General comments in regard to Committee Report 11-14(5). Mr. Delorey.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, in looking back in Hansard from Friday, Unedited Hansard I see that there was a break in the recording and much of my comments that I made on Friday were not recorded. So I want to state again some of the things that I brought out on Friday.

I know that I probably won't remember all of them because I did not have a written text, however I want to restate how I arrived at my decisions and what I am looking at in this whole issue.

Mr. Chairman, when I ran for election to this government I went to the people of Hay River North and I set my principles, my standards and I told the people what I would do if elected, and they elected me to represent them in this Legislature. I do not take the trust that they have put in me lightly. I do not take decisions that I make in this House lightly, nor do I think any other Member in this House should take them lightly.

When I was approached to support who we were going to put in as Premier and who we were going to have sitting on the opposite side of the House as Ministers, I gave that some serious consideration and I also put a lot of thought into the Members sitting across, if they were honest, accountable, and were going to carry out the business of the Northwest Territories and control the public purse that best interests the people of the Northwest Territories.

In this House on Friday, Mr. Chairman, I was all prepared to vote on the recommendations that were put forward by the committee. It was mentioned by one Member across that maybe we should cool our heels, take a couple of days, listen to our constituents and maybe come back and see how we feel at that time.

I want to tell you, Mr. Chairman, that I did not sleep very good Friday night. I made it a point to go home to Hay River when I had not planned to go home this weekend, but I made it a point to go home because I thought it was extremely important that I went home and talked to as many of my constituents that I could and listened to their views and their concerns.

So Saturday and Sunday to me were spent in my constituency talking with people and every spare moment that I had on the phone this morning. I have to tell you, Mr. Chairman, not one person that I talked to encouraged me to change my position that I took on Friday. Not one. If there was one, I would accept the phone call now to correct me, but I know it will not come, because I never heard one, and I talked to a lot of people.

I slept a lot better last night because I am very comfortable with the position I have now and I am comfortable that the constituents that I represent are comfortable with the position I am taking. I have talked to constituents that are in government, I have talked to constituents in the private sector, I have talked to business people, I have talked to seniors, I have talked to retired individuals, I have talked to students, and I had one retired school teacher tell me, "I have just retired from teaching and I received a certificate for 30 years of excellence in teaching." She said, "My pension..." and I will not repeat how she compared her pension with the pension that Lynda Sorensen is getting, because it would not be acceptable in this House, but she made it very clear to me that her tax dollars are being expended in this House in this manner. She was not happy about it. I feel it incumbent upon me to relay that message here, because she is one person that helped elect me to this House.

I said on Friday that we are here to represent the people and that we are in charge of protecting the public purse; public money. Tax dollars that this government gets to expend on other people and on programs and services.

You would like me, or certain Members would like me to stand up and say, "Well, we threw a quarter of a million dollars away at one person, but that is okay. We are going to put guidelines in place so it does not happen again." It does not fly, Mr. Chairman. The guidelines were there. This leader did not follow those guidelines. Do I think he will do it next time? No, I do not. I have heard him say nothing that would change my mind.

I am prepared to go back to the electorate, to my constituents and face another election on my convictions, my standards, my honesty, and my accountability. I hope that every Member of this House, this side and that side, are prepared to do the same thing, because I can guarantee you we no longer have consensus government here. We no longer have a consensus on anything. We can face a vote of confidence in the Premier and go on from here. We can go for a year, but we will not have a consensus government for the rest of this term.

It is going to be an impossible situation. The public out there is speaking, and I hope that every Member here is well aware of the situation in front of us. It is how we expend public money, how we expend the public purse. People out there who are deeply in need of help, who are paying tax dollars and trusting us to do it right.

I look at the Members across and I respect the Members across. I respected them when I voted for them. I assumed at that time that they would do the right thing. I assume now that they will do the right thing, but the public is watching us. I for one am going to state right now, I am prepared to go to the polls on my decision, and my decision is to support the committee recommendation to its fullest. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Bell.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I think one thing is certainly interesting to start this discussion off. The Premier, and I am glad to see it, that the Premier has said that he is willing to accept the conclusions and the findings of the Auditor General.

Mr. Chairman, I am not sure that the public will recognize and comprehend how fundamental a shift this position is from where we were a week ago. The Premier obviously was privy to the Auditor General's report in draft before the rest of the House saw it, and I believe the first interview I saw on it a couple of days before the Auditor General's findings were public was something to the effect that he felt that it was not that big a deal. She was going to have her opinions and we would have ours.

