Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman,

I MOVE that the Premier take immediate action to regain the confidence of the public and all Members in the integrity of government and the standards of all persons within government, as this action is essential in order that the Premier retain the confidence of the House. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

To the motion. Mr. Braden.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to speak in favour of the motion but I want to add a couple of qualifications to my approval. The report indicates that immediate steps should be taken to restore confidence in the office of the Premier, but it does not specify or suggest what steps those might be, outside of the removal, as suggested in 8.22, of two of the key staff members in the Premier's office, Mr. Bayly and Ms. Sorensen.

I would suggest, Mr. Chairman, that -- and this suggestion, again for clarification, it is not part of the motion but it is part of the body of the report, that the suggestion to remove these staff is outside of the jurisdiction of the committee or the Assembly.

I think, Mr. Chairman, that this committee was correct in addressing recommendations one, two and three the way it has. You know, to item number one and the conduct of media, this Assembly, this building is our domain and we have and should exercise jurisdiction in the conduct of members of the public and the media in our domain, so we were correct there.

To the second recommendation, the Minister has, I believe, correctly -- and I commend her for that -- removed herself.

Item number three, we dealt with the conduct of an officer of this Assembly who is indeed within our jurisdiction and our responsibility to do so.

I would repeat that for us to go into the offices of the Executive and dictate what should happen with their staff is not within the jurisdiction of our committee.

Mr. Chairman, when we elected the Premier, indeed all of the other Members of Cabinet, we gave them with that their own jurisdiction and responsibility. The authority to hire and manage whomever they felt was up to the job that they require. Their performance then will ultimately be judged as the performance of their supervisor or their employer, in this case, the Premier.

If the Premier chooses to keep or let go any of his people, then I believe that we should not judge them. We should be judging the Premier on the consequences of that. I do not believe that by reaching into his domain with this, and I believe this would be really, a very punitive act, that we would be taking a step that would restore confidence in the office of the Premier. In fact, I think quite the reverse. It would be a consequence.

We have our own legislative arena here and we may feel that this is the right action to take. In an issue like this, Mr. Chairman, I think we should be looking beyond, as I say, our own legislative arena. We should be looking out into the field, in our communities, in the businesses, and I feel that if we took this step that the stability and integrity of not just the Premier's office but I think of our whole institution would be diminished. That is a word that was used in the report in a previous area. I believe it would shake the confidence of investors in the Northwest Territories, of communities and of our partners in other levels of government, federal and aboriginal.

Mr. Chairman, no one is indispensable, but I really fail to see how confidence would be achieved in this very dramatic act. If immediate action is something that we would want to see, and here is where recommendation 4 does get my support, I would reflect that in some respects that immediate action has already been taken. A Minister has been removed. An officer of the Assembly has been removed. We will be taking steps now to replace those people. In that action we will be making changes and they are immediate changes, that I think will begin to restore confidence in the office of the Premier.

It is a matter of jurisdiction and a matter of degree. I just do not support the idea that this action is one that will really make a constructive step towards restoring confidence. In fact, I believe the reverse would probably be the consequence. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will conclude my remarks with my qualified support for this recommendation.

To the motion. Ms. Lee.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I keep reading this motion and I do not think anyone could really be opposed to the motion the way it is written. I do believe that we as a Legislature as well as the Premier's office have a lot of rebuilding to do to gain the confidence of the public. I believe I would support this motion because I believe there is a role for the Premier to play in doing what has to be done to restore the confidence of the public and enable us to move forward and deal with the issues that are important to the public.

I have to agree with Mr. Braden in that I believe -- before I go to that, I want to say, with respect to this issue, I listened to the testimonials of all of the witnesses very carefully and I thought it would have been helpful if we could have had testimonies from other people that were in the room at the same time.

In listening to the testimonials, I could not figure out why -- I mean, there was a lot of confusion about where this telephone conversation took place, who was there, who was doing what, who was sitting where and so on. I guess I have to leave it to the circumstance where there are meetings held around this room all the time on a number of issues and it would be hard for anyone to really remember exactly what happened at what meeting and who was doing what.

