Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, the report of the Conflict of Interest Commissioner appears to represent different things for different Members. It seems to have a different impression on different Members. My impression of this particular document and the proceedings leading up to the document, I perceive, and I believe the public do too, is that it started as a conflict of interest inquiry. It did not end up as a conflict of interest inquiry. I think the public saw that it ended up into a public inquiry into the integrity of this government, whether or not this government was corrupt in its business dealings. I believe that is what it ended up because if we were, just to take the facts first and stuff, why was the integrity or the personal opinions and personal dealings of the businessmen, like Mr. Bailey, Mr. Mike Mrdjenovich, why were they being questioned? The inquiry was supposed to have been into Mr. Morin. Unless you take into consideration the fact that this expanded into a public inquiry, you would then be suggesting that the statements by the Conflict of Interest Commissioner were out of order and her judgements of what the personal reputations of these particular business people. Why was she referring to them at all, if she was only dealing with Mr. Morin's conflict of interest?
I believe that what it turned into was a public inquiry into the public perception that this government is not above-board in its dealings. It is not fair and it is not transparent. One of the things that I believe that this conflict of interest inquiry has pointed out, is that the public's opinion is the perception you receive, is that Cabinet is forever avoiding answering questions from MLAs. Why? The public always asks me, why is it so hard to get the Cabinet to answer a question? My response is, it is a game. To them, they go home upstairs and they brag about how they could avoid answering my questions. It is a game, but it is a dangerous game because the public perceived this thing as being, not a game, but a very serious thing because the questions we asked as MLAs are questions related to services and programs in our communities. If we are not successful in getting responses and honest responses from our Cabinet Members, we pay the price at home. At election time, we are going to pay the price.
In turn, we ask Cabinet to be honest with their responses, but I noticed in particular in some cases some Cabinet Members are more inclined to be evasive with other MLAs than with certain MLAs. I cannot say I personally had a problem receiving information form the Members' Cabinet, but then again, I cannot say the same thing when I was dealing with the staff and deputy ministers when we were dealing with budget session and they were answering the questions, I did not have the same feeling of honesty. I felt I was being led around the bush, if possible, but I was not getting the answers that I needed. If I get that perception, then the public must get it too because they are seeing the same thing. We must not forget that when we came here, before we were sworn in even, there was a public inquiry from the previous Premier as to whether or not one of our deputy ministers was involved in a conflict of interest in transportation. The result came to us after we got sworn in that there was no conflict, but we were never given the report. Cabinet said it is for Cabinet's information only. They gave us a very short report.
What is the public perception? What is my perception? Why not give me the whole thing if there is nothing to hide? That is the question. What was it, six months later, a year later? We are faced with the news, RCMP are doing an investigation into this government's wrongdoings. We asked questions again to the Cabinet Members. I asked the Premier, who was being investigated? Do not know, never heard of it. I cannot help questioning in my mind. I believe, last February and March in the budget session, I asked Mr. Todd and Mr. Voytilla whether it is possible for this government to be investigated without them knowing. Their responses were very evasive. No, yes, no, no. I do not believe it is possible. I think they knew who was being investigated and I think that they knew exactly what was being looked for, but the information we, as Members, were getting was very vague. I cannot help but believe this thing carried on even further in that the suggestions from the Conflict of Interest Commissioner that there were people taking advantage of their positions. Again, is it the perception or is it the truth? From the public's point of view, it is probably a good perception that it is the truth.
They were in the position to do it and they were doing it. Unless we have opportunity as Members to have a look at all of those directives of governance of Cabinet and approve those directives one by one like we should have done when we first got elected, we are never going to agree to those directives because we must not forget one thing. I think Mr. Todd is correct in that Mr. Bailey was not contravening the directives because the directive says right in the end of it, nothing in this directive will prevent the government from doing what they think is best. Every one of the directives say the same thing. We were told this in the House. We asked the questions of the Ministers. I remember distinctly Mr. Morin responded and showed to us in writing, nothing in this directive will stop Cabinet from doing what they think is best.
