Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, I seek consent to proceed with second reading of Bill 29, Northwest Territories Power Corporation Division Measures Act.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker, colleagues. Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the honourable Member for Baffin South, that Bill 29, Northwest Territories Power Corporation Division Measures Act, be read for the second time. Mr. Speaker, this bill amends the Northwest Territories Power Corporation Act to enable the Northwest Territories Power Corporation to carry on its business in Nunavut. The Public Service Act is consequentially amended to clarify that employees of the Northwest Territories Power Corporation who work outside the territories are members of the public service. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to call the committee to order. As agreed to last Friday, we will continue with Tabled Document 37-13(6) Report of the Conflict of Interest Commissioner. Is that agreed by the committee?

Thank you. For your information, the Chair on Friday read out the motion governing these proceedings in the House. We have limited ourselves to 45 minutes each, except for Mr. Morin who had 90 minutes. For your information I will read out those that have spoken to this particular item. Mr. Dent, Mr. Picco, Mr. Miltenberger, Mr. Rabesca, Mr. Krutko and Mr. Henry. These people have spoken towards this item on Friday. Therefore, I recognize any other Members who wish to speak at this time starting with Mrs. Groenewegen.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to take this opportunity in the Legislative Assembly of the Government of the Northwest Territories to address the people of the north about the state of their government. This past year has been a trying time for all concerned and it is now time to assess what we might have learned from this process. I stood in this House almost a year ago and stated that I was embarking on a mission of truth and transparency. I did so after careful reflection and being fully convinced that regardless of the personal or political risks and attacks, that this was something that had to be done. Although there have admittedly been many trying times, I have never wavered or doubted for a moment that this was the right thing to do. It started off as research into matters of concerns raised to me. It developed into questions on the floor of this House. Questions which I not only had the right, but the obligation to ask and questions to which northerners had the right to have answers. My questions were met with resistance, arrogance and ultimately a personal challenge from our former Premier to lay a conflict of interest complaint against him.

With the human and financial resources of one ordinary Member stacked against the unlimited and substantial resources of the entire government, it appeared at times that justice could not be served. I watched as Cabinet Ministers closed ranks against me, as the Management and Services Board ignored the recommendations of the Conflict Commissioner and then a Supreme Court Judge and some of my colleagues engaged in tactics to discredit me. However, I was inspired and spurred on by the people who despaired over the obvious lack of integrity in the dealings of this government. I was driven by the belief that it was far better to try and fail than it would be to fail to try.

This inquiry and this report by no means addresses all of the shortcomings of the operations of this government. This is merely a glimpse or snapshot of what has been described as the political culture of the Northwest Territories. This is not over so to speak, because the task of ensuring accountable and transparent government is an ongoing process.

Over the past several years, or maybe even longer, I suggested that many injustices have been dealt to individuals and businesses by the abuse of power in political office. I have now been told of so many irregularities and unresolved injustices that I am coming to the conclusion that we need a full time advocate or ombudsman to act on behalf of constituents as a watchdog on government operations and politicians. Other Members have made reference to the need for an outside, independent person to sit on a committee to review policy and procedure because an assessment undertaken by internal personnel would not provide the necessary assurances to our constituents. This in itself is a sad commentary on our government. What we really need is honest people in positions of leadership setting high standards and providing exemplary leadership to the public service.

We have a unique situation here in the north: a small population, a disproportionate component of young, more vulnerable and fairly dependant people that we are expected to serve honourably. Because of the pressing needs, and everyone knows the statistics and challenges which face us in the north, it particularly behooves our government leaders to care more for the people collectively than the time they spend serving their own and their friends' goals and agendas.

Mr. Morin has said that the report of the commissioner does not reflect the reality of the north due to the fact that this is a small community and everyone knows everyone. I suggest that is all the more reason why leaders need to be particularly astute in the areas of fairness and impartiality. We should also be keenly aware that our actions do not go without notice.

Dealing specifically with the findings of the report, I believe that the assessment of the issues is fair, balanced and comprehensive. We will debate the findings of the report in more depth as we consider a motion on each violation of the act. I would, however, like to speak to a number of the questions raised by Mr. Morin in his 90 minute defence speech. First, let us look at what we did not hear from Mr. Morin. First, we did not hear anything new. He says he did not have the opportunity to defend himself over the past ten months, but, we know he had a team of lawyers at government expense, he had almost two days of testimony on the stand at the inquiry, he had full-time political advisors, a press secretary and the same opportunity as anyone else, if not more, to issue statements, positions and clarifications.