Regardless, I know that I have had the occasion to talk to the parties involved. I know that Mr. Bayly -- I am really hesitant to mention names here because I feel very uncomfortable in doing that but I know that he came to this office with an impeccable reputation and he is held in high regard throughout the North and within the bar that he has served for many, many years. I know that he acknowledges that this was a failure in his judgment and it happened in the circumstances where a lot of things were happening at once.

I think that the Premier understands the seriousness of this conduct and I have to state that I am very disappointed at the circumstances under which this taping of a conversation took place, and having a conversation without informing the other party there were other people in the room listening to the conversation. I think this is a very serious matter and I have to agree with the motion in asking the Premier to take actions as he sees fit.

I do believe we have to be careful when we make judgments on the conduct of our staff. Every one of us has our own political staff. They are only answerable to us and I do not think that it is our mandate to go and say exactly what needs to be done. I appreciate that there is a suggestion made here in paragraph 8.22 as to what the committee recommends to happen. I believe it is the Premier's prerogative to address that issue.

There were a couple of other things I wanted to comment about on this. It has to do with the process. Earlier I mentioned that the committee had stated that it saw its mandate as being accountable, open and transparent in its process, as well as doing its part in making the government accountable and making sure that it is open and transparent.

I am uncomfortable with the fact that while the witnesses whose positions were in jeopardy by virtue of being called into process, for example, the Minister and the Commissioner were allowed to have legal counsel, all the other parties were not. As we know, the reporter Lee Selleck chose not to appear and he is not under the same kind of jeopardy as is being suggested of others, so there is a sense of unfairness in that the application for standing by these witnesses were dealt with in a private meeting and it was not open to the public and we have no idea why they were not afforded the opportunity to have counsel with them. As well, if it was the decision of the committee that it felt that it was appropriate for the reasons of timeliness or not having too many lawyers or whatever, if that was the case, then I think that their evidence cannot be used to the extent that it has been in this report.

I find it curious that the testimony of Ms. Sorensen and Mr. Bayly and I believe Mrs. Groenewegen are more similar than the testimony of April Taylor. I have listened to this case and I believe she stated that she was in a room that was different than what the rest of the people stated. The committee chose to decide that her testimonial was more credible. I just find it questionable that when you hear four people and there are more similarities between the testimony of three people and yet the committee felt compelled to accept the other person's.

It was really a judgment call and there are serious allegations of -- there are implications that some of these witnesses were not being honest in these discussions, that they were intentionally being selective about the documents being presented, that somehow these witnesses had political motive. I just thought that when I was watching Mr. Bayly's testimonial, he was very frank about what he knew, what he remembered and what he did not remember.

Ms. Sorensen had as much lapse of memory as everyone else who was trying to recall what it was that happened in that meeting. Having listened to all of the testimonials and watched the video and taped the video -- I still have it if anybody wants to watch it -- and reading the finding of the fact, I have a problem in how the committee comes to the conclusion that it does. I just want to make note of that and say that I will be supporting this motion in so far as I recognize and I agree that steps have to be taken to restore the confidence of the public so that this government can move forward and attend to the people's business. Thank you.

Thank you, Ms. Lee. Mr. Kakfwi.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, the motion, as it is drafted, suggests that I should take immediate action to regain the confidence of the public and all Members and if it is as generic as it is drafted, I do not think anybody can vote other than in support of it, whether or not we agree that any confidence has been lost. If it has been, of course, all of us, myself included, must take action to regain confidence. That is the nature of our work.

Each one of us is compelled to always act in the best interest of the values that we purport to represent and conduct ourselves accordingly. When we diminish ourselves, it is our obligation to take action necessary to regain that. That is really the nature of our work.

