sees a politician moving into a new house, that is the political heat you are going to get. You all have to admit that. Some will believe that politicians should live in tents. I do not think so. I rented this house on 3 Otto Drive with the best of intentions. On the house on 3 Otto Drive, how did I end up there?

Did I intentionally go to rent the house to get myself in a conflict? I do not think so. I looked around this town for a house just like other Ministers are supposed to look around this town for a house. I looked all over the place for a house, I never did find a suitable house for myself and my family. After I had seen one house, up by where Kelvin lives, of Nova Construction's, I found out at that time that house would not be suitable as well. At that time, Nova Construction, through Mr. Mrdjenovich, offered to look at building a house and he found some land that was quite acceptable to us. He found the place to build. I told him at that time that I had a budget to work with to rent a house. That is all the money I had to work with. I looked high and low for another house to accommodate myself and my family. I could not find one. Mr. Mrdjenovich agreed to build a house and he agreed to do it approximately within my budget.

What type of housing market is there in Yellowknife at the high-end rental rate? There are not that many houses out there that you can rent at the high-end rental rate. The only thing in evidence about the rent is similar to the rent that I am paying is Stefan Simek's house. The rent on that house is $3,000 a month. The rent that I am paying is $2,800 a month. Lauchie MacDonald, the expert who was called in, he testified that this was not a custom house, that it was an average, normal, big house. He also testified that the rent was within range. He did do that. Other than that, there is no evidence. There are 3,800 pages of transcripts, 17,000 documents. There is no evidence about the high-end rental market in Yellowknife. How come there is no evidence, because there is basically very little in the high-end rental market. Who, in their right mind, would go and rent a house for $2,800?

There is a certain level, once you hit it, you are going to go buy a house. Because we as Ministers of the government have a temporary accommodation allowance, that puts us in a very unique situation. it puts us in a situation where we have to go out and rent. That is what I did. On the rental of that unit, at 3 Otto Drive, did I pay enough rent? Did Mrdjenovich make enough money? Should I have asked him the cost of land? Should I have asked him the cost of construction? Should I have asked him the cost of coverage, for the light fixtures, all those things? I do not think that was proper of me to ask that. All I asked him, how much is the rent? He told me the rent was $2,800 a month, so I agreed to pay that. What more should a renter ask? Should I have went to the Conflict Commissioner to ask? I do not think I should have. I went there when I was selling something, I went there when we were selling land to get advice, because I believed that I needed advice when you are selling land. Should you get advice when you are going out to purchase or to rent? I did not think I had to. I still do not think, today, that I had to.

Would a reasonable person be able to separate fact from rumour on this transition? I think a reasonable person would be able to. During the inquiry, and this report says that Nova Construction makes 8.8 something percent profit on this unit. That seemed to be good enough for the lending institutions, that seemed to be good enough for the banks, the banks lent him the money. That was good enough for Hydro Quebec on their investment, but it is not good enough for this report. The report says that he should have made at least ten percent. What would be ten percent of $2,800? What would be the rest of 1.2 percent? It would work out to approximately $33.60.

One other thing that was also introduced is that I get an accommodation allowance, a temporary accommodation allowance, just like all the other Ministers. If I choose to pay out of my own pocket, more money than that, that is my choice. I get the $35,000 a year from the government, temporary accommodation allowance, every Minister from out of town gets that. Is that a benefit? Some may see it as that. The report saw it as that. I think it is a temporary accommodation allowance, but I also pay, out of my own pocket, an additional $6,000 a year, out of my own pocket, to rent that house. We pay over $40,000 a year to rent that house.

How would I ever think of getting into a conflict when I go out to rent a house, I am paying more than my rental accommodation, and it is costing me money out of my own pocket to house my family in Yellowknife? That was my choice, but it should not be perceived as a conflict. It should be perceived as a person who made a choice and made the right choice, to pay, and I have paid for it. I cannot see, Mr. Chairman, how anybody, any reasonable well-informed person, can make a conclusion or have a perception that I would be in conflict. I am renting a house, I am paying for it. What more can I do?

Now we turn to one of my more favourite subjects, the Lahm Ridge Tower, the famous Lahm Ridge Tower. What was the complaint? Did Don Morin used his influence? Was Don Morin involved? What did Don Morin have to do with the Lahm Ridge Tower? That was the complaint. What did I have to do with it? Zip, nothing. I said that a year ago just about. A year ago is when that started. I told you all, I had nothing to do with the Lahm Ridge Tower. Seventy-five witnesses interviewed, 45 witnesses called to the stand, 17,000 documents, 3,800 pages of transcript. Was Don Morin involved in the Lahm Ridge Tower? No. That is what it took.

Has the answer changed since a year ago? No. I am still not involved in the Lahm Ridge Tower, but alas, I am still in conflict. Why am I in conflict? Because I stood up in this Legislative Assembly, I stood up in the Legislative Assembly to defend the government. That is my job. What did I do when I first heard about the Lahm Ridge Tower? I did my job. That is what I did. I asked for a briefing note immediately from the department. I got the briefing notes. I read the briefing notes. I did not see anything wrong with that. The questions kept coming. I asked for a meeting with the people involved, the bureaucrats, the civil servants. They told me what happened. They said this, this, this, a good deal for the government. I still think today that was a good deal for the government. I did my job. Then I came into this House. I stood up and defended the actions of the deputy ministers, I defended the actions of the Ministers and the government. That is the job of the Premier, but I am in conflict for that. Why am I in conflict for that? How was I to know when I stood over there just about a year ago and defended the government, I am intentionally in conflict for that? I never heard such a ludicrous thing. How can you be intentionally in conflict for doing your job?

