Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I believe by stepping down as Premier, Mr. Morin did the right thing. It was in everyone's interest. The Premier is there to advance the public's interest and ensure that he maintains the public's confidence. All elected officials holding public office have a duty to continually reinforce the public interest and trust. When they lose that trust they should step down. The moment there is a public inquiry involving a Minister or Premier, he or she should step down.
When the Conflict Commissioner decided to proceed with the conflict inquiry, I gave the Premier the perfect opportunity to do the right thing. I moved a motion in this Assembly earlier this year that he step down from this position. That motion was seconded by Mr. Krutko and supported by Mr. O'Brien, but the motion was defeated. Many Members voted against the motion or sheltered their vote by abstaining. How irresponsible it is to shelter your vote. In my opinion, had Mr. Morin voluntarily stepped aside at that time, it would have gone a long way, in my mind, to respect the credibility of the office and to reinforce public trust. That did not happen.
The task of dealing with the conflict report is not a savoury one, believe me. My constituents have let me know that they want me to take a stand on this matter. I was elected to deal with these matters no matter how tough they may be. We either find in favour of the recommendations or not in favour and proceed accordingly. If we find in favour of the recommendations, then we have to deal with the matter of reprimands. My constituents demand that I do that.
First, let me state that I have read the report cover to cover. I have studied its contents and conclusions, so let there be no doubt in anyone's mind that I do not know what is in the report, because I do. On Friday, I listened to Mr. Morin and on the weekend I had the opportunity to review Mr. Morin's statements again in the unedited Hansard. The following are my conclusions and comments.
On Friday afternoon Mr. Morin pleaded for understanding. It was eloquent, it was well presented, it was a very skilled presentation. A superb display to tug at the hearts of Members. Members saw a skilled politician in action. The objective, of course, was to reach for our hearts. Mr. Morin forgot one thing and that was to reach for our minds. I heard him plead for us to understand his side of the story. I compared the facts presented in the report and Mr. Morin's facts provided on Friday. Mr. Morin's presentation was very emotional, but for me what presented on Friday does not stand up.
Mr. Morin has all along blamed others for his predicament. Mr. Morin should look at himself, not others to put the blame on. He blames the Conflict Commissioner for a flawed process. Mr. Morin chose a path of confrontation and counterattack. He challenged Mrs. Groenewegen in the Assembly with the following words; or anyone else who may believe there is wrongdoing to file a complaint against me with the Conflict Commissioner, that is if they have the guts and political backbone. That was the tone in which he presented it, too, Mr. Chairman.
His disdain for Mrs. Groenewegen was amply demonstrated during the inquiry by referring to her as Groenewegen. Ms. Crawford writes, the record in these proceedings shows that from start to finish, Mr. Morin has tried to use this inquiry as a means to attack Mrs. Groenewegen, the complainant. He has not focused on his own office and conduct.
He blames the press for its coverage of the hearing. Let me quote from the conclusions of the Conflict Commissioner's report; he could have asked for advice on the fishing trip or Lahm Ridge Tower, his relationship with Roland Bailey, or how to make a declaration at a Cabinet meeting and how it should be reported. If Mr. Morin had taken these steps, there would have been little need for the time and expense and the drain on northern resources which this hearing represents.
In addition to the recommendations in the report, there are several other areas of concern. One is the letter signed by the four Ministers, the unresolved issue of the Lahm Ridge Tower and the issue of the establishment of a committee of public servants to review the report.
During our time here in the Assembly, we have repeatedly heard from the government the words transparency, open government and accountability. I am sorry to say that they have been just words. The supporting actions have not been there and so the words have become totally meaningless. Let me give you an example of what happened just a month ago in the Legislative Assembly. During question period on November 9th I asked Minister Ng to confirm what the employees of Vital Statistics had told me, that the office would close in Yellowknife and move to Inuvik. Mr. Ng's reply in the unedited Hansard says, I am not aware of that at this time, I am not sure of what the Member is speaking of. November 26th letter to me from Minister Ng, 17 days later, says, the Vital Statistics office, currently located in Yellowknife, will close March 19th and move to Inuvik and Rankin. I knew, the public knew, the staff knew that the Minister stated he did not know. My comments and questions were correct. Now, it may have been inadvertent that the Minister did not know, but if the Minister knew the answers at that time I was mislead, as were other Members of the public and Members of this House. In my opinion, former Premier Morin tolerated that kind of action from his Ministers without ensuring accuracy and respect for us.
