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.