Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the opportunity to speak on this very important issue. The issue of the Conflict of Interest Commissioner's report on the matter of a complaint from the MLA from Hay River in relation to the Member for Tu Nedhe.
Mr. Chairman, I informed Caucus last Wednesday that, as Acting Premier, I felt this was an issue of conscience. No Cabinet position would be there for the debate. During the debate on any motions, Ministers including myself, would speak and vote as independent MLAs and on their own conscience. I still believe that to be the case. Mr. Chairman, I will start off by saying that, in my view, the intent of having conflict of interest legislation is good. In today's complex world our constituents require knowledge that not only will our law makers live up to the highest standards and ethics possible, but also that there is a law that backs us up.
I will also make some comments, either in this debate or future debates, on the process and the present legislation, on how we can improve what is there today. Mr. Chairman, I just finished listening to a couple of the previous speakers and I cannot tell you that it was easy to have your honesty or your integrity challenged. I must even say that it is quite difficult, but I do not think I will dwell on that. First, let me say that I hope that the Clerk of the Assembly will ensure that the comments that I make today are translated and distributed to my constituency in order that, at least, my words will be heard over there.
Mr. Chairman, on the Document 246 there have been insinuations, or maybe a bit more than that, by some MLAs in this House, that I may have, along with some other Ministers, been involved in something. Let us look at this issue. The issue of Document 246. This is a letter signed by myself and three other Ministers. There is an issue that Mr. Dent spoke of quite well the other day. The basic substance of that letter was that Mr. Morin was not involved in Cabinet discussions on the Fort Resolution office and land issue.
When all is said and done, Mr. Chairman, the commissioner agreed and accepted that Mr. Morin was not present when the matter was discussed. Let me repeat that, Mr. Chairman. The Commissioner agreed and accepted that Mr. Morin was not present when the matter was discussed. Further, I quote from the Commissioner's Report, that is both important and a sign of good faith. There was a question, however, and it is laid out in the report, on complete accuracy. Mr. Todd and myself gave our explanation, they are available for you to view in the transcripts. If MLAs are here to question whether I was being honest or not, that is up to you, but as I stated in the House the other day, I believe very much in the oath of honesty that we gave before testifying at the inquiry.
The other portion in the letter was whether or not Mr. Morin actually declared a conflict. As I stated in the inquiry, to this day, I cannot recall, but Mr. Morin is adamant that he did. Mr. Chairman, much has been said by MLAs, the media and the Commissioner about witnesses and who you should believe and who you should not believe. There is a section in the very beginning of the report about the standard of proof and an explanation that the standard of proof for this process was lower than beyond a reasonable doubt. However, it is a standard of proof that is used in a civil court. However, there has been much said about whether or not witnesses were believable or not and that some testimony appeared to contradict one another, even amongst Ministers. The suggestion being, I assume, is that this appears to be less than believable. I would look at it a bit differently, Mr. Chairman, that inaccuracies and inconsistencies about events that occurred two to three years ago from memory shows witnesses actually being honest. There were two rules that legal counsel told me to follow during the testimony. One, is to tell the truth and two, only tell the truth. We were told, by no means, do not speculate.
Not to belabour this point, Mr. Chairman, I would further suggest that the inconsistencies between Ministers' testimonies could provide some reassurance and not suspicion that, in fact, Ministers came there on their own and they gave their own testimony without collaboration. There was no story concocted of what was to be said. As I said, Mr. Chairman, it is not a point that I will spend too much time on. Some Members appear to have made their judgement already and there is not much I can do about that.
Mr. Chairman, just before I go further, I wanted to make another point on the testimony and on memory. There was an occasion while I was testifying, and it is quite interesting, that an occasion, while I was sitting there, an MLA came in, walked around for a few minutes and left. I basically did not think anything of it, but when I came back here, it turned out that particular MLA came here and said that I, in the inquiry, was hanging myself so badly that I could not remember my name. The same MLA delivered a verdict hours after the report was actually released.
I would challenge Members, to those that have a question in this area of memory and on testifying in an inquiry, to perhaps think of it this way. Try to remember all the details, everything that happened, everything that was said, of a meeting that occurred here last week. What was discussed? Who came in? What was worn, et cetera? Now if you extrapolate that to what happened two years ago, and you top it off with an oath that words you should tell the truth, only the complete truth, then I think you might have a different view.
Mr. Chairman, on the process. I have been quoted in the media as having said the process is cumbersome and expensive. I still believe that, but I also wanted to emphasize my strong belief that the conflict of interest legislation is there for a good reason, that we require the highest of standards, the highest standards in accountability and honesty and the leadership. The standards for law- makers and Ministers, especially, are probably higher standards than for others. I wanted to emphasize that. Things like transparency are important. I think the time is not now to talk too much about the flaws in the process and the flaws in the legislation, but the time will come after this particular case is dealt with.
Mr. Chairman, in preparing for this session, or for this item on the agenda, I have read the report of the Conflict of Interest Commissioner. I have read the whole thing. I originally started by reading the summary that was produced, then, I must admit, I went quickly through the report to look at highlights and finally, a couple of days ago, I finally finished reading the whole thing. It is a comprehensive report that is very detailed. I commend those that worked on it, it is by no means, as Mr. Roland said, easy or pleasurable for anybody on either side. I hope it is not, anyway. It is an event that has taken up much of our time and an important part of the NWT's history. It is an event that has destroyed some people's careers and reputations forever and I think it is an event that has also traumatized a number of families, including the former Premier's family. I think it would be remiss for any of us to not mention, to not acknowledge that. While we are trying to achieve the highest levels of accountability, we also need to, at least, remember that what has occurred in the past year has had its consequences. Although those that have been affected negatively will probably not admit to it, I have seen, at least on their faces, that this has been a very difficult time.
