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.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, some of the comments that we have heard in this House since the debate on this issue has started, would beg one to ask the question as to what Assembly some of the Members of this House have been sitting in for the past few years, in reference to their comments regarding the report.

Mr. Chairman, it appears to me that some Members in this Assembly are in denial regarding this report and are busy with their little brooms, trying to sweep the conclusions of it under the rug. Mr. Chairman, this is not acceptable and it is not in the public interest. Mr. Chairman, it should be noted that many long and hard hours have gone into this document, as a result of the 17,000 pages of testimony and evidence and the appearance of some 50 subpoenaed witnesses. Mr. Chairman, before I comment further, I want to qualify my preceding comments by saying that, although I have had disagreements and differences of opinion in this House with Mr. Morin, I have blocked these discussions and disagreements out of my mind and I assure you that my comments are made in an objective, fair, honest and impartial manner.

Mr. Chairman, when the decision was made by the Conflict of Interest Commissioner to move forward with the public hearings on these complaints made by the Member from Hay River, Jane Groenewegen, I made a decision to stand up in this House with Mr. Krutko and Mr. Ootes to support a motion that would have the Premier take a leave of his duties as Premier while this investigation was being conducted. My reasons for this, to me, Mr. Chairman, were obvious. I thought it would be unfair for Members of the Premier's staff, whether they be directly or indirectly related or working with the Premier's office, I thought it would be unfair that they would be put under this pressure in the event that they may have to testify regarding this issue and in reference to the Premier. After all, Mr. Chairman, the Premier is their boss.

I feel very strongly that the former Premier, Mr. Morin, did not act alone and for this reason I feel that he should not be ladened with the consequences of this report solely. If, as it appears, Ministers, senior bureaucrats and deputy ministers played a role in misleading or misrepresenting the truth in this inquiry, then it stands to reason that Mr. Morin should not bear the consequences of his actions alone.

Mr. Chairman, another issue that stands out in my mind is that of the public. Is the fact that some Members of this Legislature have in a direct or indirect manner refused to accept this report in its entirety. Some have inferred that the report was unfair and biased. Mr. Chairman, when I look at this report, and I spent a fair bit of time reviewing it, I made a decision to remove Mr. Morin's name from the report and Ms. Crawford's. I replaced them with Mr. X and Mrs. Y. Mr. Chairman, when you do this, you can see very quickly that the report and its conclusive testimony and recommendations would be reasonable for any average person to accept. It would be very difficult, Mr. Chairman, for the average person to not agree with this report. This report was further complicated by the conflicting statements that were made, in many cases, and Mr. Chairman, the very poor selective memory of certain witnesses and certain government officials, in reference to their testimony.

Mr. Chairman, on the weekend I had the opportunity to speak with a former Minister of this Assembly. This individual commented to me and stated that as far as he was concerned some Members of this House, some Members of Cabinet, are not in touch with reality, they are not in touch with the public and their concerns and that they will be demanding that corrective measures be taken in reference to the conclusions of this report.

Mr. Chairman, the corrective measures that they speak of will be decided later on in this Chamber. The comment was also made by this former Minister that we must ensure that this sort of behaviour does not resurface again in the new Nunavut government or the western government.

Mr. Chairman, the Premier has gone on record in this Assembly to state that he did not have the opportunity to defend himself regarding the allegations. I find that statement difficult to comprehend, given the fact that he testified at a public hearing regarding the various complaints made against him. He had plenty of opportunity to defend himself, with the help of a number of lawyers that were paid for by this government.

Mr. Chairman, I will now move forward on some specific details in conflicting statements that are found in this report. Mr. Chairman, it was stated in this Assembly by the Minister responsible for the FMBS that Mr. Bailey did not violate the post-employment policy, that Mr. Bailey had no knowledge that would relate to any contracts that he was bidding on. This, Mr. Chairman, is extremely difficult to believe as Mr. Bailey was the highest ranking deputy minister in this government and sat in on numerous meetings that would involve contract discussions, sole contracts and numerous other issues.

Mr. Chairman, this comment was made in this House as late as last week, that Mr. Bailey did not violate this government's post-employment policy. Mr. Chairman, in the records, in the testimony given by Mr. Bailey, he, himself, indicated that he was privy to inside information that related to various contracts. One in particular, Mr. Chairman, is the information for the contract that relates to Mr. Bailey obtaining a petroleum consulting contract that he, himself, states that he was privy to inside information and discussions prior to receiving this contract. Still, there are Members in this House, honourable Members that state that Mr. Bailey did not violate the post-employment policy.

I ask you, how can this be? Does Mr. Bailey have a twin? Mr. Bailey would also have been aware of the office space plan that was being studied prior to being awarded an $8 million long-term lease by this government that nobody else could even get close to. Is this a coincidence? I think not. This lease arrangement blatantly ignored the policy of this government, a policy that was put on hold, that would see no long-term leases for any individual or company, until division.

There are many issues, Mr. Chairman, that have not been totally resolved in this report. The most critical one, I believe, is the land issue regarding the Deninu Ku'e Band. This issue, Mr. Chairman, the band was given a long-term lease by this government. The land in question was supposedly sold to the band by Mr. Morin. The issue was further confused by the fact that Mr. Morin indicated that he removed himself from the meeting after declaring a conflict of interest. The records of that Cabinet meeting, the minutes of the meeting, show no support of this declaration. As a result, the issue on the agenda of that day was passed and that being that a lease would be given to the band on the completion or the construction of this office complex that they were contemplating. Once again, Mr. Chairman, the issue was further confused and complicated, if I read this right in the Commissioner's report, that states that the reference to the land that was being sold was not referenced to Mr. Morin, but was being referenced to the land that was owned by the Northern Store Company. One has to look at this and say, what action did the Cabinet vote on? Was the land owned by Mr. Morin or was the land owned by the Northern Store? The inference is there that land that was identified in the documents during that Cabinet meeting was land that was owned by the Northern Store Company.

