Does the committee agree?

With that, we will take a short break and we will begin with Committee Report 6-14(4).

-- Break

The committee will come back to order. We are dealing with Committee Report 6-14(4), Confidence in the Integrity and Standard of Government -- the Report of the Special Committee on Conflict Process.

The process that I propose to follow to permit debate of this report will be to allow the Chair of the special committee, Mr. Bell, to make any opening comments. After Mr. Bell's comments, all Members will have the opportunity to make general comments on the report for up to ten minutes at one time in accordance with our rules. If no other Member wishes to speak, then I will permit the Member to continue if he or she wishes to do so. However, if there are other Members who have indicated they wish to speak and have not spoken yet, I will go to that Member.

Once all general comments have been made, I propose that the committee would proceed to consider the recommendations. This is the process that we intend to follow to allow full debate on Committee Report 6-14(4).

With that, at this time I would like to ask Mr. Bell if he has any comments. Mr. Bell.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Yesterday the report of the Special Committee on Conflict Process was presented to the House. The committee believes that the issues addressed in the report are ones that are deserving of the many hours of hearings, discussion and analysis that they have received to date. We also believe that the issues are ones which require the careful consideration by all Members of this Assembly, as individual Members. These issues touch all of us, our individual and collective reputations, our willingness to scrutinize our own actions, responsibilities and conduct.

I will be presenting four motions to the committee dealing with each of the recommendations in the report. The motions will allow Members to debate each recommendation fully and distinctly so that the clear will of the committee is known upon adoption or otherwise of the separate motions.

Mr. Chairman, with these brief comments, I look forward to hearing the views of my colleagues on these important matters. Thank you.

Thank you. General comments? Mrs. Groenewegen.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, for the record today, I do apologize that I seem to have left a sentence out of my Member's statement, a rather important one with the word "resignation," tender my resignation, so for the record, I would like to confirm for the House that a letter of resignation was delivered to the Speaker and it is effective today. I apologize for that not being clear. You all had a funny look on your faces when I sat down. Thank you.

Thank you for that, Mrs. Groenewegen. General comments. General comments on Committee Report 6-14(4). Mr. Bell.

If there are no general comments, Mr. Chairman, I can move forward with the recommendations.

Mr. Ootes, general comments.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to make some general comments and would like the indulgence of the Members if I do exceed my ten-minute limit since there are no other speakers.

Mr. Chairman, this subject we are debating today has considerable bearing on us all, and on what we do in this House. This is, let us not forget, the people's House and it is their business that we conduct here.

This is done and it is meant to be done within a transparent and democratic framework, free from any threats, free from any manipulation. Indeed, Mr. Chairman, doing the people's business in a free and accountable manner is one of the reasons for our being here. Mr. Chairman, any act of ours, be it wilful or in error or misdeed that removes, negates or compromises that sanctity entrusted to us by the people should concern us all greatly.

Mr. Chairman, it is my view that in our dealings with this conflict issue, we may have sleepwalked into compromising, in a very serious way, the very spirit of the dealings of the trust placed in us, both in representing the people's will and in doing their business. Mr. Chairman, I was both alarmed and my democratic instincts assaulted by the process we undertook.

At this point, freed of my shackles today, I feel duty-bound to raise my significant concerns at what we have done. This is particularly so since it does deal with the very issues that we are here to represent and protect and above all to abide by. Issues like authority, legitimacy, consensus, and our very democratic practices. Issues that raise the question of whether we have violated the unique and democratic principles we have put in place in the Northwest Territories.

Mr. Chairman, my quarrel is with the slide into what my colleague for Inuvik Boot Lake, Mr. Roland, so candidly and astutely remarked in his committee deliberations as, "The muddying waters, as they say, when it comes to the legal jurisdiction." Mr. Chairman, even if my colleague was not speaking in the context I am now, his comments are appropriate and apt and at the heart of my concerns.

Mr. Chairman, my specific quarrel is with the special committee's claim of quasi-judicial authority for dealing with its deliberations, specifically the letter of June 15, 2001. This letter, which amounted to a gag order and in my view, which is shared by a number of individuals, Mr. Chairman, has had many wide-reaching ramifications on our unique system of government and perhaps the very fundamentals of our democracy.