Another thing we did not hear was any evidence of any acknowledgement that Mr. Morin understands the concept of conflict of interest and the perception of conflict. He said he is not new to conflict of interest, so would he knowingly get into conflict again? According to Mr. Morin, all the violations were unintentional and inadvertent; errors in judgment made in good faith. However, the Conflict of Interest Commissioner found that the violations were advertent and intentional. Maybe this could have been believable if this had been a first offence or an only offence, but this is a style, an attitude, an obvious and clear disregard for the test of closest public scrutiny. We did not hear any remorse, any apology and anything like, I acknowledge my actions and am willing to take responsibility for them.

No, indeed, everyone else is to blame. The Conflict Commissioner is biased. The law clerk gave him assurances that were inaccurate. Commission counsel did not follow proper procedure. They were allowed to interview witnesses under oath, but his counsel was not. The timing of transcripts reaching the internet was unfair. He did not want to sell his land, but he sold it anyway. Commission counsel refused to bring forward evidence that could have exonerated him.

Document 246 is one which I still have difficulty with. Mr. Morin has recounted for us what happened surrounding the Cabinet meeting of May 16, 1996. I quote, from unedited Hansard from Friday, so I walked in and stayed out of the meeting. This is where I get really confused, It is very clear in our conflict legislation that if you are not in a meeting you do not have to declare an interest. But, I did declare my interest in the Cabinet... how could I even be in a meeting to declare a conflict if I was not there, end quote. The letter signed by the four Cabinet Ministers said, Premier Don Morin declared a conflict of interest and left the meeting room, taking no part in the decision of the discussion.

As for the other Cabinet Ministers who are implicated by this report, this was a very important document at a very important juncture of the Commissioner's deliberations. I would like to challenge each of the other Ministers to tell us what you believed to be the purpose of the letter that you signed. If you knew that it would form part of the submission to the Commissioner being prepared by Mr. Morin's counsel, you must have surely recognized the significance of it being completely accurate. I was at the 81(2) hearing when the Commissioner reported her findings on which matters she would take to the public inquiry. I am quite certain that Mr. Morin's counsel had provided him with convincing assurances that these matters would not make it to a public inquiry. It would follow that no public inquiry would mean no subpoena of the Cabinet minutes. The Cabinet minutes would normally reflect if a Minister had declared a conflict and left the meeting, but there is no such record in these minutes.

I appreciate Mr. Dent's recognition in his statement last Friday, if putting himself in my shoes he could understand how this appeared to be a conspiracy on the part of Cabinet. That is exactly what I thought when I saw this undated document in the submission by Mr. Morin's counsel.

I think the other three Ministers who signed this document also owe an explanation to the people of the Northwest Territories for showing such disregard for accuracy in a document which would be so crucial to the initial findings of the commissioner. If they cannot muster an explanation or an apology, I think they should be called upon to resign from their positions. We are at a place right now where we have a unique opportunity to demonstrate to our constituents we are serious about cleaning up the practices of this government. It is an important time because we are on the verge of elections and two new governments, east and west. Changing the Premier and leaving the other key players in place with the same old attitude and modus operandi is not enough. As Ministers of the Crown, they have a serious responsibility individually. They cannot hide behind the findings that it was the Premier who was in conflict because their denials of involvement or wrongdoing cannot be reconciled to the findings of this report.

When questioned in the press conference after Mr. Morin's resignation, a reporter with the National Post suggested to Mr. Arlooktoo that this was just the tip of the iceberg, based on an interview he had with me earlier in the day. Mr. Arlooktoo's response was, that's a crock. Well I would like to say no, it is not a crock. I personally am kind of tired of conflict proceedings but if Mr. Arlooktoo's response is indicative of what other Cabinet Ministers think as well, I have got a long list of dealings with this government that could be looked into. The matters investigated in this inquiry did not happen in a vacuum. There are dynasties and groups of long established relationships which appear to the public to influence the decisions of this government. If this report means anything, these agendas must be examined. I am all for business and all for northern business. I am a business person myself and I believe I capably represented the Northwest Territories and Hay River Chamber of Commerce for many years but the benefits and support of business awarded by this government must be done so openly, transparently and fairly.