Mr. Chairman, that in itself, to me, would be very misleading to the Members of Cabinet that voted on this motion. I guess more damage would be the fact that how did this information get to Cabinet? Who prepared this document? Why is it so duplistic? Mr. Chairman, there are many questions unanswered here and I believe what really has to be done is the review of this inquiry should be widened to incorporate any individual, whether from this House or from this government, that in some way inferred or passed on information that was inaccurate, false, and misleading. This, Mr. Chairman, is unacceptable.

Mr. Chairman, even as I speak here today there are honourable Members across the floor who find my comments or statements unimportant or funny. I assure you, Mr. Chairman, that is not my intent. My statements and my comments are very serious and they were brought forward by the general public and the people of my riding.

Mr. Chairman, I am going to forgo the rest of my prepared text and just briefly speak about what has happened here over the last number of years. Mr. Chairman, there have been many occasions when questions were asked by Members from this side of the House, by myself, Mr. Picco, Mr. Ootes, Mr. Krutko, and these questions were treated with disdain almost to the point of poisonous. Mr. Chairman, my feeling is that, just maybe, if some of these questions and comments were treated in a fair, open and honest manner that we would not be in this mess we are in today with this very embarrassing situation. Still, Mr. Chairman, Members across the floor still act in the same manner. Have we not learned anything about the recommendations, the testimony and conclusions of the Commissioner's report? That concerns me, Mr. Chairman. I am aware that some people from this side of the House may even have been threatened, Mr. Chairman, with reference to how they speak and what they speak of regarding the outcome of this conflict report.

Mr. Chairman, it would make one think that we are living in third world conditions here. I believe, Mr. Chairman, that we have to take the Commissioner's report very seriously and deal with it accordingly. I strongly believe that Mr. Morin should not wear this alone. If anybody, any individual that is connected with this House or this government, if they provided false information they should be dealt with. We are moving toward division, the creation of a new territory, Nunavut, and the Western Territory, and I think we want to ensure the people that this sort of behaviour and these sorts of decisions will not be tolerated in the future. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

--Applause

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, I have a very short presentation to make, but let me go back to a little over nine years ago when I got elected. When I was campaigning through the Natilikmiot area, which consists of Gjoa Haven, Taloyoak, Holman, Spence Bay and Pelly Bay. When I was campaigning, Mr. Chairman, I had the opportunity to visit people in three communities. I talked to parents, I have attended some public functions, I talked to kids in schools, I went to shopping areas to meet people, as we all do when we are campaigning, Mr. Chairman. What struck my attention, Mr. Chairman, was some homes that I visited, the condition that they were in. In some cases where people were chronically depending upon social services there was no furniture in their homes. Some homes were overcrowded. There were elders in homes without proper care. There were kids not able to do homework because of the overcrowding at home. That really struck my attention, but as a new person who was campaigning that I have seen some hope in some of the people that I met. In some cases there was pain, fear, and in some cases there were chronic situations.

Mr. Chairman, as I got elected I began to see how the government worked. It took me a little while, perhaps about five years, I am much slower than most people that I know. I started dealing with other MLAs and Cabinet Members and there were many times that Members were very helpful. I learned from those Members and I appreciate their assistance.

Mr. Chairman, when I learned about the conflict of interest allegations, I did not really believe them at first. I will tell you why. In the eastern Arctic in the Nunavut area, when there is something going on in the government system we are the last to learn. Perhaps because of the communication. Perhaps because I am not up-to-date with my office. Perhaps because people like me are on the land out hunting and so on, sometimes I forget to check my fax or telephone or there are times I do not listen to news in the morning or what have you. Mr. Chairman, I have dealt with every Minister of this government from day one. I have travelled with most of the Ministers in the past. I have socialized with Ministers, in the past, under many circumstances and I have every respect for every one of them.

Mr. Chairman, in some cases I have made requests on behalf of my constituents in the Natilikmiot area, some times on behalf of the Kitikmeot Leaders Forum, the whole Kitikmeot region. I have tried to limit my contact with bureaucracy wherever possible, but deal with the Ministers. Mr. Chairman, I have been directed by Kitikmeot Leaders Forum to make a request or statement, and I have also been directed by the people in Pelly Bay, Gjoa Haven, Taloyoak, when I visit those homes, to say something or talk to a Minister or say something publicly on their behalf. In many cases I have been successful in pursuing what the people of the Kitikmeot region want, especially of the Natilikmiot area. In many cases the requests that I made seem to have been ignored or the processes are long, cumbersome, sometimes tedious, it takes a long time.

You know, Mr. Chairman, I have people in three of my communities talking about daycare centres. People in my communities wanting to have a women's centre. I have one constituent that passed away not too long ago wanting to get a wheelchair. I have people in my communities that wanted to buy equipment so they could do some carvings. I have people in my area that wanted to get some hunting equipment. I have spoken on their behalf. We have, Mr. Chairman, an access road program in the government. In Pelly Bay we have been talking about an access road for many years and it has been under construction for about five years perhaps. When I hear through other MLAs and through the news, either newspapers or media, et cetera, that when someone approached the government and made a request to their business with and they are successful and in a short matter of time, I wondered, has my concern on behalf of the people that are disadvantaged, people who are down below the level scale. Why are we not able to make the government understand? Why are we not able to make progress as we have anticipated, while others that I find may be of less needy are given the speedy process. I question that aspect.

Mr. Chairman, when Premier Morin was asked to step down there was a motion. I did not support that motion because I believe in the notion that a person, any person for that matter, who has alleged to have broken a section of the Criminal Code or other laws, is innocent until proven guilty. Under that assumption, I did not support the initial motion requesting the Premier to step down.