Taken together, these two aspects of the committee's work have wreaked havoc on our government process. Indulge me a bit longer, Mr. Chairman. Let me take each of my concerns in turn. I have six specific ones.

First, Mr. Chairman, in all governments, process is essential to its practice. In democratic government, process is enshrined in specific law, or checks and balances. The process is open. There is no mystic or arbitrariness to it. When issues are dealt with in accepted norms, values or processes, they are oriented with consensual legality. However, if this essential of any democratic process is flawed or suspect, it undermines the second and perhaps most important foundation of democracy; consensus, on which we place even greater value in this House.

It is my view, Mr. Chairman, that in allowing certain latitude to the special committee in its deliberations, we may have flawed the process, which likely undermines the very findings we seek to debate in this session.

Secondly, Mr. Chairman, if our process is flawed, then we undermine the consensus we so strive to build here. Here in the Northwest Territories, Mr. Chairman, we not only have the normal political burden of creating consensus on process, but a double burden of creating consensus on the direction of each administration and its policies.

We have, Mr. Chairman, a unique and special consensus rooted in a centuries-old system, which has been in existence here in the North. We have to agree not only on how we do things but also on what things to do. So Mr. Chairman, in our government, as in any other democratic one, consensus is needed. For us, it is also necessary. In my view, Mr. Chairman, a consensus in dealing with the current conflict issue existed when the special committee was set up to look into the Commissioner's alleged bias, et cetera.

Once the special committee moved to a wider mandate, only very narrowly granted, a quantitative change took place that undermined this consensus. In my view, the mandate sought by the special committee needed nothing less than the unanimous consent, given the nature of its investigations. Anything less would always make its decisions shrouded in dissent and lacking legitimacy, given the unique and exceptional mandate it was seeking.

Nevertheless, Mr. Chairman, when the special committee's mandate was renewed and it began to look at wider issues than the Commissioner's alleged bias, that consensus we value was seriously jeopardized, in my mind. We were not wise in seeking this path, Mr. Chairman, and I did warn of that in the debate in July, that a different path was desirable. We acted hastily and without adequate deliberation. Actions not expected from us by those who put us here. Indeed, quite the contrary. We are expected to be cool-headed and aware of our consequences and our actions.

Thirdly, Mr. Chairman, it may well be that the quasi-judicial powers taken on by the committee may indeed be a breach of many of the House rules, of House procedures and of House process. All of the terms of the special committee, Mr. Chairman, are clearly and explicitly spelled out in the motion made in this House in July. Not one of those terms of reference suggest, implies or refers to any quasi-judicial powers or role for the committee, notwithstanding its right to seek legal advice, et cetera.

Mr. Chairman, my point here is that if all the other terms of reference are so explicit, then why is the quasi-judicial power of the committee not spelled out too? Is it that we did not mandate the special committee to have those? Was this power simply assumed?

Mr. Chairman, I suggest that these were indeed assumed, perhaps inadvertently. The committee had no mandate from this House to that end. Mr. Chairman, this assumption was not only wrong but outside its powers and a breach of this House's rules. Indeed, Mr. Chairman, the gag order that flowed from this assumption of quasi-judicial power certainly clashed with and breached House rules in one very specific instance, which I shall deal with next.

Mr. Chairman, the gag order silenced my constituents' voice by precluding me from talking about an issue that most of my constituents were not only interested in but were concerned about. In my view, Mr. Chairman, this concern was right and proper because the conflict issue was hurting this government's credibility, confidence and this House's judgment in the process we had chosen to deal with the issue. I believe, Mr. Chairman, in gagging me, the special committee may have breached a cardinal rule of this House, namely my absolute privilege in at least two aspects: one, my freedom of speech and two, my freedom from obstruction and intimidation in relation to my duties as an elected representative of my constituents.

You will notice, Mr. Chairman, that my complaints are couched in may or may have language, and again this is because the gag order precluded me from seeking clarification from the Clerk of this Assembly, since he became one more person I could not talk to about matters raised in this gag order.