I do not negotiate contracts with deputy ministers. I leave that up to Lew Voytilla. He is the guy that takes care of that end of it. What do I do when deputy ministers are hired? What do I do before, when I used to interview them once a year to see how they are doing in their department? I would always assure them. As long as you do your job, follow the policies and the programs and do that right and follow the policies of the government, I will protect you as a deputy minister, that is my job too. If you do not, then I cannot protect you. I always assured them of that and to this day and this day as well, I am still standing here and I will protect them for past actions because it is not right. When a man gives his word to another person, he should stick by it, and I do.

I stood up and I defended the government and the deputy ministers on the Lahm Ridge Tower, but did I influence the decision on the Lahm Ridge Tower? Low and behold, no, I never interfered in the decision. There are Ministers responsible for that. They did not interfere in the decision, it was a decision made by a deputy minister. He had the authority to make it, and he made it. I still end up in a conflict situation because I ended up standing up in the House. According to this report, I did that intentionally. Once again, would a sane person walk into a conflict with his eyes open? Answer that question to yourself. Put yourself in my shoes, would a sane individual actually walk into a conflict? I do not think so.

Post-employment relationship with Roland Bailey. The report goes on to say, it is clear from the evidence that Mr. Morin was aware of the relationship between two of his most senior staff, senior advisors, however, there is no indication that he took any steps to address any potential conflict or appearance of conflict that might arise from that relationship. What are the rules that we follow? What were the rules that we were following then? They sign on deputy minister contracts, total confidentiality. You all know Roland Bailey. You all know my past principal secretary and EA, Ferne Babiuk. You cannot ask for more professional people than those two. I take people at face value and I believe that they did nothing wrong. I know they signed the contract and I know they stuck by that contract. This report goes on to say that the deputy minister negotiated Mr. Bailey's employment contract directly with the Premier. I have never negotiated one employment contract with any deputy. That is what Lew Voytilla's job is, to negotiate that. Not mine. We just make the decision to hire them. They are the one who deal with them after that.

The report goes on to say that because of my relationship with Mr. Bailey, that would put me into a conflict situation. Because of my relationship with Ms. Babiuk that would put me into a conflict situation. Once again I ask you to ask yourself, would a person put themselves in a conflict situation on purpose? I do not think so. I am a person that was born and raised in the Northwest Territories. Friendship means a lot to me, but it also means that just because you do have friends does not mean you abuse your friendship. Friendship means respect as well. Total respect. I have told each and everyone of you, I never called on your friendship to help me out here. That is how much friendship means to me. I would never put that in between any of us. That is how I carry out my duties. I would never ever call on anybody's friendship and I do not expect my friends to call on their friendship with me for any favours as well because if they attempted to do that, they would no longer be my friend.

There are other issues in this report, other issues I did not even know I was being accused of being in conflict. I did not know it until the report came out. I was wondering at some point, when I was on the stand, why is this lawyer asking me these questions? I was wondering about that. I had no idea when I was on the stand that they were investigating requests for visa, fishing trip, what other one was there, inaccurate documents. No idea at all, when I was being questioned on the stand. They did not let us know. They did not have the decency to let us know that we were being investigated for that.

What about the request for a visa? Here is a territorial resident that phoned my office to ask for assistance because his sister-in-law was going through a very hard time, lost her husband. We worked, the office worked with our MP, Ethel Blondin-Andrew, to request a visa. That is our job. We have to do that. As MLAs, people come to you and ask for help. Do you ask them, are you a Dene, Metis, non-aboriginal, are you my friend or do you just ask a simple question, how can we help? That is the question I always ask, how can I help? Irrelevant whether they are your friends or not, that is our job to help people, but once again the report goes on to say that because I used my office, I am in a technical breach of the conflict.

Was Premier Morin's fishing trip with Roland Bailey in the spring of 1997 a benefit? Was it directly or indirectly connected with the performance of his duties of office? Could it erode public confidence or trust in the integrity and partiality of the Member?

Well, Mr. Chairman, how did that fishing trip come about? Mr. Bailey told me that he was going that weekend to Plummer's Lodge to go fishing. At that time, I had just finished dealing with an elder and some of the elders in Lutselk'e. I asked Mr. Bailey if Mr. Plummer would mind if I come in there to look at the airstrip because there is a graveyard at the end of the airstrip. The elders had concerns that the airstrip might possibly be over that graveyard. Mr. Plummer gave me permission to go in there to take a look and that is what I did.

Do you know that I have been invited to Plummer's Lodge many times before that. I never did go because I had no reason to go. I have been invited on trips to Edmonton to go golfing on other things. I never go becasue I had no reason to go and this one, I had a eason to go. I wanted to see for myself because that is a very serious thing if a runway is built over a grave. I went in there and looked and saatisfied myself that the graves were all off on one side. I did catch a trip and I did not pay for it. Why did I not report it? Because I thought I was doing my job as an MLA. Why would I have to report it? According to the tone of this report, what if I did pay for that trip? What if I did pay for that trip out of my constituency fund? Maybe the findings would

have been that I am still in conflict because I subsidized a fishing trip for Roland Bailey. I do not know, but I do know that I would not intentionally put myself into a conflict situation. I would never do that.