After the report of the Conflict of Interest Commissioner was released, Mr. Morin did the honourable thing to do and he stepped down from the seat of the leader of the Executive Council. I believe, Mr. Chairman, that one should not punish another twice. I believe that when Mr. Morin stepped down that was reprimand enough for him to indicate that he had to step down. When we go through the recommendations like other Members talk about, I will either support or reject what is recommended.

I think this being my second language, Mr. Chairman, I have the opportunity, although to read the context of the report of the Conflict of Interest Commissioner, but I was not able to read it all. I went through it twice, perhaps three times, Mr. Chairman. Like most of my colleagues, people of the NWT, those who are close to Mr. Morin, that believe Mr. Morin, people who are distant somewhat from Mr. Morin, people who have some reservations about the credibility of Mr. Morin and Members of the Cabinet, I wish, Mr. Chairman, that I knew the truth. I wish that I knew what was in the truth, either coming from Mrs. Groenewegen, Mr. Morin, Cabinet Ministers, the lawyers, people that went through the process, bureaucracy that were in attendance during the business deals. I wish to God, Mr. Chairman, that I knew the truth, but I do not. Mr. Chairman, I also wish that we were living in a perfect world scenario. I wish I belonged to that association. Unfortunately, Mr. Chairman, I do not belong to that club. I know so, Mr. Chairman. I know each and every Member of the Legislature plays to a degree on common sense. Everyone should know. Each and every one of the Members of the Legislature and bureaucracy, especially the elected. My colleague here should know that one has to respect the integrity of this government. We have to honour the public expectation.

Mr. Chairman, for the record, I am not a perfect person either, nor do I pretend to be. I have made mistakes in the past and tried to learn by them. I continue to make mistakes up to this day. Like I indicated before, common sense should play a big role even though we know the rules and everything else. Even, Mr. Chairman, if there was no policy, no roles in the Legislature, I am sure the first thing we would follow would be common sense that we were given. The same opportunity to recognize and understand the need to use our common sense. Mr. Gargan, the Speaker, has told me a couple of times when I sit in the Speaker's chair, although this is beside the point, to uphold the integrity of the House. I have learned a lot from the Speaker and I thank him for that.

Mr. Speaker, I consider Mr. Morin a friend. I am sure he considers me as a friend. Mr. Chairman, I consider each and every one of the Cabinet Members a friend, Mr. Ng, Madame Thompson, Mr. Antoine, Mr. Kakfwi, Mr. Dent and Mr. Todd, perhaps I am missing somebody, Mr. Arlooktoo. They are very close friends of mine, as I indicated earlier, because I work with them here in this forum. I work with them in each and every committee room that we have had in the past four years. I socialize with them in the Members' lounge, sometimes I talk to them on the street and so on. I wish, Mr. Chairman, that they would have treated me with favouritism, really. I prayed even to God some nights when people from my area came to me and made a request on their behalf for a project for services, programs, what have you. I wish they had a little more respect. In another term that is, ya, John, you are friend of mine. You are a friend of mine, I will give you the special treatment. I even prayed that, but they never did. On account of friendship did they give me anything special? No, Mr. Chairman, and I thank God for that, really. Perhaps it has happened to somebody else. It never happens to me. I wish it did, Mr. Chairman. I do not know the truth of all of this. I do not pretend to understand the entirety of the Conflict of Interest Commissioner's report. It would probably take me another couple of months to read it all and understand it, even though if I understand it, I am no lawyer. I guess I will never be, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman, will the respect of the public diminish from here on any further? I do not think so. Perhaps it did the last few years, I do not know. You see, Mr. Chairman, people in my area, those are the people that I know, ordinary people living in Pelly Bay, Gjoa Haven and Taloyoak, although they watch television, the proceedings of this House, do not really understand how we operate. They do not have the luxury, Mr. Chairman, to come here to this House, sit up there and watch the proceeding in person. Why? They do not have the luxury of buying a return ticket of over $1,500. Mr. Chairman, they do not have the luxury of spending money for the hotel in this capital city of NWT. What they want is what they request, basic things, Mr. Chairman. When we hear, I am sure that perhaps that some people of the public may or may not have been given special treatment. I am sure it is going to hurt a bit because the people that I represent, again I repeat myself, want something like community daycare centre, women's groups that we all represent want an office space so they could have their little get-togethers, perhaps a volunteer person working in that office space. Mr. Chairman, you noticed that I used volunteer, why?

In many cases we do not have the funds, money to carry on with a business by paying a person a salary. I find that people living in a city are so lucky. Many people tell me that at home. To be able to just walk across the street and talk to people that he wanted to talk to in the bureaucracy, sometimes to the Cabinet Ministers, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman, I hope I am not swaying away from the debate of the Conflict of Interest Commissioner's report. I do not think so. I am merely trying to explain that what some individuals seem to have been given, those individuals are not able to afford many things, seem to be given special attention or financial treatment, so on, it hurt me too as people at home that need the basic things in life seem to be forgotten. It hurts. Either the Cabinet Members, Premier Morin acted knowingly, intentionally, being used by some Members, or inadvertently, I do not know that, Mr. Chairman. Again, I repeat myself. I wish to God that I knew what is going on really. I do not know, Mr. Chairman.

The world in the NWT is much bigger than Lahm Ridge Tower. Mr. Chairman, we have people in the eastern Arctic that talk about the the high cost of living. I talk about high cost of living. Manitok Thompson as an Ordinary Member talks about the high cost of living. Sometimes she comes to me, even though as a Minister, talking about the high cost of living. I have heard people like Mr. Evaloarjuk talking about high costs of living in Igloolik. I am sure each and every one of you remember when he was talking about milk and other commodities that we sometimes take for granted living in a city like this.