Indeed, Mr. Chairman, this is the very first time I have had the opportunity to address this matter fully. In the last special session of our sitting in July, we were preoccupied with whether the committee should have an extended mandate or we should engage in another process. Indeed, it was not clear even then whether all issues could be addressed -- murky political waters everywhere, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman, my point here, if it is not already obvious is that in allowing a widened mandate to the special committee in endorsing through our silence its quasi-judicial role, this House may well have left its collective wisdom at the door. Mr. Chairman, I seek unanimous consent to conclude my statement.

Excuse me, but we agreed to the rules of the House, which is ten minutes for each presenter. I will come back to all presenters once everybody has had an opportunity to speak. Those are the rules we started the process with so I will allow you to have an opportunity to speak, Mr. Ootes, after I recognize other speakers on my list. Mr. Kakfwi.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, I believe the report must be reviewed fully, with adequate time for debate by everyone concerned and implicated by this report, if they wish to provide comments.

Mr. Chairman, in part one of the report, the committee, having been blessed with the authority of the Legislature, set out, in their own words, on a journey largely uncharted. They say that they undertook these obligations with sincere intention. I want to make it clear that I accept that. I really believe that in the beginning, members of this committee set out with sincere intentions to do the best job possible.

My concern in the beginning, and I stated it in this House, is that there was not sufficient time and because it was, as Members said, largely uncharted territory, adequate time must be assured of everyone, otherwise they should not be undertaking this job.

Mr. Chairman, I believe my concerns are well-founded because it is true that the committee did virtually no work in July, virtually no work in August, and yet they allege that there was a flurry of activity around my office in July. Surely there was more of a flurry of activity by this committee in September. People were on holidays, including the Law Clerk. There was no priority given to organizing and putting the proper attention and resources to this job.

I believe that it was necessary -- absolutely necessary -- to have the time to do that job and that this committee could not afford the perception that theirs was a hasty, ill-prepared, not-thought-through process because they started with the view that theirs was a largely uncharted territory.

I think the testimony and the comments through the committee proceedings indicate that they were making decisions on the go, sometimes as late as one o'clock in the morning, apparently.

So if the committee was hoping to deliver a report that would be, through their own declaration, quasi-judicial in its proceedings, it is difficult for me to see that.

Did they spend the time necessary to do an adequate job? I would say no. Lawyers were sitting well beyond the time of human endurance and asked to make decisions and rulings. Why the committee decided they had to conclude and convene at a certain date was because they said everybody was so busy and it was so difficult to schedule a time.

Again I go back to the concern I expressed in July. I was not assured that this would be a job that would be the priority of the members of that committee and the people serving that committee and because so many members had said they were busy, summer was coming, there were commitments far beyond what most of us ordinarily are prepared to commit to, that the chances of this committee doing a good job and enjoying the perception that they were going to do a good job was in jeopardy.

In my view, if it were open and if it were fair, then why were certain witnesses denied access? If you were going to make allegations about my testimony, for instance, and what I did in the first two weeks of July, why did you not ask me? Why do you allege that there was a flurry of activity in my office and that there was none for the first two weeks of July? You never asked me about that. Certainly there was no questioning about it. If you had, I would have told you.

Certainly the order to be absolutely diligent about what we could and could not do, say or take action on was a very serious letter. Those were the things that were considered. How was I as the Premier going to honour that and still take action?

There is nothing in my testimony that said I am only concerned about the legal aspects of the allegations that were made. Where in the testimony, in the evidence, do I say that? Yet you have no qualms about making that conclusion here.

I have said things to the contrary. In reports, I said I think they were serious and that they needed to be dealt with. That is what I have said.

There is a question in my mind. If a member of the public, Lee Selleck, was in such clear contempt of this committee -- clear contempt, according to the members of this committee -- then where is the logic? Tell me where is the logic that says therefore we recommend that no further action be taken? That totally disengages any logic. If it is clear contempt of this House, then surely we do something about it. If you could not do anything about it, why mention it in the first place?

