Thank you, Mr. Speaker. As the mover of the motion, I want to be the first to rise in this House and express my unconditional support for the disposition report of Mr. Ted Hughes. Mr. Hughes has served this House with great distinction and I want to thank him for guiding us through this difficult process. Mr. Speaker, I and the other MLAs who made this complaint said from the start that we wanted an independent view of the appropriateness of the relationship that developed with the Premier and the Committee Clerk of this House. We also stated that we would accept the final result, whatever it was. I accept the conclusions of Mr. Hughes and I will vote for the motion.

Mr. Speaker, I feel I owe it to the public to explain a little of what the report actually says. Some media outlets have reported that Mr. Hughes had found that the relationship was not a conflict of interest or not a breach of the legislation. This is not what the report says, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Hughes stated repeatedly in his report that the actions of Mr. Roland do indeed constitute a breach of section 75 of the act. On page 36 of the report, Mr. Hughes states, and I quote, “...the MLA for Inuvik Boot Lake performed his duties of office and arranged his private affairs in such a manner that he failed to maintain public confidence in his integrity, objectivity and impartiality as a result of entering into an intimate relationship with the Principal Clerk...without timely disclosure of that relationship.”

Mr. Speaker, on page 37 of the report, Mr. Hughes goes on to say, and I again quote, ”In my view Premier Roland made an error in judgment, as he weighed competing interests, the pros and cons and decided not to make the disclosure until he was satisfied that his new relationship was going to be a permanent one. For the reasons I have explained, I have concluded he was in breach of the identified section of the act when he did so.”

Mr. Speaker, I am not raising these matters to in any way rehash the inquiry or diminish the final result; I am raising them here to make sure that the public understands what the report really says.

The report finds that the Premier was in breach of the act, that he did fail to arrange his private affairs in a way to maintain public confidence in his integrity, objectivity and impartiality, and that he exercised poor judgment. In concluding that the error in judgment was made in good faith, Mr. Hughes is not saying that there is nothing the Premier could have done differently. He is not saying that anyone would have behaved the same way given the circumstances. He is not saying that a relationship of this kind is acceptable. In

concluding that the error in judgment was made in good faith, Mr. Hughes clearly states, on the bottom of page 37, that he believes that the Premier understands the error he made and realizes now in hindsight that he should have disclosed it earlier.

Mr. Speaker, I want to touch briefly on the motivation of the complainants in making this complaint. Much has been said about the reason why this complaint was brought forward. Suggestions have been made that the complaint was politically motivated and without merit. I am not going to relive that debate here today. I will, however, put on the record exactly what Mr. Hughes concluded on the matter.

On page 36 of the report, Mr. Hughes quotes from the closing argument of Ms. Bisaro at the inquiry; what he calls a thoughtful and well-reasoned submission. Ms. Bisaro is quoted as saying, “The failure of the Premier to understand the impact that the affair would have on the effectiveness of our institution and the failure to disclose it even to the Speaker, who had the ability to remedy the situation and would have treated it with the sensitivity it deserved, was in our opinion, wrong, and wWe seek your confirmation.” In response to this, Mr. Hughes writes, and I quote, “In this section of my report I have given that confirmation and the reasons for it with the result that the contravention referenced in the terms of reference for this inquiry is found to exist.” He goes on to say on the same page that, “In my judgment the concern of the complainants that prompted their complaint to the Conflict of Interest Commissioner and which in turn resulted in this inquiry was a fair and reasonable one to be taken to the Commissioner seeking confirmation of what they believed to be wrong.”

I will have some more to say, Mr. Speaker, in my closing remarks, but I hope that helps obtain a clearer picture of what the report actually says in the lead-up to this debate today.

I personally want to thank everyone involved in this difficult process, including the Premier and his counsel, for the professional way in which it was conducted. Mr. Speaker, these things are never easy. I hope the debate that we will have here today will carry that same tone.

I also want to thank the many constituents and residents of the Northwest Territories who have been so supportive throughout this process. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.