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.