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...