The motion is in order. To the motion. Question has been called. All those in favour? All those opposed? The motion is carried. To the motion, Mr. Miltenberger.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, I would like to speak in support of the third motion. My colleague from Nunakput, I believe, is getting the wrong interpretation from that particular paragraph that he has read. I think it has to be read in the context of all that has transpired in this particular process.

While the formal application of bias has been withdrawn and accepted by this House, the harsh reality is that there are stacks of legal documents -- public documents that are out there on the record from both sides -- casting significant aspersions and allegations and innuendo on the conduct and behaviour of the process, of the Conflict Commissioner, and of what has transpired with the Minister's lawyers. It casts and leaves a cloud over this whole Assembly, Mr. Chairman.

At this point, we have a process that has never been followed anywhere before. This particular initial complaint has moved us like Star Trek, in that we have gone where no man has gone before, no person has gone before. We have broken new ground. I missed that, Mr. Premier.

-- Interjection

Person, Mr. Chairman. There are significant unresolved issues out there. In fact, it was stated up until yesterday that there was evidence that would prove an opinion of the Minister's lawyer that there was an apprehension of bias. We do not know that.

What we do know is that the process, the office, has been cast under a cloud. We as an Assembly are under a cloud because the system that we have does not seem to be functioning properly. It seems to be subject to bias. It does not seem to be politically tamper proof.

We have the issue of the tape and what that means. The tape and the involvement of senior staff, the Deputy Premier -- there are all these questions that leave this House under a cloud. Our system is under a cloud and we should be assuring the public that we will get our house in order. We will resolve the issue. We will make a final determination regardless of what the Conflict Commissioner's report says in terms of her findings on the complaint from Mr. Rowe.

I think it is absolutely essential that this Legislature take the necessary steps to resolve this issue, to reassure the people of the Northwest Territories that our systems do work, that we are not going to leave all these unanswered questions hanging out there, and that we are going to make sure that we clear the air and bring some resolution to the issue so that there in fact is a sense that the Conflict Commissioner can do her business and that office is seen to be above reproach.

In my opinion, we have to deal with the other issues that have come out of this in terms of the process, the tape and the conduct issues. I think it is absolutely essential that we proceed and to look at it just within that narrow paragraph, once it is withdrawn formally, it somehow all just disappears, that the two or three foot stack of legal documents that are there for the public record no longer have any relevance and that there are no longer any questions that we have to deal with as an Assembly, I think is taking the wrong view.

I think it is absolutely incumbent upon ourselves as legislators in this House, the ones who make the laws for the people, to be seen that we have our systems operating and that our systems are there to protect the public interest. We cannot leave this cloud hanging over all of us. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Miltenberger. To the motion. Mr. Krutko.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. That is also the reason I question looking at motion 1, because simply by withdrawing it does not end the process. From the process that we have gone through, where you make allegations against a senior person, especially a person who is in the position of having independent authority to do her job, by having themselves put under a microscope by someone making an allegation that totally undermines that office -- I for one feel that whenever people do this, they have to keep in mind that you have to know going in that what you do or what you say and how you do it will have an implication of the outcome, regardless of who it affects.

This has affected the Legislative Assembly, Members of this House, and also people who are holding positions in this government: our Languages Commissioner, the Conflict of Interest Commissioner, our Information Commissioner. We have people who put their names forth to do a position, a particular job, who will think twice if they have to put their name forth to any of these positions knowing that anytime you make a decision or you are coming forth with a decision, someone can challenge you on the basis of bias and that it ties your hands from doing your job.

That is why I have concerns regarding motion 1, knowing that simply by passing that motion, this is not the end or the conclusion of this process. If anything, the microscope has been turned up a couple more notches to really look a little deeper into exactly what has gone on here.

I for one feel that we should look a little deeper to see what has gone on here, because I believe it is our responsibility to ensure that when allegations are made, they are made knowing that they have implications. If there are ways for this committee to review that with the mandate that we give them, come forth with rules that everyone will have to follow, knowing that we cannot simply make allegations and withdraw them after the fact, knowing that they had an effect on an office, on an individual or on a government.

I believe that, from what has been stated to the information that has been provided to date, people's personal and private lives have been affected. I think that by doing this, we have to find a mechanism that makes it clear that the rules will apply when people decide to challenge, change or affect a decision or an outcome. That there is a process that once it starts, the outcome will be there. If you make an allegation, you better be sure that you carry it all the way through so we do not have anyone out there who will make an effect on any senior office, especially offices that we establish where we give people some independence to do their job. Without that independence, no one will want to take those jobs, or they will really think twice about what they are getting themselves into, where every time you do something, you are going to be challenged on it.

For me, I will be supporting motion 3, and hopefully, we get some conclusion of exactly what has happened here.

Thank you, Mr. Krutko. To the motion. Mr. Kakfwi.

