Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The debate and decisions of this Assembly arising from the Conflict of Interest report I believe will have profound implications for the legitimacy of our institution and for the credibility of elected representatives serving both Cabinet and in the Legislature. It will also have profound implications for the professionalism of our administration, and as well for the personal life and career of one or more of our Members. While we are conducting ourselves in this debate, the decisions we will be making and whatever actions we take today, will reveal a lot about each of us as individuals, as human beings, whether or not we are Members of Cabinet or the Legislature.
Mr. Chairman, I believe that, first and foremost, we need to honestly and openly admit our mistakes and that we have an obligation to make sure the mistakes that were made, whether real or perceived, will not happen again. In our business, there is nothing wrong with admitting that we have failed. The point is that our constituents who know us best expect that we will always try to work to the highest standards, but they, more than anyone else, know we are human and that we do make mistakes like everyone else.
I think it is also important to remind our own constituents, the media and the federal government, as well, all of whom are watching as this debate unfolds, that the level of criticism being directed toward our institution, their elected representatives and the administration do not take into account the contributions they have collectively made to the people of the Northwest Territories.
Despite the very serious issues raised in the report, and we will deal with all of them, there have been many good things accomplished by this Legislature and by its government over the last three years. In a few months, two new territories will be officially established and the key to a successful transition to these two new territories and ensuring the efficient delivery of programs and services to both new territories, will be Assemblies and Cabinets which have the support and confidence of their respective constituents.
MLAs, Ministers, and the people working for them must operate according to the highest standards, morally, politically and legally. Long-term legitimacy must be the foundation for our institutions because long after we are gone these institutions must still be in place to represent and service future constituents.
In our debate and decision, we must remember and remind everyone, it is not the institutions that are to blame for what happened. It is the action of those that are part of the institution who must stand accountable. I agree that the report and this debate must focus around accountability. It is about saying, I am sorry and I will do what I can to ensure that it will not happen again.
I appreciate the comments by Mr. Dent, who offered his apology to his constituents and to the Members of the Legislature and other Members of the House, who have offered similar remarks. I believe it is one of the first steps that we need to be taking and we are well on our way to addressing the issues that face us.
Mr. Chairman, I wish to speak to the issue of professionalism of our civil service. We must take into account the implications which the conflict of interest issue has had for our administration, including the public service in general, and those who were directly involved in the inquiry. My first thought is that we need to reassure our public service that despite the turmoil of the past weeks, we know that they have continued to serve the people of the Northwest Territories with commitment and dedication. We also know that there has been a level of frustration within the civil service during our term of office. I have worked hard within my own portfolio to provide the leadership and guidance that our officials need. I have always insisted, during my terms of Minister, that my officials offer their advice freely and openly and without fear that I might disagree. In fact, there have been instances where persistent officials, deputy ministers, have been able to influence my view, change my mind, and I have always acknowledged my appreciation for the open way in which they have been able to do that.
Trying to make the right decision within the rules, guidelines, policies and legislation has been something that I have worked hard to achieve. If the rules do not work, you do not break them, you work to change them. I have learned that you always ignore rules at your own peril. Rules are there for our own good and no one is above the law.
Mr. Chairman, the report speaks to the fact that something went desperately wrong in the Department of Public Works. Civil servants appear to have been placed in impossible situations with no one to turn to for help. My view is, that responsibility lies clearly at the political level. We will not encourage and build on the loyalty and commitment of our public service if some public servants are singled out, nor will we start the process of recovering the respect of our constituents using this approach. Indeed, what we need to do is to ensure that the public service understands and is committed to enforcing the highest standards which are required for the conduct of our business as elected representatives. There is no doubt that if officials are asked to do something that they are uncomfortable doing, they must have a place to go to seek guidance. That is why certain positions in the civil service are considered to be so key. Positions like the principal secretary to Cabinet and the Deputy Minister of the Executive department must be filled with individuals who are respected, who have integrity, who can build trust and who are not afraid to advise even when the advice is not well received. Perhaps we can do more to ensure our civil service has the freedom to do their work without fear of reprisals.
While our constituents are expressing their outrage and dismay at the findings of the report, and some may have lost even confidence, their current feelings resulting from the inquiry must be balanced with the challenges we all faced during the last four years.
When our constituents go to the polls in Nunavut in February, and later when the west votes in October, 1999, it will be important for them to take into account the hard work, compromise and leadership in Cabinet and the Assembly which was needed to meet those challenges.
Our record includes balancing the budget, downsizing government, implementing division, diamond mine development, improving social safety net programs, reorganizing the administration, negotiating a new formula for Nunavut and the west, implementing land claims, dealing with self-government agreements and generally just working hard at improving the quality of life for all residents of the Northwest Territories.
Mr. Chairman, the Member of this Assembly from Hay River had the right to launch the conflict of interest complaint. She was challenged to do so in the House and she followed through. Since then, she has been the subject of much praise and criticism. I have said from the beginning of this process that the process is our process. It is there for the use of every Member of this Legislature to use if they felt that the concerns and issues they were raising were not being dealt with to their satisfaction. It is a due process set up by this Legislature. Throughout this process, I have tried to treat the Member from Hay River with dignity and respect and I advised my staff and my department to do the same.