I am not going to be reduced to purely political interests here. It is my job to provide leadership and I think exemplary conduct in how I make decisions. Members will know that I have already taken action regarding staff. There is that rather compelling letter, as I said, from the committee that I think caused tremendous concern about what I could and could not do in the last few months. There was action contemplated as late as two or three weeks ago. I was advised by the Clerk that I was to do absolutely nothing, that there was no way that the committee would tolerate even a hint that I was going to take any action that might be perceived to be interfering or influencing whatever the committee was contemplating.

Having said that, I did go to the staff in July and I got collective advice from the staff about the alleged conduct, of which there was limited knowledge and discussion, again because of the committee, regarding Mr. Bayly and Ms. Sorensen. I went beyond what was recommended by senior management, my advisors. I issued letters of reprimand based on legal advice and management advice that I received.

I said earlier today that in my view, some form of reprimand was also warranted for April Taylor. Senior management did not agree with me on that. At best, I think they gave her a verbal form of reprimand.

You heard the testimony of April Taylor, who said in her view she did not deserve to get a letter of reprimand.

Mr. Chairman, the committee did not question me about why I took the action I did and what constituted the basis for the action that I did, but they did make the suggestion that in their view, it was not sufficient.

I should tell you, as I have said, I have already taken disciplinary action. It was considered collectively as appropriate action. In fact, a little bit beyond what I was advised to do.

I want to point out that both of these senior staff took responsibility for their actions and expressed sincere remorse for those actions. Mr. Bayly even offered his resignation, which I considered and did not take. I should point out that Ms. Sorensen has a lengthy work history that I believe is unblemished, untarnished and exemplary. Although Mr. Bayly does not have the same lengthy service for the Government of the Northwest Territories, the service he has provided to the Northwest Territories has been considered excellent and he has always demonstrated very high ethical standards.

These two individuals are considered by everyone who works with them to be extremely hardworking, principled and work to the highest standard. It is true that they were present in the room at some point or other, but it was the Deputy Premier and not these staff people who taped the conversation.

I recognize that Bayly and Sorensen made an error in judgment. In my words, the moment was there and the moment got away on them. While these actions are regrettable, they do not warrant dismissal and we do not believe that we can successfully withstand a legal challenge to such a decision, even if I were to contemplate it for a moment, which I am not.

I think it is important that the committee did not ask me to explain why I thought letters of reprimand were appropriate when I testified. I do not think it is fair for the committee to draw the conclusion that I should have dealt with these employees more harshly than I did without exploring the reasons for the actions that I took.

In any case, I have reviewed it again. If Members are interested in knowing the actions that I have taken to date, I have sought the legal advice and advice of senior management in this government. The actions that we took stand and are not going to be revisited. There are other ways in which I can take action. I will meet with the blessing of the Members and members of the public, of course, I will do that. I am always advised to do that, but it will not include revisiting these decisions.

Having said that, I have no difficulty with the motion as it is drafted. Thank you.

Mr. Bell.

Thank you. Just before I move to ask for a vote on this, Mr. Chairman, I would just like to say I think it was important for the committee to not come out here and purport to tell the Premier who he can hire and who he cannot hire. As has been mentioned previously by other Members, it is the Premier who is ultimately accountable for his staff's performance. It is the Premier who should make decisions as to whether or not they deserve reprimands. It is the Premier who should decide whether or not they continue to work for him in serving the interests of the people of the Northwest Territories.

We did suggest that it was our view that the Premier should require the resignations. It was simply the opinion of the five of us, the membership of the committee. We were certainly not ordering the Premier to do this. We were recommending that he take immediate action to regain the confidence of the public and Members.

There are a whole gamut of options here. The Premier could do absolutely nothing more and say I have reprimanded these people, I have gone above and beyond already, what was required. In fact, he has just stated that even our senior management, when advising him, said the conduct of Bayly and Sorensen does not even warrant a reprimand. I find that scary but that aside, that is the advice that he received.