Mr. Chairman, I think the public can see just how ridiculous a statement like that is. Someone of her authority, someone of her credibility, someone of her respect, this is not something that anybody should take lightly. Mrs. Groenewegen has indicated that this report cannot be defended. It cannot be justified. It was absolutely damning. It was brutal. It was black and white and it was honest.

Mr. Kakfwi has indicated that the Auditor General was not privy to the politics of the day. She did not understand the political pressure he was under. Mr. Speaker, I would say exactly because that is not what we want. We wanted a look at the situation and look at the termination packages to determine whether or not things had been done according to policy, not whether or not there were political excuses that could be made for sidestepping policy, and there were mitigating circumstances and other things, because I will tell you, the public does not care. They only know that somebody got a whack of money that nobody else can get.

Mr. Delorey talked about the 30-year teacher who will not get the kind of benefits that one individual got. I think that is really what is eating at people. I should say, Mr. Chairman, that Mr. Bayly and Ms. Sorensen did what any of us would do; go into a negotiation for benefits and bargain hard and start high, and I absolutely would not fault them for that for a minute. Mr. Bayly got almost exactly what he was entitled to in his contract. We signed these people to lucrative contracts because they are at pleasure, and we can get rid of them at almost a moment's notice, as the Premier indicated. That is why we agreed to pay them significant money should they leave under unfavourable circumstances.

However, we cannot crumple up those contracts because we want to make it just a little more money, or a lot more money, Mr. Chairman. I think this situation amounts to essentially, and I do not want to get into rehashing the findings of the Auditor General, but in my mind, it is a significant breach of trust. We have a lot of trust and a lot of faith that he or she who holds the office of Premier in this government will do so honourably and will adhere to our policies and our laws because we simply cannot sit in that individual's office every day and look over their shoulder to ensure that they are in fact doing the right kinds of things.

I would like the Members of the House, with that in mind, to reflect on one thing. Can you imagine what would have happened if we were not able to pass the motion to get an Auditor General investigation? All of us would be none the wiser. We would carry on merrily. The money would have been expended. There would have been absolutely no accountability because the government was not prepared to talk about it. The situation would continue to repeat itself, I believe, in future.

In light of our fiscal situation, Mr. Chairman, I think we all, as an Assembly and the public, can see exactly the failings of a government that cannot handle these simple matters and follow policies and laws to the letter.

Mr. Chairman, in the next year, we have a $100 million deficit that we are facing. And make no mistake, Ministers will be talking to Members and we will be passing the message to the public that times are tough. We are going to have to cinch up our belts. There is no free lunch. The picture is not rosy anymore and we are all going to have to make sure that we economize and can get by on a little less. There will not be the kind of money that we need to make a significant dent in alcohol and drug treatment. The Minister of Health has already indicated that for our social agenda, we are looking at slightly over a million dollars. Mr. Chairman, paltry dollars when you really look at some of the money that we expend in other areas. I find that absolutely embarrassing.

I cannot condone the activity that has gone on here, Mr. Chairman. I would also say to my Cabinet colleagues across the floor who approved this money that I expect more. I understand that you were not involved in the negotiations, but you sat in that Cabinet room and you either decided to hear no evil and see no evil and just sign the piece of paper that allowed the funds to be expended, or you did not care. I would like to think you did not ask the questions. I guess I am a little more comfortable thinking that you were negligent in your duty in asking the proper questions, rather than imagine that you asked those questions, got these answers which so sicken me, and carried right on. But I will never know, I suppose, Mr. Chairman.

When I reflect on my career, after it has come and gone, one of my biggest regrets, I imagine, is going to be that I could not make this money come back. I am going to have to look at my constituents and the people who come to me for help, and in the back of my mind, when we are talking about significant money and programs to them, will be that $250,000 extra dollars we did not need to spend could have gone in some way towards alleviating some of the hardship and some of the pain.

Mr. Chairman, I guess when my career is done, I want to be able to look back and say that I was on the side of those who needed help. I do not want to be on the side of those who needed or got or somehow managed to finagle an extra $250,000 into the hands of a former aid.

Mr. Chairman, I believe, like some of my colleagues on this side, that this government is bigger than any one man, any one woman who might hold that leadership position. It is a collective and we have set a mandate for this government collectively and I believe there are other individuals who are capable of holding the office of Premier.

Mr. Kakfwi has done some very good things for this government. He has put us on the national stage, I will acknowledge that and I respect a lot of the work he has done, but I think we have come to a point where we don't have trust and we don't believe that we can carry on a credible government and I don't believe that we can go to Ottawa and sit down to negotiate devolution and other very critical issues... Mr. Chairman, devolution. Our attempt to get more control at this level. Have we done the kinds of things that would suggest to you that we can handle more control? Does our conduct warrant more control? I cannot imagine it does, Mr. Chairman.