The Commissioner had words of advice for how Mr. Morin could have better used his efforts. The report says, the record of 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. I believe that each of the Cabinet Ministers could have shown more respect for this process by keeping their attention on their own actions as well. Mr. Arlooktoo's repeated mutterings and denigrating remarks towards me in this House and in the media is another example of someone who should focus on his own conduct.

Mr. Arlooktoo suggested last week that I was out for blood. No, Mr. Chairman, I am just out for accountability. The actions and comments of Mr. Arlooktoo since this report was released have made it very clear that he may not get the picture either. When he first came to this House I saw him as a sincere, hardworking representative of the people. Today I see a different person returning after the 13th Assembly, returning to his communities. Fortunately, it is never too late to learn from experience, so I hope he will reflect on why he might have changed.

Further, Mr. Chairman, Mr. Morin seeks to convince us that he has not contravened the provisions of part III of the legislation. He asks us to substitute our judgement for the judgement of the Conflict of Interest Commissioner. He asks us to do this on the basis of his assertion that he has not engaged in conduct that contravenes the Act. He asks you to do this on the basis of the same information and arguments that he presented to the Conflict of Interest Commissioner. He asks us to do this without having had the benefit of hearing the evidence of the other 41 witnesses whose testimony was heard by the Commissioner. Look at the report. Ask yourself with respect to each of Mr. Morin's points, was this a point considered and dealt with within the Report? Who is in a better position to determine the facts, the Conflict Commissioner or this Assembly? Why should this Assembly, as Mr. Morin is asking us to do, substitute our judgement for that of the Conflict of Interest's Commissioner's? Indeed, the legislation does not permit the Assembly to do so. Section 83(b) only allows the Assembly to accept or reject recommendations as to penalty, not to the findings of contravention.

The conflict of interest legislation was brought into being to provide assurances that decisions would not be made by people in conflict. That decisions would be made with the public interest and not a Member's interest in mind and to avoid breaches of privilege, to avoid the appearance of lack of impartiality. If we as legislators were to investigate ourselves, what assurances would that instill as to integrity and public confidence?

On the subject of bias, we have to ask ourselves if the commissioner favoured one side at the expense of the other. There are not present here any circumstances from which it can be perceived by a reasonable person that the Conflict of Interest Commissioner unfairly favoured one side over the other.

On the contrary, the Conflict of Interest Commissioner was at pains to be fair to Mr. Morin. Indeed, she accepted the submissions of Mr. Morin's counsel that my role and the role of my counsel was largely subsumed by that of commission counsel after the 81(2) threshold had been met. The Conflict of Interest Commissioner denied my counsel's application to cross-examine Mr. Morin. The Commissioner granted her counsel and my counsel combined only half as much time to present closing arguments as she did that of the combined time allotted to Mr. Morin's, Mr. Bailey's and Mr. Mrdjenovich's counsel. Although I was determined to be a party with a direct interest in this inquiry, I was denied full participant standing and my counsel was denied the opportunity to cross-examine witnesses. It cannot be fairly said that the Conflict of Interest Commissioner was partisan by words or deeds. Mr. Morin's position is fanciful.

The Conflict of Interest Commissioner brought to the proceedings a fair and unprejudiced mind. Commission counsel was unable to pursue aggressive questioning of witnesses. Bias is a lack of neutrality on the issue to be decided influenced by improper considerations or prejudgment. Unbiased does not mean uninformed. The process should not be allowed to be paralysed every time someone makes an allegation of bias. Allegations of bias should have been pursued at the outset of the process, not at its conclusion. If Mr. Morin believed there was merit in his contention of bias, he had an obligation to purse it with due diligence, not complain after the fact when the decision went against him. We have to ask ourselves if we know of any facts to support the claim of bias. Bias by conduct or bias by relationship. The expression of strong views and conclusions does not support a finding of bias. As for her choice of language, maybe it is the language that we could understand. The Conflict of Interest Commissioner is an officer of this Assembly, conducting an investigation for the Assembly.