Mr. Chairman, before I get into some of the substance, Mr. Morin has clearly stated that he feels the process has been biased from the beginning. This began with him asking it to be investigated by someone other than Ms. Crawford and that he felt that Ms. Crawford could not be impartial. I cannot pass judgement on that, I had no working knowledge of Ms. Crawford before and I cannot recall any time that I have met her, other than at the inquiry. The thing is that Mr. Morin clearly felt that the process was biased and I would also quote, at least paraphrase an individual that Mr. Ootes has just paraphrased, that was Mr. Ian Green, who I also heard on CBC the other day and he is an eminent professional of political science at York University. I should thank CBC first for introducing me to that gentleman. As I came in the office here, I found a copy of his book here in the library entitled Honest Politics and I think it should be required reading for absolutely everyone in this House. The areas of principles of democracy, of being impartial, of treating everyone equally, et cetera. I think as a side notice, it is very important. What it did say during the interview that Mr. Ootes did not say, did not talk about was that if, for no other reason that if a party feels there is possible bias in a process, then that should be enough of a reason for perhaps the Conflict Commissioner to remove herself or himself. Like I said, Mr. Chairman, I am paraphrasing but I thought that should be pointed out.
Mr. Chairman, again on the process and our particular process here in the House I do not take lightly at all. The fact that we are now the judges, we are now the jury in this case. I had felt strongly before this started that it was incumbent upon every Member to at least listen to Mr. Morin as he asked, before making a final judgement. Alas that did not happen, but I would still hopefully be in a position of not passing final judgement until there are actual motions on the individual recommendations.
Mr. Chairman, I spoke briefly for the need to know some of the principles of democracy which are the principles for the quality and respect for individuals, referred to in Mr. Green's book as mutual respect and I am sure in any political science class you will find around the country. An interesting point that again in this area is the defence to the majority which is the principle of mutual respect that suggests everyone in a particular community or group should have equal opportunity to participate in decision making. In this case, Mr. Chairman, that is to achieve fairness and justice.
Mr. Chairman, a couple of points on public perception and public opinion. I would have to agree with many Members here that there has been a great deal of discussion in the media and public here, as I go around town in Yellowknife. Their concern about leaders and leadership and the perception or the fact they see less and less or feel less and less confident in the government as this whole process roles along. I can see that is there. I have seen the news reports, the editorials and I see what they say. What I would also consider personally, as an individual here with the full right to vote and express an opinion here today, what I would have to consider also is the public perception and opinion in my own constituency which is overridden to a certain degree by what happens here in the capital and in the larger centres. I have to keep that in mind.
On Thursday, whatever date it was when Mr. Morin stepped down, this pretty much came as a shock to my constituency. In particular my home community of Kimmirut which used to be Lake Harbour. It is a small community of 450 people. They have been watching the news, listening to CBC radio and the Inuktitut's version of CBC Northbeat. A better version. There was news on that TV show that Mr. Morin had stepped down and I had taken over, at least for a day, as Acting Premier. This came as a shock to the community. What happened in that community was the news flew all around town and everybody or at least many people went to the church and gathered in the church. This was just such a big shocking event, they went there to pray for me. I did not know about this until somebody called me later that evening to say that event had occurred. MLAs here talk about all the faxes and phone calls they have received. I have to tell you that is the only phone call I have received, specifically on this issue. I have since talked to more constituents in all of the communities I represent, but I have solicited them myself. I wanted to make that point.
Mr. Chairman, on the specific issue of the report and of the recommendations. I have looked at the transcripts, some of it. Some of the ones that have been highlighted by others and I have looked at the entire report. I did watch some of the proceedings as they occurred on the local cable channel. I would have to say the report and evidence showed Mr. Morin made some errors and mistakes and how his office conducted its business, also how Mr. Morin behaved in the way he conducted his business. When we get to the particulars for the individual areas on the house deal, the trip to Plummer's Lodge and the Fort Resolution office complex, I will make my comments. I think, Mr. Chairman, it is only fair or proper that I limit what I have to say in those areas because I was, in fact, a witness in these proceedings. At least two of the MLAs, Mrs. Groenewegen and Mr. Ootes, have strongly questioned or criticised my integrity and questioned my honesty, and I do not think it is proper for me to be here to defend myself. I do not think this is the place. The MLAs in the past three years have come to know me, pretty much inside and out and have come to understand that as Mrs. Groenewegen said that I am a hard -working individual. Most of you will concede that in most cases, I am brutally honest and will be a judgement for you to make later after the report is concluded because it is not in the report.
Finally, Mr. Chairman, I have tried to balance out as much as possible, my feelings on the matter in talking about the importance of this legislation. The importance of making sure the government and its Ministers and MLAs are held accountable to the highest standards that are possible.
I have seen in the last year, a fair amount of backstabbing, hypocrisy and things like that. That is not an issue for now. We can leave that for later, but I believe as I said earlier, that is not the issue we are discussing right now.
The question right now is passing judgement on our former Premier, Mr. Morin. I would say that whatever the Legislature and you as MLAs decide to do with the conclusions, I will live by them and will live by them to the fullest extent possible. So with that, Mr. Chairman, I would conclude my remarks but also say that I would reserve time during the ten minutes per Member later on when we discuss the particular details. So with that, I thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.