You know, Mr. Chairman, there are times when I wake up in the morning and my time after a good night's sleep, Sunday morning especially, and I feel really lucky that I am able to buy groceries at a reasonable price here in Yellowknife. My wife and son and grandchildren in Pelly Bay sometimes have to buy something that costs much more than what we buy here in Yellowknife. Sometimes I feel guilty, Mr. Chairman, of having to have a fish store across from my apartment and sea food. Sometimes a glass of wine, Mr. Chairman. I know that my wife and children are not able to have that luxury at home.

The point I am getting at, Mr. Chairman, is sometimes we forget, we get overconfident. Sometimes, Mr. Chairman, we get careless, sometimes we forget the reality. Sometimes, Mr. Chairman, we forget who put us in here, the public. Sometimes when we are dealing with the people that are close to us, we become very nearsighted, Mr. Chairman. We do things sometimes without even thinking about it. I am forgetful too. Sometimes I forget. Sometimes I have to remind myself where I am, who I am. There are times when I stand up in this forum, Mr. Chairman, without a written statement and I say things I do not mean to say. Sometimes when I ask questions of the Ministers, many of you know me, that I will direct my question to a wrong Minister. I have done that a few times here in this House because nobody is perfect. The public should know that. It does not matter who the public is. It will be a judge, a lawyer, a Minister, a priest, a Premier, Mr. Ningark, whoever. We are not perfect, but we should know that we are now the representatives of the public in a big way, big time. What we do here, in our offices, is be scrutinized by the public.

I used to think once I left Pelly Bay, a small community of about 500 people, whatever I do, nobody is going to notice. Nobody is going to care. I can do as much as I want, privately that is and to a degree, Mr. Chairman, publicly. I learned pretty fast when I found out the first year I was an MLA that what I did here in Yellowknife, somebody knew back home what it was. I never even talked to my wife or sons or anyone, for that matter, or to my campaign manager. I was not being unfaithful, Mr. Chairman. Let me correct that. I did something in public in a way, but not here. I said something. It is a small world, is not it? Every one of us should treat it as such. It is a small world. The higher you get, the smaller it gets. We should know that by now.

Mr. Chairman, my respect of the government, the indicator of the government, Cabinet, Members, Executive Council, whatever term you want to use, has not diminished since the day the report of the Conflict of Interest Commissioner was tabled. No, Mr. Chairman. Why not, Mr. Chairman? Well, I had made a few mistakes in my lifetime. I have prayed to God and I am not overly religious. I am not a saint. When I make mistakes and I prayed, every time I prayed I seem to have been forgiven. When I ran again for the seat of the Legislative Assembly, some people complained about me back home that I was not representing their interests. That I was not voicing their concern, Mr. Chairman. That I did not visit their community as often as I should; that I failed to attend public meetings and public functions. I tried to explain myself. Although without the proof that my excuse was good enough, I was forgiven many times.

I believe, Mr. Chairman, that Mr. Morin has paid the price by stepping down from the office of the Premier. Either he did what he did, as indicated in the report, were intentional inadvertence, all with the knowledge that what he was doing was against the rules and procedures of the Cabinet, or without knowing that. He has indicated in many instances when he spoke initially that he had no, at any time, he had no intention of going against the rules, policies of the Executive Council. Is it up to me to try and impress upon the other Members to reject the report of the Conflict of Interest Commissioner or accept it in its entirety, when it is not up to me? I am not here to impress upon anyone to vote either. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, first of all I think I have to speak about Document 246, the letter signed by the four Ministers. I am one of the four that has not been able to speak to that point yet. Nor have I been asked to speak to that point. For the record I also want to reiterate what my colleagues have said, that I did not knowingly sign an untrue document when I signed that letter. I signed it based on my knowledge that Mr. Morin was not in attendance at the Cabinet meeting, in which that decision on the proposed office complex in Fort Resolution was discussed and a decision was made. I signed it on the basis of knowing that Mr. Morin had also at some point expressed he was in a conflict of interest on that matter. In signing that letter, there was no attempt to mislead or misconstrue any of the facts as I saw them. I just wanted to get that on the record. If there was any misunderstanding, caused as a result of my signing of that letter, then I apologize to the Members of this House and to anybody that would have been impacted.

Now, Mr. Chairman, I would like to speak about the conflict report we are here debating. As MLAs, we all know we have many roles. We have a role to represent our constituents, a role to represent all NWT residents when we pass or formulate policies and pass legislation.

In this situation in dealing with the Conflict of Interest report, we are basically the judge and jury with respect to allegations and the report the Commissioner has made on the conduct of one of our Members, Mr. Morin. It has been said already and recognized that we do have the inherent power to govern ourselves, regardless of what else is out there. We alone are the ones that must accept or reject this report. We alone are the ones that must impose punishment if it is warranted. In acting as a judge and jury, we obviously have an obligation to remain as impartial as possible. I do not think that is possible though, Mr. Chairman.

I know in my own circumstances, we all know the Members that are involved. We are all aware of the media broadcasts, editorials, public opinion, what your constituents are saying to yourselves, what other Members are saying. Right from day one as we started this whole process. I think it is really hard for any Member to be totally objective in this. Mr. Morin has raised the issue of potential bias right from the start. He quite frankly has said that he raised it on the aspects of the current Commissioner even prior to her appointment and that was before anything ever came before her.

I think it is fair to say that since this inquiry started, many of us have heard instances of situations that have been raised that probably raised the potential of bias or certainly the appearance of bias. I think it is fair to say also in reading the report and I, like other Members, have had a chance to read it. I have read it a couple of times that the manner in which the report has been written, the manner in which some of the recommendations have been put forward, I think also raises the issue of the appearance of bias.

Now, we all have fundamental rights of every citizen in this country to be judged fairly, to be impartially judged, and that includes MLAs. We know Mr. Morin has been granted a hearing to see whether or not there are grounds for a judicial review of this whole conflict of interest process that is impacting him. We do not know there was bias in the inquiry process. We do not know that. Was there total impartiality? Again, I say we would not be able to know that. Were the principles of natural justice followed? Again, I do not think we are the ones that can determine that. Mr. Morin has an affidavit that he has filed to the court in support of his application. It lists roughly 24 items he feels have grounds to support his basis of bias in this whole conflict process.