I have listened as Members, such as Mr. Miltenberger, spoke of moving on with the business of government. I submit to you, Mr. Chairman, that this is a cop-out by people who do not have the fortitude to confront the issues. We have an opportunity here, as a result of this inquiry, to send a clear message to our constituents as to our position on matters of trust, integrity and public confidence. The more subtle, but actual, message from comments such as, let us move on quickly, is we should not be wasting our time on this and we have more important things to do. Well, Mr. Chairman, I would challenge the Members to tell me, just name one, because the issue of leadership in our government is germane to everything else that happens. It is germane to fairness in hiring, fairness in contracting, fair accessibility of our constituents to opportunity. It is germane to good public policy and meeting the needs of all our constituents, not just a handful who those Ministers stand to defend as having the right to earn a living in the Northwest Territories.

I could have softened my remarks today, but I believe in what I have pursued in this past year and I know most northerners believe in it as well. It is the most fundamental principle of functional democracy, accountable government. One of the saddest findings and comments in the report is, he brought down his own reputation and the reputation of his office. He brought down our reputation in the Northwest Territories. It will take years of work to regain what he has taken away from each one of us.

I believe Mr. Morin's resignation has gone some distance towards regaining what has been taken away from us. As we elect a new Premier this week, I believe that electing a Premier who will set a high standard and deal ethically and quickly with matters of the conduct of Cabinet Ministers will also go a great distance toward regaining what has been taken away from us. I think we should consider these words in the report, when you are the Premier everyone is watching you. It is a position of high honour and high profile and you are setting the standards for others.

As most of you are aware, I have already declared, if Mr. Kakfwi put his name forward for Premier of this government, I was convinced he is someone that could bring the integrity and leadership to that position that this government needs, to get back on a stable footing.

Everyone is watching us now. To the Members of this House, do not be distracted by your colleagues here in the House when you consider your vote on matters of the report. Think about your constituents, think about the needs of your communities, think about standing up and being counted for doing what is right. If you are not sure what to do, make a few phone calls to the leaders of your communities, to your constituents, and ask them what they think. Do not let Cabinet Ministers who have their actions and political reputations put on the line by this report, bully you into their agendas. Stand up for the good of your constituents. Their constituents will deal with them, but unfortunately so will yours if you compromise and cave in to political pressures that you are experiencing here. We must understand and adopt this report and then deal with the specific issues in it.

At the Meet the North conference in Edmonton last weekend, one of the session titles was, The Changing Political Landscape. My hope after all of this is that there will be a changed political landscape. I hope the findings of this report will prompt an early election in the west. I hope it will prompt people to seek office in the next election, east and west, who will live up to the title of honourable Members.

I hope this whole process will give people the courage, without fear of reprisal, to demand more accountability and openness from elected leaders in our communities, in our territories and provinces and even in our country. The findings of this report, as I said, are only the tip of the iceberg. The tip of a recently escalated neglect of the responsibility of elected officials to conduct themselves with the standards that will bear the closest public scrutiny and pass the test as meeting the highest standard of honesty and integrity. A good definition of justice is, determining what belongs to someone and ensuring they get it. The Government of the Northwest Territories. Let us give the government back to the people by doing everything necessary to restore the confidence in the integrity of our government. The people of the north are unique and precious. We have many challenges and needs, but we also have many strengths and virtues. Let us be humble enough to learn from our mistakes, benevolent enough to forgive those who may have wronged us and courageous enough to stand up for what we believe in.

Mr. Morin has asked us for fairness. he has asked us to consider if he is a dishonest man, if he is a devious man, if we think he would have intentionally entered into conflict of interest. I suggest that these are not the questions before us. The question before us has more to do with accountability and the real life fact that we are each responsible for the consequences of our actions. I ask you to consider the tone and demeanour of Mr. Morin throughout these proceedings. I do not consider myself a vindictive person and I still hold no personal ill will towards Mr. Morin, but we must weigh his individual plea for fairness with the collective fairness to the people of the Northwest Territories. I believe that the people of the Northwest Territories deserve the best leadership that we can offer. Commissioner Crawford says in her report, and I quote, I am fully aware that resignation or removal from a post as Minister would be the inevitable result of the Assembly accepting the findings that I have made in every other jurisdiction in Canada.

Do the people of the north deserve any less from their leadership than any other jurisdiction in Canada? I say they deserve the best. There are no perfect leaders, but I believe there are honest and moral leaders who we could be proud to have represent us. Therefore, I encourage Members to carefully consider the motions that will be presented in this House. I will not speak on the recommendation regarding costs. I clearly have an interest and will declare a conflict on that matter but I ask, I indeed urge, all of you to adopt the other findings of this very important report. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

--Applause