We know that one of our biggest problems in dealing with Ottawa has been the bureaucracy. They are so firmly entrenched in their ideas of what we are actually doing up here that that is an uphill battle, Mr. Chairman. It is one thing to hear nice things from politicians, but we know the bureaucrats in Ottawa think one thing. They think that we have no idea what is going on and that essentially we are, and other colleagues have referred to us in this House in the past, they think we are a Banana Republic, Mr. Chairman.

They think that this is sort of run under third world conditions and patronage and these other kinds of things run wild. And who can blame them with the number of scandals that we have had in the last ten years, this is their impression. I think we have done nothing to deal with that impression.

Mr. Chairman, I am fairly certain at this point that Cabinet will vote as a block on this issue and that we will not have the numbers to force the Premier to resign. I accept that, but I think that because of that I am more than prepared and it is why I seconded the motion, to go to the polls and let the public decide if our conduct has been acceptable. I certainly think an election is the only thing now, Mr. Chairman, that we can do to restore public confidence and faith in this government. Thank you.

Mr. Braden.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, I have heard the discussion on this so far, every day as the dynamics change on this, we hear new things, we are subject to new influences, our perspectives can also change. I appreciated our decision on Friday to take the weekend and give this really serious consideration, but even more than that, Mr. Chairman, it gave me the chance to talk to constituents, talk to other leaders here in Yellowknife and also in other parts of the Territories and even in other parts of Canada who are deeply concerned and paying attention to the issue that is before us.

I have reflected in my report, in my remarks on Friday, that this indeed was a difficult compromise for me to make. That of course is the position that I will not endorse the committee's recommendation asking for the Premier to resign. I do not feel that that is the right thing for the Northwest Territories at this time.

On the merits of the issue itself, it would certainly seem to be the only logical conclusion, but it goes far beyond simply removing a serving Premier, It is an indictment against the ability that this Assembly has to take an issue on and settle it in a reasonable fashion and get on with our work. That is why I am urging that Members will continue to want to live out the term of this 14th Assembly and live out the contract that I think we all made with our supporters, with the voters in our constituencies when they said, get in there, go to work for four years and do the very best you can.

A question that I posed, Mr. Chairman, to people over the weekend was whether not only on this particular issue but on a number of other points that have been difficult and contentious in this Assembly over our three years, has our effectiveness, our integrity, been that badly damaged, tainted, stained that there is indeed nothing really left for us to do and cash this one in and go to the polls a year ahead of our commitment?

I did not get a lot more clarity on that, Mr. Chairman. It seems that a number of people are on as thin an edge as I am in making my choice. They are really seeming to appreciate the fine dilemma that we are in. How serious the nature of the Premier's involvement in these contracts and yet the consequences of taking him out. I cannot say that I got a lot of new support or a lot of new criticism from where I was originally, but I think I can stay on fairly safe ground by saying there is certainly some appetite out there to see Mr. Kakfwi removed. There is not enough to make that a really definite choice for me. There is even less appetite or interest, Mr. Chairman, in closing out this whole government.

As I say, you know, when I got elected, when I accepted the support of the people of Great Slave I felt it was a contract to go in there and do the work. I found out just as recently as this afternoon that we are facing potentially $100 million deficit and I think I would really be breaking faith with my constituents if I said, "Oh well, yeah, we screwed up big time in a couple of areas and gee, I am going to have to walk away from this one." I was here for three years and I think enjoyed some of the benefit and the spin-off of this economic windfall that we have had, but now there is some bad news in front of us and I am not ready to run away from that. I want this coming year, Mr. Chairman, to do my best and make a difference and turn that around.

I have tried to, I guess, take some measure of what it is that is causing this Assembly to have so much difficulty. In some part, Mr. Chairman, I think we need to look at the processes and the relationships and the methodologies that we have at work between the various parts of our Assembly, between Cabinet, between our standing and our special committees, in Caucus, the various tools that we have at our disposal.

Mr. Delorey, in I think, one of the better addresses, if not the best one that I have heard him give this Assembly this afternoon, challenged the notion of, do we even have consensus? It is something where I am on his side. I do not really know what we have in this Assembly.

The best way that I have been able to explain it to people who say, well how does your government work up there; is to say that well, the best example that I can give that you might understand is that we are a perpetual minority government. How can we really expect that to be sustainable, where every issue that comes up, every vote, is in effect a confidence situation and may see the fall or the serious injury done to a government depending on any given issue? How can that be sustained? What we have done, I think, perhaps we and some of our predecessors in other Assemblies, we have engineered out of our communication and our ability to work with each other. We have taken out the collaborative things that we need and the process to be able to resolve issues.