None of us in this Assembly have the experience, I believe, or the legal background, maybe with the exception of Mr. Erasmus, to assess this whole matter. Maybe if you did determine whether it is bias or not, we would have to go through all the transcripts and I understand it is 3800 pages of transcripts and thousands of documents. We would have to redo the whole thing and nobody wants to do that. It is not possible. Now if there was a different commissioner, would the allegations have changed? Probably not. I say they would not have. They would still be there. Would the facts or the testimony have changed? Maybe, we do not know. It depends on the questioning, the questions and the participants. Would the interpretation of the legislation, the outcomes of the recommendations have changed? Well, maybe they would have but again, we do not know.

What I do know is I have sat with Mr. Morin for five and a half years as a Member. I have sat with him in Cabinet as a Cabinet Member for almost four years. I can tell you he is opinionated, aggressive, stubborn and he is even arrogant when it comes right down to it, as some Members have said. I would say to you he is not dishonest, deceitful and I know nobody would intentionally get into a conflict situation just for the sake of it, to spite anybody, for that matter. I think he recognizes he has made some errors of judgement in the handling of his affairs. I do not think there is any doubt about that. I think he has inadvertently crossed that line in carrying out his duties to arrange his affairs so the perception of conflict is not there. When the report came down, we all knew it was less than 24 hours later that he took the honourable high road and resigned as the Premier. He stepped down from that, recognizing there was this really critical report out there against his actions. He has been publicly humiliated, not just in the NWT because of this, but on a national scale. As everybody knows it has been in the southern papers. Southern coverage of these proceedings, I am sure, is taking place. His family and friends have been negatively impacted by the same token in their association with him. My concern, Mr. Chairman, is really surrounding this issue of his application for a judicial review. Like I said, we do not, I do not have the knowledge, I do not think Members have the knowledge of whether there is substantiation or not. There is no mechanism for us in this assembly to deal with that issue. We cannot accept the report or accept the recommendation subject to a judicial review application being turned down or having it upheld and then having to go through that process again.

We all, as Members, have a responsibility to try to be as fair as possible. An impartiality of the process, as I have indicated, is a big question mark right now. Having said that, we all know that the conflict report is before us and we have to deal with it. Members have said, this is our conflict legislation, it is our Commissioner, so rightly or wrongly it is our process and we have no choice really but to accept the report based on that being our process. I reluctantly, Mr. Chairman, would have to support that view.

By the same token, I think that if a judicial review is granted, and we do not know that yet because he has tabled a letter today saying that it is December 11th that the matter may be heard on whether or not they will proceed with a judicial review. If a review is granted, if the report is shown to be biased, I think this legislature will have no choice but to have to revisit this whole issue all over again. It is unfortunate really, that Mr. Morin's inquiry is the one that has to point out some of the flaws in our legislation and the flaws in our system.

I think outside of this current issue that we are dealing with specifics, Members have mentioned this, the need to support an independent review of our current legislation and of the process under which Mr. Morin's conflict inquiry was carried out. I think there has to be a review of matters brought up in the report dealing with government policies and procedures. We have to identify the problem areas that have taken place and right off the bat. The whole premise of the debate now of whether there is impartiality and fairness has to be addressed in future legislation on this matter.

Mr. Chairman, I guess in closing, I support what a lot of other Members have said in respect of needing conflict of interest legislation. All of us want to uphold our offices as honourably as possible and have the highest standards that we can maintain. I do not think anybody can argue with that, but we need to move forward and make the amendments necessary in our legislation and in our policies and procedures. I do not think any of us, whether it is in the current NWT legislature, the new Nunavut legislature, I do not think anybody wants to go through this situation again in having to deal with a conflict report against one of our colleagues. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

--Applause

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, this has indeed, at least for me personally and I am sure for many Members, been a difficult year for Members of this Assembly. The 13th Assembly has been faced with challenges unprecedented in an over 30 year history of the Government of the NWT. For the first time since the seat of government came north from Ottawa, we have had to cope with the difficult challenge of deficit reduction. We have had to deal with the enormous complexities and challenges of preparing for division and suffer the stress of a separation which all parties are labouring to keep as amicable and productive as possible. Now we are faced with perhaps our most personal difficult task to date. The responsibility and obligation to pass judgement on one of our own colleagues in respect of the matter that is before this House today, the report of the Conflict of Interest Commissioner.

All of this has placed an enormous strain on this Assembly and has stretched our ability to govern effectively to its absolute limits. I am personally saddened to find ourselves in the situation we are in today and our former Premier, Mr. Morin, a man who has worked hard for his constituency in the north over the last 11 years, has found it necessary to step down. We find ourselves grappling with matters of censor and leadership a scant four months before division occurs.

I want to thank Mr. Morin for moving quickly to relinquish the office of the Premier, particularly after the release of the report. I know Mr. Morin and I know the reasons he made this decision. He made this decision to save his family, his friends and his colleagues any further pain and to attempt to restore confidence in the government that he has worked many years of his life in serving.

We are forced to deal with a question that is before this House, how to deal with the report at hand. I would echo the comments of some of my colleagues that it is incumbent upon all of us to find a fair resolution to this issue. There is no question that this is one of the most highly charged and emotional issues that we as an Assembly are being called to deal with. It has taken a tremendous personal toll on a number of good northerners, myself included. It has polarized public opinion, has caused friction and division in this House and has undermined our ability to get on with the many very important issues of the day.

As I sat here, either here or in my office, listening to my colleagues speak to this issue, I hear the recognition that there is a crisis of faith in the ability of this government to govern effectively. Many of you believe that the inquiry into the allegations of conflict of interest have precipitated this crisis. I see the matter in a much larger context. We now live in a time of growing demand for services of government and diminishing capability of government to provide these services. There are a great many of our constituents whose needs we simply no longer have the capacity to meet, and who are understandably angry with their government for our failure to continue to provide the level of service they once enjoyed.