Some people in Hay River did express to me that they thought Hay River might be punished and I quickly reassured them. I regret, today, that they felt that they could be punished because their Member in this Legislature had lodged a complaint against the Premier. For individuals to fear their government and its politicians is a condemning statement of our leadership. No one has punished Hay River and certainly no one in Cabinet even raised the notion of punishment in any meeting that I have attended.
Mr. Chairman, in 1987, when I was first elected, this place was a strange place for me. My previous experience was entirely within the confines of Dene politics and the Dene Nation. We had our own way of doing business, conducting ourselves. When I was elected as a Minister, I was informed that I would be called the Honourable Mr. Kakfwi. I said at the time that I did not want that label. Whether it was a label or title, I said I did not want to be called honourable. I remember, it was Mr. Gordon Wray, who was a Minister at the time, who said something to the effect that it is something that we all have to wear, it is like a responsibility and something that never leaves us. It is to remind us always that we are compelled to be honourable with whomever we deal with, that we treat our best friend and our worst enemy with the same respect, fairness and I would not differentiate between the two. As uncomfortable as I was with the label and the title, I was moved by the suggestion by Mr. Wray and I have always tried to conduct myself that way. As I said in the beginning, I believe this debate and our decisions today will reveal a lot about us as individuals and as human beings.
Three years ago, I supported Don Morin as our Premier. Since that time, he has provided leadership to help us meet many of the challenges which faced us as people and as a government. On November 26, 1998, Mr. Morin resigned as Premier and he also lost his seat on Cabinet. Personally, I am of the view that the Member for Tu Nedhe has paid the personal, professional and political price in his constituency in the Northwest Territories, across Canada, in his family and within himself. There is no doubt in my mind that life will never be the same for Don Morin and his family.
Mr. Chairman, the Legislature has established the conflict of interest section in the Legislative Assembly and Executive Council Act. We established an office for the Conflict of Interest Commissioner and we appointed Ms. Anne Crawford to that office for four years. She took an oath to faithfully and impartially perform the duties of office. One of the duties is to conduct an inquiry within certain rules following any written complaint filed with the Clerk. As such, she is a servant of this House. We appointed her and we have the power to remove her with cause. We tasked her with enforcing the conflict of interest section of the act and she has done her job. Her report is before us and we have a decision to make. Do we accept or reject her recommendations? If we accept them, do we wish to impose punishment beyond the reprimands that are recommended? I believe that we had put our trust in her when we appointed her to do this. Since we cannot and should never presume to sit in judgment of our own actions, I believe that the Commissioner did what was asked by this House. She conducted an inquiry, she sought the facts, she asked additional questions when she was not satisfied, she gave us a report and a set of recommendations.
I am satisfied with the integrity of the Commissioner and with the process she used. I agree we should review that process. For instance, perhaps their preliminary review of the facts to see if there is enough to go to a public inquiry, that should be done by someone other than the commissioner who conducts the inquiry. Of course, we could look at options. This in no way negates the findings, nor does the fact that she reviewed the preliminary evidence make her biased. Some have criticized the Commissioner for asking questions of the witnesses. I commend her for asking questions, for if she was not clear about something, it was her primary duty to inquire to seek the facts, to review the evidence and finally, to determine that she was satisfied and that she could forward her report and her recommendations to the speaker. I am satisfied that Anne Crawford did her job as best as she could and I trust that the review was thorough. I accept her report and her seven recommendations and I commend her for her tenacity and for the promptness with which she reported to the Speaker and to this House.
In dealing with the report's recommendations, my preference is that we also focus on steps which should be taken by us by this Assembly and by the Cabinet, steps that would ensure that we reassure everyone, including ourselves that we will maintain the highest standards of conduct in all of our affairs. This is what our constituents in this institution deserve. It means that the Cabinet should take the following matters: review and make the necessary revisions to how Cabinet makes and records decisions; ensure that policies, regulations and legislation are reflected properly in those decisions; and enforce Cabinet conflict of interest guidelines to avoid real, perceived or conflict of interest situations. These matters are within the jurisdiction of Cabinet.
In addition, it means that we should review the conflict of interest legislation and procedures, as at least two Members have expressed some concerns. I believe we have an opportunity with this debate in the decisions we make to restore the confidence of our constituents and the public in their Assembly, their Cabinet and this administration. We have a duty to reaffirm our commitment to them that we will always work to find ways to ensure that we will always maintain the highest conduct in the way we perform our duties, in the way that the government operates in the service of its people. This is what we need to do as we go about representing the people of the Northwest Territories. Mr. Chairman, I say it is time for us to accept the report and the recommendations and that we go on to find a way to agree as Members, as Cabinet, to take action together, to address those concerns and issues that need our attention to satisfy ourselves, our public and our constituents. It will ensure accountability and the high standards of conduct in our affairs as we go about our duties in serving our people. Thank you.