I have been told by Members who served in previous Assemblies, for instance, that a lot of things used to be hammered out in Caucus whereas now we are trying to do it in other ways. In effect, what we have here, Mr. Chairman, is a bi-partisan system that is adversarial and does not promote getting together and exchanging views on what the issues are. We essentially have only a reactive system here, not much different than any you would see in other provinces or in the federal government. It is certainly not consensus.

One of the reasons I ran to see if I could get elected was because I felt that the consensus system was failing us. I have learned since then that we have a duty and a responsibility to be proactive and to change and to reform the ways we manage and the way we handle consensus. That is how we are going to change this, to fix this, to make a difference. The Premier has said today more clearly than before that he and Cabinet want to do that. Can we or will we on this side take it up? Well we are going to have at least one more chance to take that debate up when Mr. Roland's motion comes forward.

I look forward tot hat debate. I think we are going to be able to steer around it, Mr. Chairman, and I am looking forward to the next year to really make a difference because I think now we can. Thank you.

Next on the list I have Mr. Roland, Ms. Lee, Mr. Dent. Mr. Roland.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I really cannot say much beyond what I did on Friday, only refer to some of the other discussion that has gone on in some of the responses that were made by the Premier.

Mr. Chairman, one of the reasons that Members on Friday wanted to delay the decision I guess on the recommendations of committee was to try to review what had happened and piece together why we ended up back in this situation. Mr. Chairman, I for one did not feel it was necessary and I still do not feel it was necessary because this is not a new issue. Mr. Chairman, I think that was taken into serious consideration by the committee when we brought this report forward with its recommendations.

If this was the first instance that this has occurred of this nature, then the committee would probably say, well maybe a motion of censure would be satisfactory, a slap on the hands, let us change the rules and let us get on with business. Mr. Chairman, I have copies of Hansard dating back to October 31, 2000, when this issue started to create problems for this Assembly. It revolved around the creation of the position of chief of staff, how it fit into this government, what was required of that position and was it executive assistant and was it deputy minister. I have in Hansard the Premier on October 31, 2000, page 635; November 1, 2000, page 666; November 16, 2000, page 952; February 21, 2001, page 1138; and October 29, 2001, page 448, where the Premier refers to this as a personal assistant/executive assistant position.

I argued that then the salary should be equivalent to that of an executive position, but we were told, well there are appendices and financially it mirrors that of a deputy minister position. Well if we go by that, Mr. Chairman, the fact and the argument that, as Cabinet put forward of the day, as the Premier stated in this House on public record, that chief of staff position was an executive assistant position, then the findings of the Auditor General's report are absolutely accurate of overpayment to the letter.

As I stated, we became aware during our meeting with the Auditor General, a public meeting held with the Auditor General, that there was involvement in that there was a dispute that came up that, in fact, it is not an executive assistant position. This government forwarded a letter to the Auditor General stating they misread the employment contract and stated that they missed a clause that, in fact, there was reference to a deputy minister contract. Now that seems to follow up and confirm with the Premier's responses on Friday in unedited Hansard where the Premier says on page 2694 there was a response to this whole issue: "On the years of service, for instance, that is the understanding that every deputy minister in this government has that they will get one month for every year of service, not the number of years that they were deputy ministers."

Looking at that comment, Mr. Chairman, as well as page 2696 where he further goes on: "As I understand it, we gave her one month for every year of service, as we have done with every other deputy minister." So which is it?

Mr. Chairman, again I say if this was an isolated incident I think it could be accepted by members of the committee who brought forward this recommendation that this is an isolated incident and that there might have been an oversight, but since October of 2000 this has been a political hot potato as one can say. I can quote what Minister Miltenberger said back in those days about what this job entailed and what it meant. Now I get a different opinion or reason from what is occurring.

We get in Hansard the Premier stating he had no involvement. He actually states on page 2695 of unedited Hansard: "The Auditor General says I was not involved." He stated that on the record here but interestingly enough, Mr. Chairman, of our report to which we had attached the transcripts of our meeting with the Auditor General, Mr. Papineau (page 14): "The Premier provided the direction to Liz Snider to pay maximum performance pay." So again which is it?