Inaccurate documents. Document 246 turned out to be less than an accurate replacement for the minutes of May 16, 1996, Cabinet meeting. They asked that question on the stand. They asked me that question. Was it meant to be a replacement for the Cabinet minutes? I told them at that time, read the document, it is exactly what it means. We confirmed that in respect to the Cabinet decision on the above issue, Premier Don Morin declared a conflict of interest and left the meeting room taking no part in discussions or decisions. That, my friends is exactly what happened. I okayed this document. I never myself asked anybody to sign it. I okayed it because it is the truth. That is exactly what happened. All the evidence that was in the inquiry says that is exactly what happened too. So, this is not an untrue document, this is absolutely the truth, this document. I cannot agree with this report's finding on this issue.

The authors of document 246 failed to identify on the face of the document the date and reference of the meeting. Also, when was the document produced? May 15, 1998. My Cabinet colleagues have been to many meetings. When was the meeting? May 16, 1996, two years before that. When did it come to light? October, 1998. I have no control over my friends, no control on any person's memory, but this is one incident that happened within one and a half minutes in a three-year span and people are asked to remember exactly what happened. They all agreed. I was not in that meeting room.

Then the report goes on to say, it is not accurate that Mrs. Morin dealt with the matter at this suggestion that the transition was handled by Mr. Morin. The suggestion even stronger because Mr. Morin decided to enclose the only document his wife dealt with, the offer to purchase. They asked for the other documents, we gave them the documents, the cancelled cheque made out to Gladys Morin, the offer to purchase and the acceptance all made out to Gladys Morin. That is accurate. The offer to purchase tendered with the letter is in itself inaccurate because it states that the land was in Mrs. Morin's name. The land, in fact, was in Mr. Morin's name. There is no clarification on this inaccuracy in the disclosure statements. Who developed the offer to purchase document? The lawyers, that is who developed it. They are the ones who offered to purchase the land from my wife. I did not know it was not in my name. I know that the land was in my name, but it made no difference to me. Everything we own, we own together regardless of whose name it is in. I did not know that was there. Mrs. Morin did not deal with the matter in accordance with the advice which we sought and received from Mr. Fournier. As this suggests, that Mr. Fournier advised that Mrs. Morin should be involved. Mr. Fournier did not advise that she become involved. Mr. Fournier did advise in his final paragraph. It follows, of course, that outside of Cabinet he should have no involvement with the aspect of the matter. That is the advice I got. Mr. Avison then said I cannot deal with it, your wife has to deal with it. So my wife did deal with the issue.

The letter from Andrew Butler. It was undated. Yes it was. It came from someone who had very little to do with the actual negotiations. I do not know that. It contained the following falsehood, all discussions and arrangements were with Gladys Morin. Don Morin took no part in the matter. This again, absorbs the actual transition. Again, it gives the impression that Mr. Morin had some reason or desire to hide the deal with his involvement in it.

Once we got the advice from Mr. Fournier on how to deal with this land issue, that is when Mr. Avison was given instruction by myself to deal with it and my wife was also. When does the transition of land happen, how does that happen? People have to give you a written offer. They did that. The subchief of Fort Resolution came into Yellowknife, he gave a written offer in July to my wife. She accepted the offer and the deal was done. That is how it was done. I had no involvement in it. After we had decided to sell the land I had no involvement in it.

Once again, Mr. Chairman, the Commissioner states that document 246 turned out to be less than accurate replacement for the minutes of May 16. The document was not intended to be a replacement for the minutes of May 16. I have indicated and I have been ostracized for replacing a document that I considered to be true, before the Ministers and having the Ministers sign this and return the same to myself. I presented the Ministers with the document and I knew that document was true. I did not seek to influence their signing of the document and it has no control over whether they had a specific recollection of that or not.

Once again, would a person put themselves in a conflict of interest position intentionally? I do not think so, Mr. Chairman, I do not think any Member of this House would. There are many, many issues to be dealt with in this conflict report. They go from the house, Fort Resolution office complex, post-employment relationship with Roland Bailey, other issues that I was unaware of until the end, the visa on the brother's death, and the fishing trip and the inaccurate documents. This report, Mr. Chairman, as far as I am concerned is a very biased report. There are so many things in this report that are inaccurate that say that I did things that I would not do. Many times in this report the evidence that was given during the public inquiry is intentionally missed in this report as well.

When we sold our land in Fort Resolution, we did not want to sell that land. We had no intention of selling that land. The only reason we sold was to help the band move ahead on their project. Once we agreed, I sought advice, I took the advice, I followed the advice. I would not put myself in a conflict position. I would not bring that type of situation to my family, my community or myself intentionally. It is absurd to think that I would do that intentionally.

The house in Yellowknife. Maybe the report thinks that Don Morin does not deserve to live in a big fancy house in Yellowknife and not pay for it. Maybe the report thinks that ministerial temporary accommodation allowance is a benefit that politicians do not deserve. I do not know, but that is the policy of the day. That is the policy we use and I pay the extra $6,000 a year out of my own pocket for that house. My family are comfortably housed in Yellowknife. How can any reasonable person knowing all the facts, think that I would have a conflict for doing that? I ask you that? How would they even think that? All I did was rent a house. I needed a house just like anybody else. I took care of the government interests. I put into that a 90 day acceptance clause so that the government did not have any long-term lease. What did I do wrong there? I went out, I rented a house. That is what I did. I knew that I was going to take political heat over that house because any Member, politician moving into a big house would take the heat. I subsidized that house as well. I am the one who pays that $6,000. You do not hear me complaining about that, but it is true. So I do not believe that I am in a conflict in that house.