What is the point of the directive, you want to ask. At what point in time should they defer away from the intent of the directive? Let us take, for instance, the Business Incentive Policy, the Manufacturers' Incentive policy. They are all directives, but they sure leave a lot of leeway for Ministers and deputy ministers and the administrative staff to bend the rules, to serve if they want, to favour some businesses over the others. We established a system where we expect our staff to be angels and to abide by these directives. How can you expect them to do that when the top directive says, nothing in there prevents Cabinet from changing. They do not have to follow the directive. In other words, there is an opportunity there for Cabinet at any point in time to favour some businesses over the others, depending on what they think is the best for the NWT resident. We put them all there, we voted these guys in. We should place some faith in them and of course you can follow this down the line that our constituents will say, we voted you in too and we should put some faith in you but the faith cannot stop at me unless it is above me as well. I am not in a position to deliver. All I am is a voice piece, that is all.
The faith the people see is one of the questions you come home and you ask, what is a conflict of interest? At home it is an unheard of thing in the small communities, it is not even heard of, it cannot even be imagined by people. Here, in the big city, where people stand to make millions, that is a very important thing from the perspective of the MLAs that represent the areas in the South Mackenzie where major dollars are being spent compared to the north. It is easier to see, easier to realize an opportunity to benefit if you know the right people, if you know the right Cabinet Members. I think Mr. Ningark mentioned that he would have liked Cabinet to favour, in his dreams even, he was dreaming, he got that impression that he was being favoured, but when he woke up, he was not.
I think that we are all in that situation at some point in time when we hope that we will all be the proper Ministers, we in turn get lobbied by businessmen. It is an endless thing. We are lobbied by our constituents, so we are subject to the same rules and the same potential wrongdoings as anybody else. What I would like to see out of this thing here is what is suggested. Somebody suggested that there is going to be a review of the policies and directives of this government that were questioned. I think Mr. Miltenberger said, it does not look good if the same people that were doing the contradictions to the directives, who were taking part in the contradictions to the directives, who were in fact being the ones to amend the directives, to see how we could better ourselves and avoid the perception of a corrupt government. I do not know who is going to do this. I hate to suggest a third party because we should be able to handle our own responsibilities and I think that we should do it.
We ended up in the end still putting trust in certain people but I think that we would go a long way if somehow Cabinet did not see us as the opposition that they had to avoid answering our questions. I think this, to some degree, has come from party politics, which is not here. We are not in party politics, but we look like the opposition and we are treated like the opposition. Again, I do not say, I do not apply this to all the Ministers. Some Ministers are very responsive and very honest with their responses, some are not. That has been my experience for the last three years.
Coming back to the actual document itself, I believe I think like Mr. Erasmus in that I would let the courts decide first if this thing was properly done. If it in fact was a conflict of interest inquiry or was it in fact a public inquiry into the corruption of government. I think it drifted a long ways off of a conflict of interest inquiry. That is only my opinion. I would like to hear what the court says on it. Whether or not I will accept the recommendations at this point in time, I am not prepared to deal with the recommendations, but I will deal with the perceived corruption in this government. I would like to deal with that and the quicker the better because I think that 90 percent of that whole report was based on that.
Mr. Morin is what you might call a symbol and he had to pay the price because he was the leader. He stepped down, now we are up to picking another leader. We should be careful about who we put there because we seem to have, for some reason or other, enjoyed putting people up on top and then slashing them back down. It seems to be a human error if you call it, but it is a bad thing on the part of humans to put somebody to the top and then bring them back down, crack. We have to think about who we are going to put there again. I think a lot of us are starting to wonder whether we want to go up there, whether we will even be Members of this Legislature in the future, whether the price is worth it. I have questioned whether the price is worth it. I know that I have constituents at home that put a lot of faith in me and what they expect out of me. So far, I do not think I have disappointed them as far as integrity or honesty, but then again, being where we come from, we do not even have opportunity to be crooked, we are so poor.
I am not in a position to judge, but I sure would agree with the Members that say we should start working on a more open government and a more honest one. I would like to see this done very shortly, not after 1999. I would like to see it done very shortly. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.