There is no misunderstanding. There is a theme here. For many years, for three years from October 2000 when this issue started to cause concern to this Assembly, that is why I come forward, Mr. Chairman, and support the recommendation as they are laid out. This is not an isolated incident. In fact, as other Members of this House said, well maybe you know if we had party politics, as I heard Mr. Braden seem to bring into the House here, that something like this might not occur. Well, for sure it would not occur, because the government would have a majority and they could deflect everything that we as Members would try to bring forward in questioning the government of bringing credibility and accountability to this House.

It is because we have this system that we as Regular Members could question and get some responses. This proves that the system works. When the government goes outside its existing policies and regulations, we can call them to task, as much as they dislike it.

It is laid out quite clearly, Mr. Chairman, that we have a significant problem here. I heard on Friday Members discuss "Well, we are too late in our mandate. We have too many things going on" as we heard from Mr. Lafferty who spoke very well earlier, that this government does not hinge on any one of us. It takes a team. We have not had a team for quite some time because of the approaches that have occurred. In fact, we have been running in separate directions, even in Cabinet. We can point out many examples where Cabinet was running on their own. There was no team. The team comes together when the orders are told you do it this way. You vote this way. Forget your constituents. You have to do it this way. Cabinet solidarity.

Well, we all will take into account, and I, like Mr. Delorey, will say that I have no fear of going back to my constituents and saying I took the right stance, that I have done my job, that I have tried to work with this government and hold it to a measure of accountability that I would consider to be held to as a Regular Member or a Member, in the previous government, as Minister as well.

We are not perfect, and I accept that. Mistakes will happen. I accept that. However, there is such a trail here, Mr. Chairman, that I would have great difficulty in believing, and that is why I made the motion that if we are not willing to act and follow our own laws, that it is time to go to a new election to get the people to give a new government a new mandate. I still stand behind that. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Ms. Lee.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, like many of my colleagues, and I am sure a lot of people in the Territories, I spent the weekend talking on the phone. There is no question, Mr. Chairman, that people are very upset about what they are hearing. This is a very serious issue and it is very confusing at times, too.

Mr. Chairman, as I had already indicated in my minority report to the committee report, there is no question steps should and must be taken to incorporate the recommendations and observations and conclusions of the Auditor General's report. There is also no question that there was an error in judgment on the part of the Premier. The Premier has accepted that. He has admitted that he could have done things differently. Having reviewed the Auditor General's report, the transcript of our meeting with her and her staff, and some other materials, I am comfortable in saying that there was no direct link. The Auditor General did not find a direct link in the contract negotiations. She did, however, find a lot of areas that the government has to fix.

More importantly, Mr. Chairman, I think that the history will judge us in this House on this issue and say that very few of us in this House have clean hands.

Mr. Chairman, I heard with great interest what Mr. Delorey from Hay River North said about this 30-year pensioner. What caught me is he indicated that it would be wrong for him to give details of her pension information. I believe Mr. Bell indicated that as well.

The question that came to my mind is what is the difference between this 30-year pensioner, whose pension information we must protect and we agree that we have to protect that, what is the difference between that pensioner and Ms. Sorensen and Mr. Bayly? Is that because they did such a horrible thing, that they are the lowest of the beings, that their rights are not to be protected?

Mr. Chairman, I think someone better than I has stated in this regard, and the latest decision by Justice Vertes, I just want to read these things. I do not want to...I think it is relevant to what we are saying here. Mr. Vertes ruled in his decision on Wednesday last week, on page 27:

We are, however, dealing with a public body, the Legislative Assembly.

He goes on to say:

It is well-recognized that judicial review is available to supervise the decision-making of public bodies that have the power to decide any matter affecting the rights, interests, property, privileges or liberty of any person.

He also goes on to say, on page 28:

A general duty of fairness resting on all public decision-makers is greater.

Mr. Chairman, he also says...

Excuse me, Ms. Lee. You are totally off the subject. We are dealing with Committee Report 11-14(5). We are not dealing with a ruling, so if you can focus on the committee report that is in front of us, because that is the item that we are discussing. I will rule you out of order if you sway from those discussions. Ms. Lee.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will take your advice. The most important question before us is where do we go from here? What is the proper thing to do, that speaks most clearly to and in the best interest of the people of the Northwest Territories, whom we are here to serve?

As I continued to deliberate this question this morning, trying to think of the answers, a letter came across my desk that says, in my view, what many whom I talked over the weekend have been telling me. It is a letter from Chief Charlie Furlong of Aklavik.

Mr. Chairman, it says:

As a taxpayer, an observer and an aboriginal leader, I like many other citizens across the Northwest Territories, have heard and are listening to the debate that is crippling the image of the current government. As a taxpayer, yes, I am deeply concerned as to how our resources are being managed. But because you are a consensus government, you are all responsible -- from the Premier's office, Cabinet Ministers, MLAs and the committees that are structured to plan and recommend efficient and effective government.