As I said, there is a gamut of options, from do nothing to ask for resignations and many in between. It is up to the Premier to choose the option that he feels is most appropriate and in doing so, retaining the confidence of the House and the confidence of the public of the Northwest Territories. I hope he will take that task seriously. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Bell. Mr. Roland.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. As for myself, of course, I mean it is incumbent on me to state that I will be supporting the motion but I will add to that in the context of how the report is laid out.

Mr. Chairman, it is the responsibility, ultimately, of the Premier, of how his staff conduct themselves in relation to the ongoing work of this House. The fact is, Mr. Chairman, as a Member of this Assembly, if I have a concern that gets raised and it goes to Cabinet, in one form or another, the senior staff would deal with the issue or provide him advice. We have heard already from the Premier his status on this and will move forward with that. Some of us Members will have to consider what he stated at this point.

In light of all the information, Mr. Chairman, I agree we cannot absolutely state that he must remove two individuals from his senior staff. Just to leave that motion as it is and to have no context with it as laid out in the report is a rather empty one.

The Premier stated he has to show the leadership. He is the leader and I agree. At some point, one has to make a decision based on the interests of the people of the Northwest Territories that would call on that leadership ability. He is going to stand by his decisions and I must say his commitment is one that I think a lot of people would like to have; stand by your decision. That is good.

Now myself as a Member, I support this motion. After it goes through, knowing what the Premier stated, I have to look at where I stand in the whole thing. There has been much laid out in this process, Mr. Chairman, on the conduct of some of the senior staff of this government. Very questionable how they became involved in a conflict process from day one. Mr. Chairman, that is not acceptable.

Now, if there was a concern raised, I am sure that at some point someone would have raised the red flag. I think it would have been done and should have been done. If it was not, that this situation existed, the fact that the Premier stated on July 23rd in the House of the incidents that happened, that his staff were involved, but no one was made aware of it until this process kicked into gear, the fact that he as Premier did have that information and now is ready to stand by the decision he has made in the past, and again I guess it is one to say, some political fortitude there in the sense of standing by your decision.

Some would say, and I will be quite frank about this, the fact that issue, and some would make light of it, in fact that some Members here on the other side have been spoken about in a light that is not very good, being bitter and twisted. It has been said publicly. That is a defensive sum, but I know in front of my constituents I can stand up and say I have raised the issues and say I raised them fairly.

Though some speakers here have spoken out in support of the motion in an empty context, then why make the motion? For far too long this government has been full of fluff. Put some fortitude behind it. You want credibility? It does not fall in your lap. We earn it. You want respectability? That is another thing we earn.

Even as children of our own parents, it is not something that is granted automatically. It might be from a small age until we get a little older, but then we usually do something wrong that our parents discipline us on. Then we have to earn it back. He has an opportunity to earn some of that respect back and that credibility. I will give him the benefit of the doubt to see what occurs, but if it is as he stated and he is standing on it, then I as a Member will have to look at my options of what remain.

Now, it is easy to say in this case that the actions Minister Groenewegen has taken, the high road as many Members have said, in stepping down as a Minister of this government, but there were checks and balances that were in place, or should have been in place, at the most highest places in this government that have failed. Now, where they have failed, I am not sure, but they failed and they failed this Minister.

If Members are going to support this motion, they should support if for a reason. As for myself, Mr. Chairman, I will support this motion in the context it is laid out in the report, not taken lightly, not taken in the sense of making anyone pay. I look at the long term. I look at the people I represent and I tell you, Mr. Chairman, what some of the people said about this process I cannot repeat in this House because they were not very flattering about the trust that they have in this government.

I think that as Members of the Assembly, we do all have to reflect why it is we first came into this position, why is it that we took that oath. Why is it we want to be partaking in this situation, knowing of all the issues that would come our way, good and bad.

As a Member of this House, whatever the outcome, I will accept this House, its decision at the end of the day but I will always have to look back to my people and ask was it the right thing to do? They will tell me if I was right or wrong.