There is testimony given by April Taylor. She swore categorically it was definitely in John Bayly's office. It was not. Nobody else could even remember where it was, but based on the telephone recording, we discovered it was in my office. Is the rest of her testimony credible? Members of the committee seemed to think so. I have difficulty with that. What else is not clearly recollected in her mind? I think she is sincere and honest about it. When there is testimony that is all conflicting, can you be selective about who you believe and who you do not?

Other members were not allowed to question and provide evidence to the contrary. There was no legal standing given so I have difficulty with that.

The members know that as a Premier, I took action. I gave letters of reprimand. I suggested a letter of reprimand be also given to April Taylor. The advice from senior management was there was no letter of reprimand warranted to anyone. You heard April Taylor tell you categorically, "Quite frankly, I don't think I deserved one." The fact is she did not get one. My advice was I think she should because she clearly is the one that says "I remember from beginning to end there was taping done and I was very upset." Was she upset in March? Was she upset all that time or was she just upset when she realized, "This is really serious?" I do not know that. I do not know that.

However, she never got a letter of reprimand. She would not deserve one. I think there are serious problems with the report and as we go through it, I would suggest that we do each recommendation one at a time. I think they deserve to be gone through page by page. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Kakfwi. Next on my list I have Ms. Lee.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, I expect that I will make specific comments under each motion when the items come up for debate, but as a way of general comment on this report, I would like to state first of all that I would like to acknowledge the courage and the respect for this House that the Minister has shown in tendering her resignation this afternoon. I am sure that it was not an easy thing for her and I really would like to acknowledge her for having done what she felt was right for the integrity and respect for this process, so as to avoid unnecessary debate that might debase this process even further.

Secondly, Mr. Chairman, I need to state that yesterday and throughout today, I was asked by the media about whether or not I thought that the Minister should resign. Apparently there was a poll being conducted and I chose not to respond to any of those inquiries because when I sat here and read the report while it was being reported, my sense was just an overwhelming sense of sadness and dark clouds coming over this House. It just really was not a good day for this House and this government and for the people of the Territories. I wanted a moment to reflect on that and I felt that it was no longer a question about whether a Minister should resign or not. It was much bigger than that.

I really do believe that by the content of this report and the process of this committee, a serious assault has been committed to the constitutional and democratic system that we are here to protect.

Mr. Chairman, the overwhelming sense I get from reading and reflecting on this report is an apparent abuse of power by those who have been given the power from this Assembly to conduct an inquiry into an issue that needed to be looked at.

Mr. Chairman, I have looked at the report to see where this committee obtains power and apparently it comes with the notion of parliamentary privilege. The way it reads in the excerpt from Beauchesne and other authorities, as outlined in this report, it appears that we do have unlimited power, apparently, and it really gives the ones who proclaim to have it a lot of power to do whatever it is that it sees fit in doing.

At the same time, Mr. Chairman, I have stated on many occasions in this House that for every right, privilege and power that we as Members have as an elected representative, along comes with that at least an equal amount of responsibility to make sure that that power is not abused and that there is some sense of balance and check.

I do believe that the tone and the context of this text shows an excessive sense of righteousness, negativity and moral superiority that has gone completely unchecked. As I reflect on this, I keep telling myself that I have to be measured in my response. I have to be respectful of the process and I have to be respectful of this House which, Mr. Chairman, I must admit is not really in line with my normal personality. I am usually not measured about many things. I like to just say what I think and stand or fall by them. I will try to do that as much as I can in this debate.

I was very saddened by the negativity of this report and the consequence of this report in destroying a number of reputations of all parties involved and in the way it was written so as to make the impact more negative and more insidious. I saw in here a complete disregard and disrespect for the place and role of media and public service in a constitutional democracy and in a democratic system. I see a process that lacked at least giving very discretionary access to fairness and due process to the parties involved. I see a process that showed a complete lack of natural justice for parties involved equally.

At the bottom of all this I think, Mr. Chairman, that we have to remember is how we started this process, how this process got started. I could appreciate and I could accept that there might be a time when a House like this may want to exercise the kind of power that it has chosen to exercise in this process. If there was a state of emergency, if there was some sort of happenings that really seriously jeopardizes lives of the people or our future or something like that.