Mr. Chairman, I am also reading this because I find that in my job, when I am really embroiled in what is going on here, it helps me the most when I hear the observations and opinion of the people outside. Mr. Chairman, the letter goes on to say:

I have noticed, and I am sure many others have also noticed, that certain Members on certain committees have used, or in some cases, abused their appointments to steer the purpose of these committees into an adversarial...

...and I am not going to say that word. Mr. Chairman, he goes on to say that:

A change in Premier will certainly have a negative impact...

Excuse me, Ms. Lee. You are discussing a document that is not privy to other Members of this House. For you to be reading a document into the record, when we are dealing with this matter...again, I will rule you to stick to the subject at hand. Ms. Lee.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I do not mean to be...I am sorry. Simply, the point that I am trying to make is that the message I have been hearing from the people is that they understand that this is a serious issue. At the same time, they want us to move on. They understand that the stopping and discontinuing the leadership of this Premier and this government is not something that would serve us.

My purpose for reading that letter is I think that I and other Members in this House have received a lot of communication from the people out there who are challenging us to think about what is in the best interest of the public. I am not saying that the Premier has not erred. He has made serious errors in judgment. The next question we have to consider is does that constitute enough to remove him and discontinue this government at this juncture?

Another question that I had to really seriously address, and I did not want to do that, it is just that the discussion in this House made me think about questions that had been on my mind.

Mr. Chairman, I just want to apologize if I offended anybody. I just think that as much as I want to make my statement and what I think and how I am right about certain things and about how I cannot tolerate or cannot accept other people, I think it is better, rather than me talking about what I believe and what I think and trying...you know, I am really honestly very bothered about some of the statements that are being made here that seems to think there are clear answers and purity in some of us that is not in others.

I think it is an important point to make, that we as a whole Territory have suffered too much. It has cost us too much money, too much time, and it is really, really time for us to move on. I thought it was very interesting that the communication that I had been receiving over the weekend from outside of Yellowknife, such as leaders like Charlie Furlong and many, many others who had been writing us, they have the same thing in mind as those who have been talking to me in Yellowknife. And that is that we, as the 14th Assembly, have a real chance to do something really positive and grab the issues of the day and make something out of it, and they really want us to get on with that work.

I want to say again that I am not saying that the Auditor General's report did not give us a lot to think about. Obviously, there are a lot of things that government has to do to make sure that this sort of thing does not happen again.

I will just end it there. Sorry, Mr. Chairman, I did not mean to...

Thank you, Ms. Lee. Mr. Dent.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, earlier today we heard from the Premier a clear and repentant statement of regret and acceptance of responsibility. Why did it take so long to get it out?

I am afraid that with his response on Friday, he did not win me over and he certainly did not win any friends or most of my constituents. In fact, his comments on Friday probably led to more phone calls from constituents than I otherwise would have gotten. People were incensed by his comments on Friday. I know I heard from a lot of people, by e-mail, by phone, at the hockey rink -- even while waiting for a flu shot on Saturday. I called a number of people, too. Overwhelmingly, I was encouraged to support both committee motions.

Mr. Chairman, I am also concerned that something the Premier said in his comments on Friday may have set a standard for interpreting contract language among deputy ministers with this government. I am concerned about what is on the public record now.

On page 2694 of unedited Hansard, the Premier is quoted as saying:

On the years of service, for instance, that is the understanding that every deputy minister in this government has, that they will get one month for every year of service. Not the number of years they were a deputy minister, but the total number of years they served this government.

Mr. Chairman, one of the considerations and reasons that we have been given for the additional payment to Ms. Sorensen is we were trying to avoid any legal liability, should she decide to sue the government regarding her dismissal. Yet the Auditor General says in her report that both Ms. Sorensen and Mr. Bayly were employed under written contracts that stated that they were at pleasure employees, that they could be terminated for any reason and without cause, and that on termination, certain severance was to be paid.

I had thought, Mr. Chairman, that contracts were in place, employment contracts were in place to protect both the employee and the employer. So why put this kind of clause in if it does not have any effect?

We were told by the Premier that in spite of this language, I am assuming that all employment contracts have this kind of language, that we have had to give these large settlements. I would like to ask a question, Mr. Chairman, of our Law Clerk. If this is the kind of language that is in all other contracts for deputy ministers, is there a substantial risk to the government if this is the same language? I mean, is the language the same as what is found in, apparently, Ms. Sorensen's and Mr. Bayly's as reported by the Auditor General? If that is similar language to what is found in our deputy minister contracts right now, is there substantial risk to the government of having to pay more to our employees than what is stipulated in their contracts? Does the Law Clerk agree that the interpretation of the Auditor General is correct?