You want me to trust you as Cabinet Ministers, demonstrate that I can. Smoke and mirrors, spin doctors. The hallmark of democracy is government accountability. Government must promote and maintain public trust and confidence in the integrity and partiality and objectivity of the Assembly and the process of government. Public trust, confidence and integrity in the executive branch of this government must be there. Those in the public that I have talked to do not believe it is there anymore.
On the matter of questions. Is asking too many questions in this House considered out of line? Is challenging Ministers of the government on their decisions on the awarding of contracts a waste of time? Last year, I moved a motion to clarify the RFP process. Has anything happened on that? No. Should Ordinary Members' efforts to ask respectful questions be responded to by abrasive, incomplete or evasive answers? Frequently this has been the case.
Who was responsible to set that tone? Mr. Morin. Mr. Morin was the leader. He had the responsibility to lead and direct his Ministers. If a Minister wants to be confrontational, then he or she sets the tone, not me. When answers to legitimate questions are not forthcoming and it takes a conflict of interest complaint and a public inquiry to get those answers, is that a waste of money? I do not think so. Is it the fault of Mrs. Groenewegen that a conflict of inquiry was conducted? I do not think so. Is it the fault of Mrs. Groenewegen that dollars were spent on a conflict of interest? No, absolutely not. Did she fulfil her responsibilities as an MLA? Beyond question.
The inquiry came about because of Mr. Morin and because of his actions. The Conflict of Interest Commissioner saw eight terms of reference that disclosed adequate grounds for proceeding with an inquiry. Her report concludes with seven recommendations.
The report clearly states that we must accept or reject the recommendations. Under section 1(2) of the act, nothing in this Act affects the inherent power of the Legislative Assembly to control its own proceedings, privileges or prerogatives, unless expressly provided otherwise. In other words, there is no express provision limiting the course of action of the Assembly. It is this Assembly's inherent right to punish its own Members in cases where there is guilt. In my mind, that means punishment as we see appropriate. In my mind, Mr. Morin did not provide enough checks and balances to ensure accountability and fairness when dealing with matters of his own Cabinet's functioning.
The inquiry showed one flaw in the credibility process. That was in the seemingly unlimited resources provided to the Member being investigated, Mr. Morin, while the complainant, Mrs. Groenewegen, received no public resources or support even after a determination and a test of substance had been passed by the Conflict of Interest Commissioner. That alone, is a tremendous deterrent for open, good government. There is no protection or form of assistance provided to the person laying the complaint. The risk alone would be enough to discourage anyone from laying a complaint, not to mention the amount of sheer determination and courage it would take to ward off the barrage of obstructions and attempts to derail the process, all paid for with unlimited access to the public purse. While Jane Groenewegen sat without participant standing and without funded counsel, she knew full well that she could suffer, but she persevered even though the odds were clearly stacked against her. I have the greatest admiration for her.
The only intention Jane Groenewegen ever had was to fulfil her duty as an elected official and respond to the concerns raised publicly. She, like all of us here, has a right to ask questions and the constituents have a right to the answers. After the goings-on that occurred with this inquiry, it will be a miracle if anyone lays a conflict of interest charge again against anyone in this government.
Before the report could be tabled in this House, Mr. Morin sought an injunction to prevent the report from being tabled before us. Mr. Morin left his fellow Members and Cabinet Ministers sitting in this assembly without notification as to what his next attempt to stop the process was. Justice John Vertes dismissed the application.
Justice Vertes stated:
"It is not in the public interest to have a process that was put in place by the Legislature itself, that has now been carried on for several months, to be all of a sudden side railed by a last minute application. The legislators, as the representatives of the public, have put this process in place, and therefore the process should be allowed to play out."
He continues:
"The law says very simply that the courts have no role to play in reviewing the exercise of the traditional privilege of a Legislature....one of the standard areas of privilege of Parliament is the discipline of its own Members."
Justice Vertes clearly points out that:
"It is now fully within the sphere of the Legislature. The Legislature says that what must be done from now on and any complaints must be taken to the floor of the Legislature and argued out there in the public eye."