However, what we have to remember is the little seed that started this process is a stupid clerical error on a corporate registry. It was an error that anybody who practices in that area knows happens daily. I realize that there were incremental steps taken by each party in this process to make it bigger and larger than it had to be. I do not want to impugn the Minister, but I think the Minister has acknowledged that she used a lack of judgment in that sense. I think what this committee has done has made that tenfold more insidious than it had to be.

I think we have to remember that. I think that in order for a House like this to come down with the kind of power that it chose to exercise, we have to account for what the reasons are.

Mr. Chairman, I kept thinking about this abuse of power and I guess I have to accept that if we feel that it is fit and it is in the interests of the public to use the power in that way, I do not think we are without the requirement for accountability and the party that we are accountable to. I do not think we are reviewable by any courts or anybody. The court of appeal for this decision is this House. The final court of appeal of what goes on with respect to this report and this issue is the people out there. People have to take the time to listen to what is going on here and judge us as to whether we have used a fair sense of judgment in dealing with this entire issue. I think that is the only accountability and that is the most important accountability. I think that all of us have to really reflect on that so with that, I am going to close my general comments and make more specific comments under each category of motion. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you, Ms. Lee. Mr. Krutko.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I find it awfully embarrassing to have to be here again in the 14th Assembly after having gone through a similar process with the 13th Assembly. I find it awfully embarrassing as a Member of this House that it had to come to this point, where we are having to deal with it in this manner. This could have been cleaned up a long time ago. We could have avoided all the embarrassment to each and every one of us. This will be left as a legacy to the 14th Assembly as it was to the Members of the 13th Assembly.

I for one feel that regardless of who said what, how the process came out, the fundamental point here is the public trust. The public has a right to trust this government to the point that if someone makes a phone call and they are being heard on the other side through an intercom system, that they are not being recorded. If they are, that someone should have put them on notice that it was taking place.

I think for myself as a Member, I know I put a lot of calls to different Ministers' offices wondering if those conversations had been recorded. We hear of a particular instance in U.S. history of a President being put out of office because of a thing called Watergate. In that case, something to a similar effect of phone calls being bugged and what not. We cannot take it lightly that this is a one-time incident or that this is the end of it.

For a senior office of this government, where this phone call took place, again, gives me grave concerns to exactly how high up this ladder this process went.

I feel sorry for all the parties involved in this. Everyone here has been affected, not only those individuals. The people of the Northwest Territories have been affected by what the outcome of this is or is going to be.

I think it is important to realize that when the public trust is no longer either within us or within Members of this House or within this government, where we see these types of activities being played out on television through the media and that for us to try to deal with what is best for the public, what is best for the Northwest Territories, and have to be slammed with something like this, I for one feel that something has to happen. Something has to change so that the public is assured that it will not happen again and there have to be mechanisms in place that those people who were involved are dealt with.

I for one feel that we have to somehow try to rebuild that public trust, which I feel right now is not there. I think through the parties and all the people involved that we have to feel in some ways sorry that it got to this point. From the Conflict of Interest Commissioner who thought she was doing her job, who was being blamed for a lot of things that were outside of her realm, or was the concern of individuals. For her to have been recorded the way she was by senior officials of this government and then to be used as a scapegoat through this process, to focus the blame on that individual -- as far as I see it, she should not take the brunt of this blame.

She was set up for personal gain by an individual to get information and use it against her. For me, that is as close to being slanderous as slanderous can be.

When you use something against another individual, knowing that is power because you have her on a tape recorder, saying, "Well, look here. I have something on you." That is not a way to run a government.

If those are the tactics that are being used by this government, we definitely have a problem within the system. I for one feel that we have to do more than just ream out a few individuals but establish some clear rules and clear policies within this government that will make it a policy, not only within this government, but make it a rule that no recordings whatsoever take place in any way, shape or form during the business of this government, regardless of whether it is out of a particular Minister's office or if it is a private conversation in the boardroom.