Mr. Dent is asking a question of the Law Clerk, Ms. Peterson.

Mr. Dent.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I just wanted to make sure that I understood whether or not the interpretation had provided to the termination benefits in employment contracts would hold in the future. I am comforted that we can probably rely on the contracts themselves rather than an interpretation. Mr. Chairman, as I say I heard from an awful lot of people. I talked to an awful lot of people over the weekend and most of them felt that this issue and the way it was handled was the straw that broke the camel's back. About half of the people I talked to encouraged me to take up Mr. Handley's suggestion that we go early to the polls and at this point I am inclined to support that motion when it comes forward.

It has unfortunately taken the Premier too long to take responsibility. I have to say that one of the issues that I found really decisive in this for me was the merit pay. When the Premier on Friday provide the defence of they worked hard to explain why they were awarded maximum performance pay, it was just the wrong thing to say. When people are on the way out because of an unacceptable activity -- taping a phone call in a government office -- to say that they worked hard and deserved merit pay is wrong.

Mr. Chairman, based on that and my consultation I will maintain my position and support the committee motions. I too can do the numbers and it appears that the motion will fail if Cabinet is voting as a bloc, but I still think it is important to show the level of my dissatisfaction in this instance. I am glad though, and I have to say this, that the Premier is now taking responsibility, but why did he need the weekend to do the right thing? Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. McLeod.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I do not know what we are accomplishing here today by repeating -- I think every Member has basically said the same thing as they said on Friday so I guess I will repeat my comments. My position has not changed. I think that a decision was made by the Premier that was a bad decision and was an error in judgment. However, it was based on advice that was received.

A concern for us as Members -- in March I believe it was Mr. Dent that had posed the question to our staff and their response was that we had an excellent core of advisors. We have experienced lawyers who are well versed in labour laws. These are the people that we have entrusted to guide us through. It proves that some of their advice was either not followed or it was not good advice. We are asking for the Premier's resignation, but maybe we should be looking at the staff to resign also, and our lawyers that provided this type of advice.

We are also hearing our MLAs. Many of them are at odds with their communities now. There are a lot of letters and phone calls going back and forth, so they are not taking their constituents' advice. Maybe they should resign also. Our conflict of interest committee has just found out that there is a ruling that provided they were wrong too. Should they resign? We are now in a process where we are probably going to have to pay out some money there.

Mr. Chairman, I, like just about everybody here, over the weekend was contacted and today, and maybe it is because of the positions we took on Friday. The majority of the people that contacted me -- I am not going to say all of them -- but the majority were in favour of keeping the Premier on. I was contacted by many of the community leaders from the different communities across the North, and many youth. I talked with several of the grand chiefs. A lot of them voiced concerns similar to what I had on Friday. A change in leadership now will affect many things, and we have to realize that not only the Legislative Assembly is affected when we remove a position such as the Premier.

Mr. Chairman, I said it before. A bad decision was made. A mistake was made. We cannot get the money back. What is it going to cost us if we remove the Premier, and does it end there? Who else has to resign? We have a motion that is going to be put on the floor that shows that it does not stop at only the Premier. We may be all facing an election, not that it is a bad thing. However, we have a lot of business on hand. Does that go by the wayside? The conflict of interest process has cost us over $2 million. I was corrected the other day. My numbers added up to around $2 million, but apparently it is more than that.

We have a number of reports that have yet to be tabled. If we are going to go to the polls, what happens to the Special Committee on Languages? Where does their report go? Where is the Non-Tax-Based Committee that I chaired? Where does their report go? The sunset clause? We spent well over $1.8 million on that. Are we going to put that by the wayside, just forget it and walk away? I worked hard for schools in my riding, for roads and different issues and initiatives. I have been working with the bridge project, the bridge committee. All that goes on hold if we go to the polls right now.

I am not afraid to go to the polls as many of you have said that is where we are going to end up, but I think we have to put some thought into it. If we are worried about wasting $250,000 then we had better worry what it is going to cost us. It is going to cost us well over $250,000. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you, Mr. McLeod. General comments. Mr. Krutko.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, I too had a lot of time to think over the weekend and also received a ton of calls. I think that at the end of the day I feel that in order to do the right thing and to do justice to not only this Legislature but to the people that we serve in the Northwest Territories, the only thing you really have besides your name is your credibility. Can he be trusted? Also what do you stand for as a person or an individual?