The Lahm Ridge Tower. Did I have anything to do with the Lahm Ridge Tower? Did I influence that decision? No, I did not and that was the complaint. I did not influence the Lahm Ridge Tower deal. It is as simple as that. I said that a year ago, I will say that today. I did not influence that deal. Once again, was I supposed to know last February the new Members were asking questions in this House, when I stood over there and answered those questions that that would put me in a conflict situation? I intentionally stood up there right in front of the whole Northwest Territories and put myself in a conflict situation? I do not think so. I would not do that, I would do my job. I never back down from doing my job and I thought that was my job and I still think that today.

The post-employment relationship with Roland Bailey. When we came here in 1995, we had a tough, tough job ahead of us as politicians. We had to cut over $200 million from the government, $200 million from our budget. The government asked this man to help us do it, to oversee it and he did and we managed to achieve that. He did not like the job. He said that on the testimony. Worst job he ever had in his life. So he decided to leave. He resigned as a Cabinet secretary and went out on his merry way to go back into the private sector where he had come from. I was accused, Aurora Fund, did Don Morin influence the decision to hire Roland Bailey to manage this Aurora Fund? No, I had nothing to do with that. Did not even know about it until after it happened.

How about this petroleum products privatization, request for proposal. Did Don Morin have any influence over that? Was Don Morin involved in that? No. Did not even know about it until after it was done.

Lahm Ridge Tower. Did not know about that until after it was done. Does a man have a right in this Northwest Territories to go out and make a living after he leaves government? From what I am hearing, maybe not. I do not think that we as northerners who stand here daily and say, we have to hire north, we have to promote aboriginal people, we have to work amongst ourselves in the north to make the north a better place, then what happens when we do that, when somebody did that? He gets ostracized for that.

Yes, that is right, I went to Asia, as the Premier, I was requested to go to Asia to promote the Aurora Fund. I was requested by then the Finance Minister, John Todd. I think that was about a two week trip. Did not want to go. Why would I take two weeks to travel over there to Asia in that hot country and sweat and try to promote the Northwest Territories. I went. I went to promote the Northwest Territories. That was my job and I must have done a pretty good job because we sold out the fund, but, low and behold, I travelled with Roland Bailey, my friend. I am in conflict again. We have to be realistic. We have to have reality. My lawyer said during his closing comments:

This public inquiry is like Tarzan swinging through the jungle grabbing from vine to vine with his feet never touching the ground where reality really is.

Sometimes I think that way too. So I am not intentionally in conflict with my relationship with Roland Bailey. I have told you already, each and every one of you what friendship means to me. I am a northerner, been brought up in a big family. I know what friends are. I have told you already that I would never call on friendship for any favour, just because you are my friend and I would expect none of my friends to do that as well, and they never have because they would not be my friend if they had.

You know you go back to the original thing. Bison, the bison herd in Fort Resolution. From the undisputed testimony of all witnesses, Mr. Morin was the contact person for the interests of the DKFN and those of Mr. Mrdjenovich and the buffalo herd were the first made known. Both the DKFN and Mr. Mrdjenovich contacted Morin about their interests in the bison. Now this is the one right here. Listen well. He provided the necessary information to interested parties to allow them to put together a deal which was for the benefit of his constituents. I will tell you how that happened. I was going through the airport in Yellowknife. Mr. Mrdjenovich walked up to me, he had just come back from Norman Wells, I believe. This Hanging Ice bison ranch was in the paper. It was public knowledge and he says, is the government interested in selling that ranch in Fort Smith? Yes, we are. Well, what do you know about it? I do not know much about that buffalo ranch. Go see Joe Handley, he is the deputy minister of Renewable Resources. Go see him, he will know all about it. It is his department.

My Chief calls me, he says is the government interested in selling the buffalo? I said yes, he said, well who is all interested in it? So I told him. Mike Mrdjenovich, a businessman from Norman Wells, the Town of Fort Smith, HDA of Fort Smith, the band and the Metis of Fort Smith, as well as, that was it, that is what I told him. He says, well what do you know about it, I said I do not know a lot. Phone Joe Handley, he knows about it, he is the deputy minister of Renewable Resources, and that is what I did.

What did I do, according to this report? He provided all the necessary information to interested parties, to allow them to put the deal together for the benefit of his constituents. I think that is stretching it very far. People are allowed to come up and talk to you. People are allowed to ask you, as a politician, information on the government. Also, in the bison part, she finds that Chief Balsillie and the subchief are very questionable witnesses because it looked like they were trying to protect me, that I had no involvement in the Buffalo herd, in selling them the Buffalo herd. I did not have any involvement in the selling of the Buffalo herd because I was far too busy and they did not need my involvement. They are quite capable of doing that on their own.

Now we go back to this report and how the process happened. I have told you, time and time again, that I had a problem with the process. I said that from day one, 1995 is when I raised that concern. I was assured, by the law clerk, I was assured that if any Member had a conflict or there was a conflict allegation against them, they can get an independent Conflict Commissioner. Then we moved on. Then I got into this process. I do not think it is a fair process. I think the process was biased, I have raised some concerns through this report. It is a 150 page report. There are so many concerns throughout it that I cannot raise them all in this opportunity, but I will raise them as we come from issue to issue.