In addition, as I mentioned before, this government has had to face the unique challenge of division without any experience or body of precedent upon which to model its actions. Our civil service is stretched to the limit in trying to provide the basic services of government while trying to complete the many demanding tasks that are required of our staff to prepare for division. We have had to cut back in our service to the public because of reduced fiscal capacity and then it has had to be cut back even further. As well, we are looking at a time in which the public, both at a national level as well as in our local context, has come to expect the worst of the government and to be suspicious of our motives and our methods.

I have thought long and hard about this process of the inquiry into the conflict of interest allegations against our former Premier and about all of the events that led to that process. I am not certain whether this whole turn of events has led to a lack of confidence in this government or whether the inquiry enhanced the matter that is before us today, are in fact an outcome and product of an environment in which there is heightened suspicion of the motives of government and those who serve in public life. I am, however, certain of one thing. There is now, more than ever, a need to restore public confidence in the institution of government and to bring stability during the remainder of our term. For this reason, a number of my colleagues have said that they would like to move quickly to accept the support and the recommendations it contains so we can get it behind us. Take the steps we feel are necessary to regain a measure of public faith and get on with the very important issues of governance at hand.

Many of these same people feel that in stepping down, Mr. Morin has imposed upon himself a punishment which goes beyond that recommended by the Conflict of Interest Commissioner. I concur with the desire expressed by some of my colleagues to bring this matter to a swift conclusion so the attention of this Assembly can be more proactively focused on the matters at hand. However, I must also acknowledge the content of the report of the Commissioner and the lessons it contains. While I have some concerns with some of the findings of the Commissioner, I have expressed these, that does not mean I do not see value in the report. It is a cautionary tale. There are lessons in this report for each of us who are privileged to sit in this Assembly and for those who follow in our footsteps. If there is one single key lesson I have learned as a result of this document, it has to do with the issue of public perception.

It has become clear to me in reading the report and talking to my constituents and other Members of the public that even if the conduct of this government had been by the books, it did not look right. If the conduct of the government is broadly perceived to be wrong and continues to be perceived that way after the facts are on the table, then we have a real problem. Regardless of whether or not we followed the rules, the issue is that the public, our constituents, the people we represent are not happy with the way in which matters were handled. This to me points to a very real need for the government to make every effort possible to put things right.

We are less than one year away from an election in the west and only weeks away from election in the east. Allowing the electorate to vote new Members to represent them in their respective Assemblies is the surest, the most decisive way to renew confidence in government. Until the time comes that our constituents are given this opportunity, we must take what steps we can to show that we take the lessons of this report seriously.

Mr. Morin took the first step on his own in resigning from his position as Premier. As well, another very important step was taken when the decision announced by the Acting Premier to establish a committee of senior staff of the Government of the Northwest Territories. This committee will review and recommend changes to government procedures to ensure government staff are aware of and adhere to the conflict of interest.

I concur with my colleagues, we must agree to act quickly on the recommendations in order to restore public confidence in this government. We have been involved in a lengthy debate about legal costs, rights on representation and examination, protection of witnesses and how to deal with the findings of this conflict hearing.

I would suggest that another lesson to be drawn from this process is how to improve the process itself. Proceedings related to the conflict hearing need to be reviewed and recommendations prepared for all our consideration. Such a review should be designed to ensure we have a comprehensive framework in place that we all agree is thorough, appropriate and addresses the conflict issues of Ministers, MLAs and the public service. These recommendations should be tabled in this House so they are available to all members of the public. I would further suggest that the value of such a review would rest in its ability to provide an objective, third party assessment of the process we have just been through. Such a review would best be performed by someone not caught up in the politics and issues of the day, someone of confidence and standing from outside the Northwest Territories.

We need to demonstrate to our constituents that this Assembly is committed to good governance, that we are prepared to get back to the job so we can see the Northwest Territories through the final months leading to division. We need to demonstrate that, as we have said so many times in this House, we are capable of managing our own affairs.

While the Government of the Northwest Territories and the people we represent face many challenges, we also have many opportunities. We are on the brink of creating two new territories. We have the opportunity for a new fiscal relationship with the federal government that will reduce our dependence and transfer payments and may bring with it jurisdiction over our non-renewable resources. We have the opportunity to work towards the settlement of land claims and the conclusion of self-government negotiations, and we have the opportunity to build strong partnerships with our southern neighbours and become a contributor to the Canadian federation. All of this depends on our ability to view the matter at hand in a fair and even-handed manner and to bring stability and order to the remaining days of this Assembly.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, I would like to add one final comment in closing. As one of the four Cabinet Ministers who signed the letter testifying to the conduct of the Premier regarding a specific Cabinet meeting, I have been asked by Mrs. Groenewegen to offer an explanation for my signature. It was not my intention to speak to that issue, but I will comply to Mrs. Groenewegen's request. In signing the letter, it was my intention to testify to the intent of Mr. Morin's actions with respect to declaring a conflict. I believe then, as I do now, that Mr. Morin absented himself from the meeting with the specific intention of avoiding being in conflict. It is unfortunate that the wording of the letter was not more specific, and I do regret if this letter had the effect of either misleading the proceedings of the commission or in any way affected Mrs. Groenewegen in her complaint. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

--Applause

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman,

I just have a few comments on the Conflict of Interest report. Mr. Chairman, this is a long and very difficult process for all of us here and everybody in the Northwest Territories, especially the Member from Tu Nedhe and the Member from Hay River. First of all, I just want to make a comment about Anne Crawford. We have hired her by the Legislative Assembly to be the Commissioner for Conflict of Interest and she had a very difficult task before her. Her report is before us and I would like to thank her for the work that she has put into this work.