For myself I have been involved in politics in one way or another with regard to regional, community, territorial and now the Legislative Assembly for almost 18 years. One thing that you find in people is what do you stand for, what do you believe in and can you be trusted.

For myself I have been pressured to basically a point of being told to resign because of my stance on this issue. I will not resign because of something that I feel strongly about. Without the credibility of government, the top office in the land can do things over and above the rules, regulations, policies and processes and making the final unilateral decision by knowingly signing a contract that was not going to be signed by the principal secretary because she did not feel comfortable tells me that there was something wrong.

With regard to the justification for what I see happening is that I have gone through this in the 13th Assembly and it is not much different than having to go through an Auditor General's report or filing something with the Conflict Commissioner. At the end of the day my view is that what happened in the 13th Assembly does not even come close to what we are dealing with here today. Yes there were some irregularities with regard to things that happened, but with respect to Mr. Morin he made the right choice, did the right thing and he did resign, step aside. As a government we were able to move on. The Deputy Premier of the day filled in until we had a leadership review. The sky did not fall in. The government did not stop operating. Programs and services continued to be delivered.

Yet the threats are out there of how this government and the Territory as we know it is going to collapse around us. That is a myth. Everyone knows that the government is not run by the people in this room. The government is run y the bureaucracy. The bureaucracy of deputy ministers, assistant deputy ministers, people with regard to the policy area, the administration area, the finance area. That is the real government. It is not the people sitting in this room. Yet the threats that are out there of how this is going to stall negotiations, stall the relationship with communities, stall the relationship with the First Nation governments is outrageous.

When a Member of this Legislature is being threatened to resign if you do not support the Premier, to me it is no less than what you see in some third world countries. For him to go out of the way and make that suggestion to get support from communities is pathetic.

All I have in regard to life is who I am and what I believe in and what comes from my heart. I was totally offended when I got that information from my community leaders. When I spoke to the people who really count, our elders, the young people, people in our communities that all they want is a job. All they want is to have a roof over their heads. All they want is to have the ability to be able to get some programs out of this government without being told, 'Sorry, there is no money, can't help you, you don't meet our criteria, we have rules in place, you have to follow the rules." But as a government we can break the rules anytime we feel like it.

For myself, on Friday I was basically totally sick to my stomach to see what was happening in this House. Sick to see some people opposite in regard to so-called Ministers making statements that they can live with what happened here. Yet the same Ministers are responsible to run our bureaucracy, to run our government. Everyone of us took an oath of office when we came in here, that we are not above the law.

What we do is under a microscope day in, day out. You leave here, every move you make is being followed or watched or spoken to by someone. I find it awfully hard to basically think that we can go ahead knowing that there has been some major problems in regard to how we deal with things.

We had an inquiry in regard to what happened in the 13th Assembly. There were tons of recommendations and reports and changes to rules and regulations of how deputy ministers will handle themselves, how deputy ministers deal with contracts, how the government as we know it will deal with individual contracts of staff and whatnot. They were put there for a reason, so that it would not happen again. That was the 13th Assembly. That was like yesterday.

Yet, what did we do? We break the same rules that were in place so that this would not happen again. Here we are, it has happened again.

I think that as a government and as a Legislative Assembly I think we have to look within ourselves to really see who we represent and exactly what do we stand for as individuals. I for one supported the Premier the last time around. Yes I was pressured by my leaders to support him, because I was under the understanding that the information that was being provided at the time was true, above board and was something that we had an obligation to do through a contract.

Now we find out through the Auditor General's report that the individual was supposed to be compensated for $133,000 but instead we rip up that contract, write a new contract and give her a contract for $404,000. On top of that, we put a binding wording in the agreement where we cannot take her to court or we cannot get that money back.

I think as a government to protect the so-called public purse and ensuring that we have the resources to run the government and making sure it is being accounted for, I do not see it.

I for one did not expect to be going through this process once again, but I believe we have other avenues open to us. I do not think anyone has moved under the possibility of filing a complaint with the Conflict Commissioner, but the option is there. I think for me this goes right down to the moral question of trust. If we cannot trust the people that run our government then who can we trust?

I think we should all take a really good look at who do we really represent here? What about the seniors in our communities who cannot get fuel subsidies? What about the person that cannot get housing because we basically do not have the space? I think those are the people that really count in this society that we are in now, not developing a society so that it is top heavy, so that basically everything at the top is controlled by a few bureaucrats and we basically benefit a few of our so-called friends at the expense of everybody else.

Again, I would like to state that I am totally appalled at what is going on here and I will be supporting a motion asking for the Premier to resign. Mahsi.