What I will say, is during the past three years, I enjoyed representing the people of the Northwest Territories and I did that in the best way I knew how. I am proud of being a northerner. I am proud of being from Fort Resolution and I was proud to be the Premier of the Northwest Territories and representing the people. I did not ever, ever go out and be deceitful. I am an honest person. I never go out and lie to people. I deal with people straight up and you all know it. Some of you may not like my politics, some of you may disagree with me and I will disagree with you, but when I do, you will know it, because I will tell you straight to your face. That is how I am. I do not go around and talk about people. The question you have to ask yourself, Members, and it is a test that has never been put to all these questions, it is a test that was only put to item number two, and that was Nova contracts. The test was, can a reasonable, well-informed person separate rumour from reality in respect to this allegation? If you put that same test to them all, after you know the facts, can it pass that test? I do not think so.

Mr. Chairman, I must say that the last ten months have been trying months for myself and my family, but it has made us stronger. I will assure you of that. I never, ever thought I would stand up in this House and say thank God for Jeannie Marie Jewell, but I say that today. She made me tough to one extent and when I get re-elected next fall, I will say thank God for Jane Groenewegen, as well.

What have I learned? I have learned that processes are flawed and legislation could be flawed as well. I have learned that you can be on a train and you can be doing down the track, not liking your destination, but no way to alternate. I saw it through that public process. I saw what was going to happen. I could not change it, I had to go down that road. Now, I am here today before you, finally, people who are reasonable, people who are fair and just. Listen to what I have to say, read it in Hansard, and I will answer any questions you have through your debate. You have an opportunity through you debate, to ask any question, ask them and when I respond in my ten minutes, I will answer them. I am telling each and every one of you, I have to go back to the last one, I think it is the conclusions in here, somewhere. I cannot find it, but in the conclusions, Mr. Chairman, this report basically says I knew I had a conflict, I walked right into the conflict, I intentionally did the conflict. Each and every one of you know me. Am I that stupid to do that? I do not think so. I have made mistakes in the past and I will make them in the future, I do not make mistakes intentionally. I did everything I could, as a Member of the Legislative Assembly, as your Premier, I did everything I could to avoid conflict.

In the selling of the land, I went the extra mile to avoid that conflict. Even to me, I did not like to do that. I did not like to sell the land, not because I wanted to keep it forever, it is because it would have been perceived as a conflict. In the end, the report says it was no conflict, it was just how I dealt with it, but I tried my best. I tried my very, very best to avoid a conflict. I have been through that before. I did not want to go there again. I worked hard with the advice I got from other people, from the principal secretary, to avoid conflict. I worked hard to make sure I did everything according to the rules and I still believe I did.

I do not accept the report, Mr. Chairman. If, in fact, there was a breach inadvertently, maybe an error in judgement, but made in good faith, I can accept that. I do not accept that I will do anything to harm the people of the Northwest Territories, my family or myself. It is my duty to serve the people of the north and I have served the people of the north for the past 11 years. I never make mistakes, and I will say it again, I never make mistakes deliberately, or with an intention to mislead or be devious.

Mr. Chairman, once again, I will tell you all. Friendship is important to me, but I do not abuse friendship. Those who are my friends do not abuse friendship. I came into this job 11 years ago to represent the people of Tu Nedhe, Fort Resolution and Lutselk'e. I worked very hard in this Assembly to represent those people. I worked four years as an Ordinary Member. I worked four years as a Cabinet Minister and three years as a Premier. I worked to represent the people of my riding. I worked to represent the people of the Northwest Territories. I take my responsibility very serious. Maybe sometimes, too serious, according to my wife and kids. I spend too much time maybe on my job. My sister asked my son the other day about myself and him and he told her. That was kind of a wakening for me. My youngest, he says, you know, when I get up in the morning, I do not know if my Dad will be home tonight, I do not even know if he is in the territories or in the country. Maybe I do take the job too seriously, and maybe I will have time now to spend with my family.

Mr. Chairman, in the end it is up to you, all MLAs, how you take this report. If you can believe that I would walk into a conflict with the full intention of doing it, then accept the report. If you believe that I am devious, a liar, or not an honest person, then accept the report. If you believe that there is any bias, if you believe that I stand before you today speaking the truth, and telling you exactly the way it was, then do not accept the report. I have worked hard on relationships, I have worked hard on behalf of the Northwest Territories people and I will continually do it, no matter where I sit in this House.

It has been an interesting year. It has been a little bit of a tough year, but we will get through that. I know, when I came into this job, I had not intention of misusing my job. I came here for one reason and one reason only, and that is to work on behalf of the people of Tu Nedhe and for the people of the Northwest Territories. That is what I have done.

Once again, I will say to you, if you believe that I would intentionally put my family and myself through this, to go into a conflict position, then I must be insane because I would never, ever do that. I am here to work as an MLA, I am here to work with the people of the Northwest Territories. I love the people of the Northwest Territories. I would never abuse my position to benefit myself. I have tried my best to make sure that the public sees, as well, and anybody that knows me, knows I would not do that, that I would not abuse my position. People interpret things, people look at things differently, but in reality, if you see something move in the bush, do not pull the trigger until you are sure it is a moose because it might not be. That is reality.

Can a reasonable, well-informed person separate rumour from

reality in respect to these allegations? I believe a reasonable, well-informed person can separate reality in respect to all these allegations. If, they were to get the facts and they sure could not depend on CBC North or CBC Newsworld, to get those facts. I will tell you that right now. I have learned that over the last three years.