Mr. Chairman, this motion is suggesting that, although the Legislature has agreed to withdraw the application made by Jane Groenewegen, that application has been approved by the Legislature to be withdrawn, so it is withdrawn. Notwithstanding that, this committee that we set up, which is a special committee set up to take the place of the Board of Management to deal with this issue, is now asking to have its life extended and its mandate expanded to consider a whole range of issues, which I do not see any particular substance to right now.

I think Members are in agreement that when we set up this process, it was, to quote some Members, "getting into uncharted territory." In many ways, this motion reflects that. The committee is saying there is a request to withdraw the application and the Legislature approves that, but irregardless of it, the committee wants to continue.

The Member of the Legislature has got her request approved, so is now not going to be a party to this process. We have approved that.

We also have a letter from the Conflict of Interest Commissioner which, the way I read it, suggests that she never wanted to be part of this process in the first place, so there is no indication that this Conflict of Interest Commissioner is going to be a willing participant in the process to continue. If anything, it reads like get it over with. Shut it down because it is not a process that she endorses.

It is my view that the process, because it is uncharted as you say, is going to continue to escalate in cost and is going to distract and consume a tremendous amount of our time and energy. Right now, I do not see any substance to deal with. There are things that were uncovered in the course of the work. I do not know what they are. The public does not know what they are.

There are some innuendoes and suggestions made, but they do not appear to be substantial. If there are issues considering conduct, that is for the Board of Management, or perhaps myself as Premier, to deal with.

There are avenues. We do not need a special committee to deal with those issues that may have arisen in the course of this committee doing its work. That is really my point. The Board of Management has been misplaced by this special committee. The bias issue has been withdrawn, so there is no need for this motion. The Board of Management can and should resume its duties at the earliest instance.

If there are issues regarding the conduct of Ministers, myself and senior officials, there is a forum in place to deal with it, so I do not see a need for this type of a committee. I believe the Legislature should see the report of the Conflict of Interest Commissioner as she has asked. She has asked to have the report dealt with and accept it. The last motion we dealt with opens the door to that. We should have a look at that and that should point to the fact that this process is no longer required.

I do not know about other Members, but the Conflict of Interest Commissioner continues to perform her duties. If the public has lost confidence, then who is saying that? I am not saying that. If anything, I have used the Conflict of Interest Commissioner's office and sought her advice in the course of the last couple of months. Just because you say it does not make it true. If you say it very often, you might make it sound like it is true.

I think that you have to respect the integrity of these offices and let everybody get back to the jobs they where asked to do. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Kakfwi. Mr. Lafferty.

Thank you, Mr. Lafferty. Mr. Ootes.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, in the course of the comments being made, I want to refer back to some comments made by Mr. Steen. I heard him questioning the authority for the committee to be able to continue. The original motion stated that the authorities directed to consider the application filed by the Member. The application has been withdrawn and we have agreed that it has now been withdrawn.

That is an important element in the establishment of the committee. It was established because the Board of Management could not deal with the issue, so we established a committee to have the committee look at this specific issue.

I think like others have said, as Mr. Kakfwi has stated, the Conflict Commissioner, from what I understand, would be satisfied with this situation where this issue now deals only with her report in the House. If the committee wants to look at other issues, it goes way beyond the mandate I feel that was the original reason for establishing the committee. It was to deal with the authority and had the authority to deal with the application made by Mrs. Groenewegen.

We need to deal with the conflict report, Mr. Chairman. That was the start of it all. That is the issue here, the conflict report. We need to get that before us and deal with it. If there are other concerns, then I feel there is a process in place that people can make a complaint. If the Conflict Commissioner is not satisfied or someone else is not satisfied, then they can make a complaint. At that point, you can action the issue. Right now, the mandate of the committee has been completed.

I am not sure that my just stating the mandate is extended...what mandate? There is no mandate anymore. You have no terms of reference for that committee. I think you need to look at that. To me, I would ask the question legally, perhaps, for an explanation. What is the mandate of this committee? What are the terms of reference? If there are no terms of reference to follow up on this, then you cannot carry on as a committee.

That does not stop the process. If there is concern out there, then surely somebody will come forward and say "Look, we need to look at this issue. There are some unresolved issues here."

I would like to get on with the report itself. From that, no doubt we can make some judgments as well. We are going to get a committee to come forward with its investigation of bias? Well, we have to spend a lot of time as Members of this Assembly to judge whether the committee did its job properly. Did it do its job properly? Did it do it in due process? I guess my question would be, of the legal advisor, what is the authority of the committee and the terms of reference?

Thank you, Mr. Ootes. I guess it is not normal to have a ruling in the middle of a debate, but would the committee agree that we could have input from the Law Clerk as to the legitimacy of the committee now that number one has been withdrawn?

Ms. Peterson, could you help us out?

Thank you, Ms. Peterson. To the motion. Mr. Ootes.

Well, if I understand Ms. Peterson's comments correctly, the mandate of the committee has therefore ended, unless new terms of reference are established.

Thank you, Mr. Ootes. Ms. Peterson, would you like to clarify that?