With that, Mr. Chairman, as I said, I support this motion in the context it is laid out in the report and as a Member of this Assembly, I will have to reflect on that knowing what the Premier said. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Roland. Mr. Krutko.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, I too have some concerns in response to the Premier in regard to this motion. I for one feel that the allegations are serious. This did not take place in a coffee shop or secretary's office. This took place in the highest office of this government and in the Northwest Territories. It took place in the Premier's office.

This recording of a statutory officer of this Legislature should not have happened, but it did happen. For no action to be taken for almost three months, and for us to be told in this House that a phone call conversation took place in March and finding out through the process that it was two recordings, not just one. What I am upset about is for us to realize that senior officials of this government, in particular the principal secretary, who is a lawyer, who has a long career in law in the Northwest Territories, knowing the question of lawyer-client privilege and the question of confidentiality was breached. For him to sit there and knowingly take part, regardless of whether he was holding the tape recorder or not, and not take action to uphold the law of this land and uphold the law of the protection of this House, and for it to take as long as it has to where we are now at this point...

It took three months before the Premier was made aware of it or it was even discussed in the context of what we are discussing here today. But if no action is taken, basically, from what I am hearing from the Premier, is he is condoning the action that has taken place. I for one feel that we have to do more to ensure that there are going to be stringent rules and what not in place in regard to how conversations will be monitored and having a process so that whoever is on the other side of the line is made aware that they are being recorded.

I think for this to have taken place in the Premier's office is a serious enough matter that action has to be taken.

I for one feel that -- no offence to Mr. Bayly, I have a lot of respect for Mr. Bayly -- but I also thought that through his experience in law, that he would have been up front and made the Commissioner aware of the people who were in the room and that the conversation was being recorded. That did not happen.

With regard to Ms. Sorensen, who again is another senior official in this government, she also should have taken action on this matter as the chief of staff to make sure that these actions would not have been condoned or that immediate action should have been taken and not for us to have to come to this point and dealing with this motion.

I feel that this motion has to have some meaning. Action has to be taken. Knowing Mr. Bayly submitted his resignation in regard to this matter tells me that he realized that he did make a mistake.

I think that because of that, something has to be done to ensure that public trust is rebuilt, that we take the time to ensure that actions are taken, and meaningful action so that we can show the public that things have been done, that there are rules in place and we are tightening up in regard to the procedures that happen with regard to how people will be -- conversations will be recorded and individuals made aware of it. In those cases that there has to be procedures in place and also how we handle these types of incidents, that hopefully will not happen again, but if they do, there has to be a clear, spelled out process so that we know that action will be taken, immediate action will be taken, and that rules are spelled out clearly so that everybody in the government knows that this is a no-no and that you will be dealt with severely and seriously in the context of your job or jobs.

I think that with the motion that is in front of us and the recommendations in the report, it is clear. I think that it is important that we establish a time frame in this motion to state that the Premier does report back to this House in a specific time frame so that we can see exactly what action has been taken and if no action is being taken, how do we deal with it?

I think this motion has to be meaningful. Something has to be done and we do have to keep this government accountable and also assure the public that we are doing something to ensure this never happens again.

Thank you, Mr. Krutko. Mr. Steen.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, I agree that it would be almost inappropriate for almost anyone not to support the motion. The motion speaks for itself, so to speak. I have no problem with the motion whatsoever. I intend to support the motion.

Mr. Chairman, at the start of the process this afternoon, I did not take my ten minutes to make comment on the overall report, but rather save my time for responding to the recommendations as they were made and brought up. Mr. Chairman, at risk of being moved out of order here, I wish to take the opportunity to thank the special committee for the time they took to come and bring this issue to a close and I really hope that we don't ever have to deal with an issue like this again.

Thank you, Mr. Steen. Mr. Ootes.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I think the other Members have already spoken that the way the recommendation stands it would do little to vote against it. However, in referring to item 8.22, I take the view that it requires the resignation of John Bayly and Lynda Sorensen and that the Premier should require that. I do not agree with that, Mr. Chairman.