I came here today to tell you my side of the story. I have not had a chance for ten months to talk about this. That is fine, but I thank you all for giving me the opportunity today to talk to this issue. You know, I read this report and its 150 pages, I read it once, I read it twice, three times, four times maybe and there was something wrong with it. I could not figure it out, what was wrong with that report, until two nights ago. I finally figured out what was wrong with this report, there was the one test that you put to everything, a reasonable, well-informed person, but there is also another test.

The reason I could not figure out what was wrong with it, is because it was not there. It was silent. What was it silent on? It was silent on us, the northern people. It was silent on the northern society. Is it a big deal in the Northwest Territories to sit down and have coffee with the Premier? I do not think so. Is it a big deal to play pool with the Premier? I do not think so. Know the taxi drivers by name, know the waiters by name, know everybody. One time I told my friend, Mr. Kakfwi, I can go from Fitzgerald to Tuktoyaktuk and back and not want for a bed because I know people up and down the valley and I have been able to meet other people clear across the Baffin and made friends with them all. I love the north, that is what is missing in here. No reality about the Northwest Territories.

We are a small number of people. Everybody knows everybody. It was said to me, that you know, out of all those people that come as witnesses there, out of these players in this, eight of them are clients of one law firm in this city because everybody knows everybody. The report is silent, totally, totally silent on the northern society. It is supposed to reflect how we live today. It is supposed to reflect that we know everybody. It is supposed to reflect that we are unique. We brag to other people. We go south and say, we are the greatest place in Canada to live because everybody knows everybody, it is small, people help each other, work with each other. That is what our northern society is about. This report, Mr. Chairman, does not even reflect what northern society is. It never even mentions it once. That is what I found to be the biggest problem with this report, for myself, when I was reading it.

Once again, colleagues, I tell you, today that I am a believer and I believe in my heart that every Member of this Legislative Assembly came here to work on behalf of the people of the Northwest Territories. I believe you are all fair people. I believe you are all just people. So I leave you today with that thought in your mind. I will listen to what you have to say and I will try my best to respond within the rules of debate. I tell you one thing for sure, that Don Morin is not a liar. Don Morin is not deceitful. I am an honest man. I have been brought up to be an honest person. I have been taught not to steal. I have been taught not to be disrespectful to people, and I never have. Since I was 14 years old, I have been standing on my own two feet. Since I was 14 years old, I have been making my own living and I never ever asked for anything from anybody in life and I never, ever asked for a favour, because I do not need it. I can stand on my own two feet. I tell each and every one of you, as well, think clear, because you are supposed to be here today, I asked you at the beginning, leave your politics at the door, it is my life you are dealing with, my family and my friends. I ask you to come here with a clear conscience and deal with it. Deal with it in fairness and in justice, nothing more, nothing less. Thank you. Mahsi Cho.

--Applause

Thank you, Mr. Morin. Item 3, I will repeat item 3, that all other Members, other than Mr. Morin, is permitted up to 45 minutes for initial comment and we are dealing with Tabled Document 37-13(6). The floor is now open for comments and statements on this tabled document. Members are indicating. Mr. Dent.

Thank you, Mr. Dent. You should proceed now please.

Thank you, Mr. Dent. Comments from the membership at this time. Mr. Picco.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, if the committee would like to take a short break, then I will begin my comments after the break. I would be conducive to that.

Thank you. Do we wish to take a break before Mr. Picco makes his general comments? We shall take a short break.

--Break

I would like to call the committee back to order. We are on 37-13(6), Report of the Conflict of Interest Commissioner. Each Member is permitted up to 45 minutes for initial comments on the tabled document. I have two names on the list, Mr. Picco and Mr. Miltenberger. Mr. Picco.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, last weekend when I was home in Iqaluit I spoke to numerous constituents concerning the Conflict of Interest Report by Ms. Crawford. Indeed, I have had public service announcements on CBC Radio in Iqaluit and also ads on the local cable television and I have had copies of the report available at my office. I have asked for feedback from the constituents. As of today, I have

received something like 70 e-mails, numerous phone calls and faxes. I guess because the public service announcements, Mr. Chairman, have been on CBC radio, I have received faxes from across the territories, including Arviat I might add.

Mr. Chairman, policing your own is very difficult in any walk of life and that includes politics. For example, here in the Northwest Territories, and I will specifically refer to Breakwater Project in my riding, where there is a limited number of contracts. I knew the scope of the project and budgeted amounts before being approved in the budget. It would have been very easy for me to call a supposed blind trust partner and say, bring in extra C7 caterpillar, bulldozer and bid x number of dollars on the said project. Here in the Northwest Territories the conflict of interest filings are done by each Member with an honour system. That is to say, Mr. Chairman, they are not being checked by a third party or an independent person. The reality is, the public at large has so much current cynicism towards politicians that not only do you have to be perceived to be clear of conflict, but you also have to demonstrate it almost on a daily basis.

Mr. Chairman, allegations of conflict could be made for example in the Northwest Territories by anyone in the general public at large. That could end up having x number of complaints of conflict, causing the government to be impeded in its legislative agenda. Also, since we have no party politics here in the Northwest Territories, a complaint becomes non-partisan. It is not a Conservative against a Liberal or a Liberal against an NDP for example. It can become personally based. The optimum would be to find legislation that is not onerous enough to stop government from doing its job, but is officious enough to carry on the mandate required of disclosure to the public at large, so it allows the public trust to be fulfilled, without hamstringing the government.