To the motion. Ms. Lee.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to take this, my first opportunity to comment publicly on this issue, to say that I feel very strongly that this is highly regrettable, that by the incremental steps that have been taken by various parties, that we have gotten to where we are here.

There has been so much said and reported about this. I have taken the opportunity to attend all of the public meetings that the special committee held on this issue. I have tried my best to pay attention to the documents being filed and so on. I must say that I have not been able to read the mountains and hundreds of pages of various documents, statements, letters and stuff that has been filed on this matter.

In thinking about what we could do to come out of this process, the only thing I could think of was to go back to how we came to this in the first place. I guess the Minister in question would have a different opinion about it, but for me this goes back to the fact that a reporter found her name on a corporate registry showing her as a director.

Like I said, we will not know what the result of the Commissioner's investigation is, but even if she was found to be guilty or have done something wrong, in the big scheme of things, I do not think this is a matter that is really earth-shattering, or is of such criminal conduct that we have to deploy resources of the state in the way that we do.

I think there are things that are wrong, things that are right, and things that we have to fight for, and things where we have to move on. It does not take a lot for us to look around and see that we have a lot of bloody bodies around us, or at least severely bruised parties as a result of this process. I strongly believe that it is in the best interest of this Assembly and the people out there to put closure to this issue.

Mr. Chairman, I am very aware of the concerns and the seriousness of concerns expressed in this report and I think that those have to be dealt with by some process, but I am not sure if that process should be by way of this special committee.

First of all, because it is a process where the Minister herself has withdrawn from. She filed a complaint and for whatever reason, reasons she has stated and not stated, she has decided that she does not want to pursue that argument or that complaint anymore, which has effectively eliminated the reason for this committee to exist.

The second thing is that the Commissioner does not support this process. So we have two parties who have the most at stake and have asked, agreed, supported a position that this special committee should not go on anymore.

Third, I have a problem with that process in that I am not part of that process. I am not saying that I want all that work, and I am not even sure that all of the Members here want to spend the next month or two reviewing something that has questionable merit, but if there was such a process, I want to be part of that process. So you have five or six Members reviewing this question for the next two months and it will have to be brought back here, like Mr. Steen mentioned, and then we will have to go through this all over again.

Finally, Mr. Chairman, I really do not have confidence, no matter how the terms of reference are worded or written and no matter what the membership of the committee is, whether I am in it or not, I do not think it is an issue that anyone could get to the bottom of. I think we have had a month. There are enough things having been said of various colours that could have us studying it for the next year. What is the question we are going to get to? How much can people say about someone's action or inaction or another person?

Then you have the lawyers involved. Anyone who comes before this special committee in the next two months will be armed with a lawyer. I am sure that the Commissioner, even if she was not to take part in this process in a formal way, she has already made it clear in her letter that she does not want this discussed without her having the opportunity to defend it.

By passing a motion, we have said we are going to agree to allow the Minister to withdraw and we did not put any value in that. We did not say it was right or wrong. She asked for it and we voted on the motion, each Member as they saw fit. To say that we accept to withdraw this, but we are going to just move right along because we think if we looked at this hard enough and thought about it enough and studied it enough, we are going to figure this one out. I do not think we can.

I am disturbed by the wording of the third motion where it says to consider the allegation of apprehension of bias in relation to the investigation conducted by the Conflict of Interest Commissioner, and to consider related matters which have arisen or may arise. That is a recipe for something that would grow daily as it moves through the process. I am not comfortable supporting such a mandate to a committee of this Assembly.

Mr. Chairman, I am not saying that this issue should not be visited, but I would suggest something like a retired judge or another Conflict of Interest Commissioner, because the Commissioner points out all sorts of areas in the law that are ambiguous. I can think of one where she said that I should not be asked to advise and adjudicate, and then the Minister's lawyer suggested that the Commissioner should not be making recommendations as to what should be changed in the act. That is just one little element out of hundreds of allegations and accusations that are in this report.

I do not think it is fair to ask these Members to straighten this out. I think if we feel that the conflict of interest legislation and process should be changed, we have to step back and have a third party look at it. This is not something that can be done by having various parties appear as they did before for the last month, and continue to do it. That really defeats the purpose of the first and second motion, or the reason why we are here today. I am not going to hold somebody against having voted for these motions or anything. These are very difficult issues, but I just do not believe that.

Second of all, I just want to remember that there are a lot of people on our legal aid who are not able to get legal assistance to defend whatever charges they have against them or to go after child support or spousal support or anything. We are looking at the prospect of spending hundreds of thousands of dollars -- $300,000 limit for legal fees. I do not understand why someone who needs child support has to apply for $2,000 to go and see a lawyer, whereas we think nothing of approving $300,000 legal bills.

So for many reasons, Mr. Chairman, I think it is wise for us to stop this process right here and figure out another way of making the legislation and the process clearer and better. Thank you.

Thank you, Ms. Lee. Mr. Antoine.

Thank you, Mr. Antoine. Mr. Roland.