He concludes:
"I have no doubt that the matter is solely within the purview of the Legislature, there is no role for this court to play and therefore the application is dismissed.
On the internal committee report. I do not support Acting Premier Goo Arlooktoo's suggestion of an internal committee of deputy ministers to investigate the report. If you agree with the report's findings, you certainly do not want the deputies to report on themselves. Some of the deputies were witnesses in this inquiry, but it goes without saying that their approach may be biased. Such a review should be very independent of government and by individuals who do not have a vested interest in the outcome of the results.
There is a need for whistle-blower legislation, which I have a great deal of research done on already, which I will be glad to provide to this government to pursue.
The Conflict of Interest Commissioner has found Mr. Morin guilty of "wilful and deliberate violations of the act", of providing documents he knew to be "untrue and contain untruths" and of causing the people of the NWT embarrassment and expense.
She then recommends that Mr. Morin be reprimanded for seven violations of the Conflict of Interest Act and that he pay all of the complainant's costs "from start to finish, plus one dollar which is to be paid personally in cash".
Most people would be begging for mercy after such a condemnation. Mr. Morin resigned as Premier so he could focus on quashing the report in the Legislature because he said, the fight is never over till it is over. He insisted on that.
The Conflict of Interest Commissioner stated:
"The Premier is the head of the government and ultimately responsible for everything done by government... Premier Morin contributed to this perception and by doing so he contributes to the erosion of public confidence in the impartiality and integrity of government."
The report sends a very stern message that government must be conducted openly and transparently. If we agree with any or all reprimands then in effect we also agree with the Conflict of Interest Commissioner's findings and conclusions. Therefore, we must also deal with those items arising out of those findings and conclusions. For example, the letter signed by the four Ministers, the issue surrounding employment contracts to former employees, and the Lahm Ridge Tower matter.
Let me deal with the Lahm Ridge Tower matter as an example. The report cites many inconsistencies. We have to question the timing of the Cabinet shuffle for example. The removal of Mr. Arlooktoo from DPW at a time when many questions were being raised about the Lahm Ridge Tower in relation to the Yellowknife Office Space Rationalization Plan. A suspicious mind and a discerning public would say there must be a problem. There was never any substantive reasons given for the shuffle. Of course, the result of the shuffle was that we could no longer ask questions about the Lahm Ridge Tower from Mr. Arlooktoo. We were left with a new Minister.
Mr. Antoine has stated he was dependent on briefing notes from department officials, notes that have proven to be inaccurate in many cases. Because of the controversy of the Lahm Ridge Tower, Mr. Antoine should have ensured that he could answer questions in this House very accurately. He should have done due diligence. He should have assured himself of all facts, that officials were providing accurate information. That did not happen. Instead there were a series of misleading briefing notes.
Let me refer to one example of an inaccurate briefing note. It was in reply to oral questions asked by Mr. Ootes, on February 6, 11 and 12, 1998. Questions asked of Mr. Antoine. The note states, which is clearly not true:
"The 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."
Of course that is incorrect.
What about Mr. Morin in all this. Did the conduct of Premier Morin meet the standard required? Did he act in a manner to maintain public confidence in his and his Minister's integrity and impartiality? In this instances, Ms. Crawford writes:
"Premier Morin's position was compromised by his relationship with Roland Bailey and by his housing arrangement with Mike Mrdjenovich... the use of his office to persistently defend a transaction involving individuals with whom he was already in a conflict situation resulted in a failure to maintain public confidence in his impartiality."
Mr. Morin said last Friday, and I will read from the unedited Hansard:
"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 briefing notes. I read 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 was a good deal for the government."
The Lahm Ridge Tower has never been proven to be a good deal for this government.
To conclude my remarks, Mr. Chairman, I would like to make reference to comments made by a Professor Ian Green of York University. He is a noted authority on conflict of interest legislation. He was interviewed last week on CBC and his comments were of interest. In referring to the report, he said some of the language could have been more diplomatic. He said, "she could have used more neutral language." Ian Green also stated that "I would hope that Mr. Morin would apologize for getting into this inadvertently". I would hope that former Premier Morin would apologize for getting into this inadvertently or advertently, whichever way it was, but on my part, I certainly have not seen that apology or any remorse. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
--Applause