Now I say this in all seriousness. When we look at the approach being brought forward in legislation, and what has been written about in the public at large over the last couple of years and indeed, Mr. Chairman, over the last couple of weeks and months here in the Northwest Territories. I would like to give a couple of examples. An example, Mr. Chairman, is the formal federal Cabinet Minister, Mr. John Crosby. Mr. Crosby, in his recent biography talks about the implementation of the blind trust policy in the federal government. Which he said, matter of fact, did not work because the blind trust of course is only blind to the person who cannot see it. It is not necessarily blind to the person involved in it. That was Mr. Crosby.

As politicians, we are trusted with guarding the public purse. Indeed, my friends and fellow politicians, the cynicism out there suggests in a political way that sometimes the position we are in puts us in a conflict. I believe Mr. Morin referred to that earlier in his statement. In our jurisdiction, that conflict is quite prevalent because of our small population number, as Mr. Morin said, and the number of contractors that can do public work and public contracts. When you bring up an idea or subject like this, as politicians, it can be very touchy.

The reality is unless you have an alternative solution to the problem it is hard to debate it. I do not have a solution to the problem of how you would disclose without a third party to investigate the claims being made. When I filed my conflict of interest guidelines, or if I filed my conflict of interest guidelines, and I say my wife is holding x number of shares in a corporation in which I have a fiduciary interest, there is actually no one to check to see if indeed that is correct. It is on an honour basis. So Mr. Chairman, I think this speaks to the whole area of concern today.

What is our intention with conflict of interest legislation and conflict of interest guidelines? In fact that is the issue. Our intention is to somehow demonstrate to the public we are no better and no worse and we are making the appropriate, ethical decisions, based on the decisions we are making. Aside from the issue of what our intention is in dealing with conflict of interest, we should not loose sight of the fact that conflict of interest legislation is designed for disclosure, Mr. Chairman.

The fact is we were elected and required to disclose what our assets and income are. For better or for worse, in most cases most of our electors do not know that, but we are forced to file public documents which indicate where our interests are and where they lie. A judgement can be made, based on our disclosures as how and whether we are, Mr. Chairman, voting appropriately, and that includes taking ourselves out of a meeting and declaring a conflict of interest when that type of item comes up.

Mr. Chairman, what kind of legislation do we have in place that deals with the politician who lays up treasures in heaven in anticipation of the day when he or she is going to get out of office and maybe reap the benefits of that? I do not know, Mr. Chairman, because we do not cover that in our legislation. When you are in a position to enhance the prospects of certain companies, and then after you are out of office or out of employ of the government of certain companies or placing yourself on various boards of directors as appreciation for your help while you were in office, what legislation is there in place to deal with that? I think that is also an issue.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to quote just briefly here from Speaker Glen Hagel of Saskatchewan. Mr. Hagel, the Speaker of Saskatchewan had something profound to say this summer when I was at a meeting with him. I would like to quote "Wise indeed is a Member who, when anticipating being accused of something, heads it off by getting to the Conflict of Interest Commissioner first and asking for a private, written ruling on something you anticipate may be coming down the pipe. As we know in this modern day and age where public officials are accused of being in conflict of interest, the public judges us to be guilty until proven innocent. Often it is just the passage of time by which it becomes clear later on that a Member was not in a conflict of interest but the accusation itself was enough to kill their political reputation. We should be seeing the Conflict of Interest Commissioner as somebody we can go to in advance to provide ourselves with political assurance."

Mr. Chairman, the inquiry demonstrated a haphazard following of policies, misleading statements given in this House by Ministers, less than complete responses during the inquiry. What are we to take from that? What does the public think, Mr. Chairman? These are dark days for all residents of the Northwest Territories and Nunavut. Out of chaos comes opportunity. Opportunity to do the right thing. To demonstrate we have learned from the report and indeed stop this behaviour before it goes on to the two new governments. Indeed that is what Mr. Dent alluded to earlier.

Mr. Morin stated that he declared a conflict of interest at the May 16, 1996, meeting concerning the Fort Resolution project. The minutes of that meeting does not show that. Mr. Avison, who attended the meeting, does not remember any declaration made by Mr. Morin at the meeting. Mr. Avison was at that meeting. So we have contradictory evidence. Evidence that contradicts itself throughout this report. Mr. Chairman, each Member has to decide the validity of the report and vote with their conscience and vote and accept or reject the report, based on the facts as presented.

On page 70 of the report, Mr. Chairman, and I am reading from the July 28th briefing note, leasing the Lahm Ridge Tower. It suggests that the DPW was induced to negotiate by the power of substantial cost of savings of which there were none relative to all the February letters coming forward. In responses to an oral question asked by Mr. Ootes, not only on the 6th of February but also on the 11th and 12th of February, 1998, by Mr. Antoine, it states which is clearly not true, departmental officials were not engaged in negotiations about the lease extension or about the Lahm Ridge Tower, prior to August 3, 1997, with individuals outside the department, other than the owner, Mr. Marceau.

In response to an oral question by Minister Antoine on February 4, 1998, and that was document 7951 in the report, Mr. Chairman, it states untruthfully the negotiations on lease extensions took place exclusively between Mr. Dixon and Mr. Marceau in the superintendent's office, supplemented by a few phone calls between the two. Neither Mr. Mrdjenovich or Mr. Bailey were involved in negotiation. That was untruthful.