I feel that is where we have to focus. We cannot blame it on the committee for doing their work. We cannot blame it on the fact that we were not involved or we did not like the process. Everyone had an opportunity to take part in this process. It was visible. People saw it on television. People were able to hear it through the radio. The media was all over it. We as Members in this House are now having a chance here to respond to the report of the committee, which we as a Legislature established in this House with the particular rules and mandate for them to go out and do a particular job.

At this time, I would like to congratulate the committee for doing the job they did do. It was tough and it was time-consuming. For us to sit over here and say, "Well, they did not take enough time or basically they did not put the energy into it." As we all know, the schedule of Members of this House, it is hectic enough just to try to figure out where you are going to be next week, never mind trying to figure out where you were last week.

I think for myself, I am again totally appalled that we have had to come to this point but I for one feel that we have to do something to build that public trust and allow the people of the Northwest Territories to feel that they can trust this government. They can trust the bureaucracy to ensure they are out there looking and ensuring that they are there for the public of the Northwest Territories and not for their own individual endeavours.

I for one feel that we as a government have to not only consider the recommendations in this report but also review existing policies and guidelines that we have to ensure that any means of communication is being recorded and that we seriously look at the processes that are being conducted in regard to how communications are being handled between the public, the offices of this government, individuals of other governments, and Ministers and their officials are monitored.

I think this experience shows us that we are not above the law. We are not there to do things on the basis that we think we have the power or we can do it because we feel that we are on top of the mountain. We are here because the public put us here. We are here to represent the interests of the public, to protect the public against the government, not the other way around. We are protecting the public's interest by saying, "We know what is best for you. Trust us." I think that is the thing that is lacking here, is trust.

I feel that we have to take the time and build the trust and make sure we establish those rules so that we do not see this happen again in this government or in any future government that is in place, and it has to come from the Premier's office, since that is where presently everything is being pointed at right now. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you, Mr. Krutko. We will go to Mr. Steen.

Point of Order

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, I would like to treat this more as a point of order rather than general comments. The reason I refer, Mr. Chairman, to a point of order is that I believe we have legislation, the Legislative Assembly and Executive Council Act. I believe it refers in there that should an investigation into a Member's conduct, whether it is a Minister or a Member, be undertaken, that investigation ceases if the Member resigns. Therefore, we do not have a reason any more for this investigation and for this report. The Member has officially resigned.

I believe that if the Members of this House or this committee still feel that there is a need to inquire into the other recommendations, this is not the forum in which to do it because the legislation prevents that. I respectfully request the Chair to look into this point of order to see if in fact we can continue with this report.

Thank you, Mr. Steen. Mr. Steen has requested that we look into a point of order. Do we have any other Members who wish to speak to the point of order? Mr. Krutko.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, on the point of order, I believe there is no point of order. We are dealing with a report which is in front of us, so we are speaking to the particular Committee Report 6-14(4), in which that is what the debate is about in this House. We are dealing with the contents of what is in the report and I think that to state that there is a point of order on the basis of the decision that the Member has stepped down does not resolve the contents of this report. We are here to debate the contents of this report and the findings of this report and that is why I believe there is no point of order because we have not done that until we make the final decision with regard to the recommendations of the report and whatever comes out of that at that point.

My point is that we are dealing with the report that is in front of us, which is the due process of this House, which we do through committee of the whole and because of that, I do not believe there is a point of order.

Thank you, Mr. Krutko. Mr. Braden.

Mr. Chairman, Mr. Steen has raised, I think, a valid concern, a point of order -- perhaps a point of clarification -- that relates to a question I wanted to ask as well. With Mrs. Groenewegen's resignation, does that essentially take away the requirement or the task of the committee to consider only recommendation 2? Does it still leave recommendations 1, 3 and 4 before us? On that point of order or clarification, it is a valid one and I would appreciate it, Mr. Chair, if you would indeed take the time if required, perhaps a short break, to have a careful look at this and come back with your guidance to the committee. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Braden. Maybe I will go back to Minister Steen for a minute and try and get clarification. Under what rule is he raising a point of order, or would it best be addressed with a legal opinion which we could get, a legal opinion as to whether there is a point of order here. Mr. Steen.