I think credence should be given to the regret that has been expressed by both Mr. Bayly and Ms. Sorensen over what has transpired here. I do believe some of this, while not appropriate, came on them fairly fast and furious and somewhat inadvertently.

I think credence should also be given that Mr. Bayly offered to resign from his position. There has been no blemish on either of their records that I know of. Mr. Bayly is a respected lawyer who joined the Premier's office about a year and a half ago and he is extremely well-respected in the Territory. I do not think anyone would have thought that Mr. Bayly, even today, that Mr. Bayly would deliberately do something that would be illegal. I believe it happened somewhat inadvertently.

Ms. Sorensen has served the Premier for many years and has performed duties in this government for many years. I believe that should be respected as well.

On the matter of process, we should respect the fact that Ms. Sorensen and Mr. Bayly were denied the application for limited standing and I think that is an important point. There should be recognition that witnesses without counsel and standing could be compromised in those situations, Mr. Chairman.

As I stated, I do not support the quest that resignations be sought. I think there needs to be some understanding here of the need and freedom by all Members to have staff and that this may leave the impression, if we take this action, that many more staff may be subject, in the case of errors, may be subject to tremendous disciplinary action.

While I appreciate the need for disciplinary action as I stated, the Premier has given letters of reprimand to both individuals. I think we must be careful about demanding the resignations over the situation. Also, we must remember that it was the Deputy Premier who did the recording in this circumstance. In this case, she would have been the senior individual in the room at the time, and therefore certainly employees -- I am not suggesting that they do not have a responsibility -- but certainly employees may express some reservation on how to proceed.

Those are my comments in regard to this particular motion. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Ootes. Mr. Lafferty.

Thank you, Mr. Lafferty. Mr. Allen.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It is my duty, I believe, that I should share with you some observations that I have collected. Like my colleague from Inuvik Boot Lake I have communicated back to the members of my riding. Although I am not here to judge the evidence before us of whether there was any indication of a breach of trust or misjudgment on behalf of the two staff members, it is still incumbent upon them to adhere to the strict standards, practices and conduct of persons occupying the positions of principal secretary and chief of staff, which must reflect those which Members and officers of the House and the electorate expect and require.

Those principles, Mr. Chairman, are required of us as Members. In my leadership with my various departments, I emphasis strongly that if the Minister is accountable to the public, then so should be the staff. I think that is the guiding principle that we all must adhere to.

The important statement I am making today is based on these principles. As my colleagues in the House said, we swore an oath of allegiance last year. I think we have worked hard to improve the quality of life in the North. I am sad to see that some of us are caught in the quagmire of this report.

The importance here I believe is to express to fellow Members that there are constituents out there who drive us and compel us to reply to this report. I have said today it is in the betterment of the Premier to determine what level of discipline he applies to his staff. Likewise, I think he would say the same thing to me if I had staff who breached the conduct and the requirements that are set so highly in this House.

It is with some remorse that today I lose a colleague. I think she had helped the people of the North in terms of improving the quality of life through health. I think she had dedicated herself to the need to pursue a higher degree of excellence in the North but again -- I am honoured to see her sitting here tonight, as well as yourselves as Members -- that she had left in the highest regard. I just wanted to share that with you and ensure my constituents that their message was relayed to the Premier and to my colleagues in this Legislative Assembly. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Allen. To the motion. Mr. Bell.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. One last point of clarification. I believe Ms. Lee made a statement that the standing applications, or the applications for standing for the various participants, were decided in a secret meeting. I just wanted to assure everybody that obviously this was done in a fully public hearing and not in a secret meeting so that nobody is confused. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Bell. To the motion. Question has been called. All those in favour? Opposed? The motion is carried.

If there are no further comments, that concludes the consideration of Committee Report 6-14(4). Does the committee agree that consideration of Committee Report 6-14(4) is concluded?