Mr. Chairman, the point here is that indeed the contradictory evidence presented by Ms. Crawford in her report begs us as Members to ask certain questions. When the report came out last week, Mr. Chairman, and indeed here in the public in Yellowknife, downloaded onto Internet, not only here in the Northwest Territories but across Canada. We have had national editorials in newspapers.

I guess we have to ask ourselves what do we do about it? Who do you believe in the report? We have heard from Mr. Morin and it is very difficult for any of us in this House to take one person's word against the other. What I have tried to do in the report and I have had it for a week, I had it the first night and Mr. Morin talked about reading it three or four times. Indeed I have read it five or six times. From the statement today, from some of the information I gathered on researching this topic, you can see I must have read the report, it is hard for me to judge what is being said is right between one or the other party. I can only go on the collaborative evidence that has been presented. The documents, the documentation, the thousands of issues paper being put forward by the Conflict of Interest Commissioner.

What has come out of this report, Mr. Chairman, is indeed, some serious concerns with the way this government carries on business. We have policies, Mr. Chairman, to run the government. The Conflict of Interest Commissioner said there was nothing wrong with the legislation, and indeed, Mr. Chairman, there is nothing wrong with our policies. The problem is, Mr. Chairman, it seems like the policies were not followed.

When I look across the floor of this House today, to my friends over in the Cabinet, indeed, when some of the questions were being asked, some of them knew that the policies were not being followed. Indeed, some of the questions that came up in the inquiry were not answered very well, as reported by Ms. Crawford. What does that mean?

Mr. Chairman, that is a rhetorical question. What does it mean? Mr. Chairman, what it means is that there are serious concerns in here. There are serious concerns that need to be debated and there are serious concerns that need to be addressed. Will they be addressed by us, today and on Monday? Probably not. They will be addressed at a higher court, Mr. Chairman, and that higher court is the court of public opinion. I do not think it is going overboard to state that public opinion today, and the cynicism surrounding politics and politics in general, is at an all-time low. That is what we have to remember. I will accept the report as presented and I will be prepared to vote on the recommendations when presented in this forum. I would ask, Mr. Chairman, that indeed, the Members who speak to this today, and as Mr. Dent and Mr. Morin have already, remember that is what we are here for. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you, Mr. Picco. I have Mr. Miltenberger.

Thank you, Mr. Miltenberger. Are there any further comments on Tabled Document 37-13(6)? Mr. Rabesca.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Discussion on Conflict of Interest Report. I have reviewed this report, as we all have, and it grieves me to think that the Member from Tu Nedhe may have betrayed his position and the people of the Northwest Territories.

We voted for him as Premier because we had confidence in him to do the job, and to do it well. Mr. Morin is the Member for Tu Nedhe, his riding is one of the smallest ridings in the Northwest Territories. As a result of this fact, I believe, this has provided the Member with a good working knowledge of what was, and is, needed in the smaller communities of the Northwest Territories. If it were not for his knowledge and working experience of the smaller communities, we may have not seen decentralization and devolvement of the programs we have witnessed over the course of this Assembly.

Mr. Morin had the vision needed to encourage small communities to take on responsibilities that previously were only provided by a central government, quite often not for the betterment of the community residents. It was also through Mr. Morin's actions that today we have a more receptive government dealing with land claim settlements. Mr. Morin has guided us through very difficult times. When we first started, this Assembly had a large deficit with no real direction. We also had division looming in the background, and again, no real direction to follow. Through his leadership, the smaller communities across our territories have become more responsible. At the same time, we have been able to produce a surplus in the books, as well as host many interesting and innovative issues. Mr. Morin cannot be forgotten for this.

We have this report that shows he may have used his position for personal gain. In the report, it states eight different events that he has gained from personally. I have thought long and hard, as to what we must do to this Member and what else this Assembly can do to reverse the negative effect his perceived actions have had on the Government of the Northwest Territories, as well as the entire Northwest Territories.

This is very serious. It is the first time in Canada's long history to have a Premier resign as a result of a conflict of interest inquiry. This will be a black mark that this Assembly will be remembered for, which is unfortunate considering we have done many good things during this Assembly. We should be proud of these accomplishments. We have a surplus. This alone, was a great effort and all regions have been affected. We have provided for a relatively smooth transition leading towards division. Both of these are very difficult tasks. We took it on and now we are realizing the efforts we put in.

To get back to the report at hand, Mr. Morin had been wrong with his actions; however, I feel that his advisors were equally as wrong by not providing him with the correct and professional advice that they were hired for. If Mr. Morin would have been advised at the very beginning of this exercise, he more than likely would not have wasted all the resources we have spent to date.

According to the report, it states he has been found guilty of violating five different sections of the Conflict of Interest Act, on eight different and separate issues. I feel the Commissioner has done her job to the best of her ability and has provided us with a very good and honest opinion. It is now our job to accept or reject this report and move on with the other many issues that we have. As for any further reprimand, in regard to the Member for Tu Nedhe, I feel we cannot go any further than what has already happened. Through the Member's own actions, he has done the honourable thing by resigning from his position as Premier and that is what the conflict of issue stems from. I do not think it is prudent to go any further. It appears that his riding supports Mr. Morin and his residents have the final say. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you, Mr. Rabesca. Are there any other comments at this time to Tabled Document 37-13(6). Mr. Krutko.