I just want to also say that in looking at the report, at first I was quite upset because of the recommendations and the findings. As I continued to read it and tried to put myself in the place of the people I represent in my constituency in Nahendeh and as the situation evolved and talking to more of my constituents, there are a lot of different views out there. There are views that this government here, people have lost confidence in this government and as a result, we should do something about it. I just want to mention that specifically in the report there are some common opinions that the Commissioner expressed which is usually, I am told, normally not done in this type of report with her making some leads without any basis for it in her opinion. Having said that when the honourable Member from Tu Nedhe, Don Morin, said that he did not knowingly set out to breach the conflict of interest guidelines and regulations of this government during his tenure as Premier, and at the same time on the 26th he resigned his post as Premier, having participated in this and having participated in this comprehensive public review, his affairs, I believe that Mr. Morin has been punished. I just wanted to say that on the 27th of November, this Conflict of Interest Commissioner clarified her position in the Nunatsiaq News by saying that, while the report in the Nunatsiaq News states that the Conflict if Interest Commissioner did not intend to recommend that Morin vacate his seat. This is from November 27, 1998 and told the Nunatsiaq News that this was not her intention as a result of her finding. This interpretation of her report, however, was incorrect. Commissioner Crawford goes on to explain that she intended that these words from the report meant that her findings showed that Premier Don Morin's violations did not extend to deriving monetary gain through the use of his office and that his seat should not, therefore, be declared vacant. Further on, she says that the removal from office or resignation is now a normal political practice in Canada for Cabinet Ministers found to have committed violations similar to those found Morin to have committed.

However, Commissioner Crawford, according to this news article, informs us that she was not inviting the Legislative Assembly to either remove Morin from the premiership, nor to declare his seat vacant. I am quoting this from the Nunatsiaq News, November 27th. This is the day after Don Morin resigned. In that regard, I feel that by Don Morin resigning as Premier that the recommendations that were outlined in the report for reprimand, being the Premier for eight different counts, and according to my research, reprimanding meaning to rebuke or censure or of that nature reprove the person to criticize for a fault or an offence. By Don Morin removing himself from the Premiership, I think this has adhered to the recommendations in the report.

That is what I have said before and I continue to take that position. However, Mr. Chairman, the public perception influences public confidences in elected officials. The question we have faced in the House here, in the media as well, and throughout the report, are evidence of the public concern over how we have carried out business in this government. The report sends a clear signal to the elected officials and staff on how to follow government business guidelines and regulations with consistency and integrity. I want to assure our residents of the Northwest Territories that the message has been firmly registered with myself and, I believe as well, with my Cabinet colleagues.

What is expected of us here, Mr. Chairman, and how should we proceed? The government has already begun to instruct a review that the conflict report identifies issues that must be dealt with. This may include changes in the legislation, maybe regulations, implementation of a code of conduct, changes to policies, procedures and practices. It certainly has an effect on the government already and the Acting Premier is providing direction in this regard. As well, this report has a big effect on all of us here, ordinary MLAs and the Ministers, alike. I believe there is a rush by all Members of this House to seek legal advice of the Law Clerk and I heard there was a big rush there to see what has to be declared. There is definitely an effect by this report on all of us here.

I just want to comment on the Department of Public Works and Services. Mr. Chairman, I became the Minister on December 5th, and after the decision of the Lahm Ridge Tower was decided upon, so I was tasked with in the session immediately afterwards answering a lot of questions. There is also, in the report, a very scathing kind of criticism based on the people in the Department of Public Works and misleading the Legislative Assembly and misleading the Ministers and so forth.

That is a big concern to me, Mr. Chairman, currently as the Minister of Public Works and Services. I think it is a big concern with the people within the whole Department of Public Works and Services. Having been the Minister since that time, I have had the opportunity to work with all the individuals in the department. I find them very competent and professional people. They do their work and they carry out the projects and I have a lot of confidence in them. However, also looking at the report, we will be reviewing the report, I guess, because it is a concern and I cannot really seeing letting it go by, we have to do something about it. We want to determine what actions are required and I just want to assure the civil servants not to be too concerned about it, I would like to have their support in trying to look at this whole report, because it has a very black mark on the department in this whole report.

A review of the contracting and leasing policies must be looked at, practices to identify areas of improvement must be done by the department as well as a review of delegating contracts and signing authorities to determine, perhaps, changes that are required. This report does have an effect, specifically on this department, already. I am committed to ensuring that the recommendations from the review are implemented throughout the portfolios that I am responsible for.

We have much work to do to improve the way of life for the people in the communities that we represent, Mr. Chairman, and this whole process has been like a dark cloud on all of us. I am quite pleased today that we are finally debating the end of this report. Hopefully we conclude today and put that behind us and carry on and finish the work that we have committed ourselves to do until the end of our term. There is improvement to be made in the social economic health of all residents of the Northwest Territories and Nunavut communities, and we should try to send a strong message to the people that we are going to be doing what is recommended in the report. A strong message has been registered to the government respecting the institution of government all around the takings, this message has been registered and action is being taken and will continue to be taken. Let us carry on with the business of the day, while at the same time, dealing with the very difficult past now of restoring the public confidence in this government institution.

With that, I would like to say Mahsi for allowing me to have these brief comments on this report. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

--Applause

Thank you, Mr. Antoine. I have the honourable Member for Yellowknife North, Mr. Erasmus.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, I think this is probably the most difficult thing that I have had to deal with since becoming an MLA. One of my problems, which I have had to wrestle with since this report came out is the fact that this report is still going up for judicial review. My legal training tells me that this House should not be sitting here reviewing the report and its recommendations until that judicial review has been completed. That judicial review, that report, should be able to stand on its own two feet.

