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