The credibility of the work that was done and in the manner it was done. Mr. Chairman, the Legislative Assembly and Executive Council Act says that Section 82.(4), that the Conflict of Interest Commissioner shall conduct an inquiry in accordance with the principles of natural justice. Mr. Chairman, I do not think that anybody in this room is in a position to judge whether this report was done in accordance with the principles of natural justice. We have heard many times here that we do not have the time to review all the transcripts and all the documents that were submitted. We do not. Most of the people here do not have the legal background either to decide, even if they were able to read all those documents and listen to all the testimony, the rest of that. Most of us here do not have the legal background to judge if this inquiry was done in accordance with the principles of natural justice, because most of us do not know the rules of natural justice.

Mr. Chairman, several years ago, I passed my bar exams and I was accepted as a lawyer. Today, I do not remember the rules of natural justice. I do not know how anybody else here, who are not lawyers, could do that. Mr. Chairman, the reason I am saying this report should be able to stand on its own, that the inquiry should be able to stand on its own, is because I know that two of the reasons that will be used to try to keep this report and the inquiry out of the judicial review, is first of all, parliamentary privilege. There will be an argument that because we have parliamentary privilege in this House and that because we established the commission of inquiry, that our parliamentary privilege should extend to the commissioned inquiry and its report, which is total hogwash. Does anyone in this House want to be judged by someone and that someone not be able to be judged on doing the inquiry properly? As I have heard earlier today, I do not think so. Our very Act says, it should be done in accordance with the rules of natural justice. To me, that infers that we want someone to be able to judge whether this inquiry was done properly.

Mr. Chairman, the second thing that will be used is that they will say it is a moot point now because the Legislative Assembly has already dealt with it. The Members, with all their legal training, have gone over the report, and poured over all those millions of pages and documents of testimony. They have dealt with it. Because of that, Mr. Chairman, I have had a very difficult time dealing with this. I have heard both sides say, let us be fair. Okay, if we are going to be fair, then the judicial review should have a fair chance to be reviewed by an impartial person, an impartial judge and we should be willing to waive parliamentary privilege, if it is found, we should be willing to waive that and also to waive the fact that just because we deal with it here, that it is not a moot point.

I know we passed the motion that we are going to deal with it, so we have to deal with it. All we can deal with is what we have in the report. Having said that, Mr. Chairman, whether or not there is bias found in this report, when I look at the Commissioner's recommendations it seems to me all she had asked for is that the Premier step down from his position on Cabinet. He did that. She could have recommended that he be removed from his seat. She could have recommended that he be suspended. She did not do either of those. We have heard several Members say that having stepped down so quickly was the honourable thing and it helped this government. I believe that is true. I also believe, and it is the Dene way, that when a person is punished once, you do not step on him when he is down. What I am saying here, is that I believe Mr. Morin's resignation is enough punishment and humiliation for the contents of this report.

Mr. Chairman, Mr. Rabesca spoke the other day, also Mr. Kakfwi. They had indicated Mr. Morin provided us with some leadership, good leadership, during some very trying times. I believe that is true as well. I thank them for bringing it up because it indicates to me this House is trying to be fair.

Mr. Chairman, whether or not this report and the commission of inquiry is found to be biased or not, I think we need to learn from this process on some of the things that have been identified. One of the first things, and some of the other Members referred to it, was the other day there was an interview on CBC with a professor of ethics. He is an expert on conflict of interest, public law and ethical politics at York University in Toronto. What he indicated is that you do not only have to be impartial, but there has to be the appearance of impartiality and that many politicians do not understand the concept of conflict of interest. I think that is very true. I think a lot of us probably do not understand as much as we should and we had better find out.

The other thing we have to do, and it has already been put in the works, is we need to review the conflict of interest legislation. We have to review, we need someone to review, this report and the issues that have been raised in here, including policies and procedures. For these two things, I think we need an independent party to head the process. That is the only way it is going to receive the proper respect it deserves. It has also been raised by Members here that we also need to find ways for the public to be part of and to feel they are part of our processes. I agree with that.

Mr. Chairman, another thing Professor Green had indicated in his interview is that conflict of interest commissioners should be retired judges because they have had years of experience looking at evidence, assessing that evidence and writing reports. Mr. Chairman, I also agree with this. I think we should heed the professor's advice.

I have also heard other people say, and I believe it is true, that it is time to move on. We have a lot of issues facing us. We still have to conclude division and the creation of two new territories. We know we are behind our schedule already. We need to work on that. We need to work on self-government. The aboriginal summit has said they are not going to work on the Western Territory's future government constitution unless there is significant progress made on self-government. They expect and want those self-government negotiations to be concluded by, not this coming election, but the next one in 2004, or whichever year it is.

Mr. Chairman, we also have to work on devolution of our resources. We need to ensure that our people benefit from our diamonds, our oil and gas and our other natural resources. At this time, we are not able to ensure that we properly benefit from things like oil and gas and from those diamond mines that are just now opening. We need to ensure that our people get full employment, training and jobs through those projects, as well as others. We also need to improve our social programs in the area of health and social services. We need to raise our education levels, we need to decrease our pupil/teacher ratio and improve housing conditions. Of course, Mr. Chairman, we all know that we have a scarcity of dollars and every time we bring this up, people say, where is the money going to come from and where are you going to remove it from? We have to work on those.

Mr. Chairman, in conclusion, I believe that the former Premier has suffered enough, that we should not try to extract any further punishments from him and I also believe that if there is a judicial review and the judicial review process proceeds that we should try to ensure that the Conflict of Interest Inquiry and its report should be able to stand on its own two feet and it should not expect to try to hide behind parliamentary privilege or the question of mootness by our dealing with this report. Thank you.

--Applause

Thank you, Mr. Erasmus. I have a final name on the list here of a Member who wants to speak at this time. Mr. Steen, you have the floor.

Thank you, Mr. Steen. Are there any more Members that wish to speak? If not, we will take a short break at this point in time and just take it from there. Thank you.

--Break