Thank you, Mr. Speaker. This inquiry has been a long and a difficult process and it has been somewhat complicated by the fact that it is a new and an untested process. This is the first time that we have gone this route after a change in the Legislation in the 15th Assembly. This complaint
was the first test of that new process.
I’d like to thank everybody who was involved, particularly Mr. Hughes, who adjudicated marvellously; Mr. Gerrand, who accepted the letter of complaint initially; counsel for Mr. Hughes; and also the counsel for the respondent, Mr. Roland.
It is most gratifying to me that the complaint is not considered frivolous by the adjudicator. On page 36 of the report he wrote the following: “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 had a very definite reason for participating in the forwarding of the complaint to the Conflict of Interest Commissioner. I did so because I believed, and I still believe, that the actions of the Premier were wrong. I did not bring the complaint forward because I was concerned about information leaking to Cabinet from committee. The Conflict of Interest Commissioner did not consider that concern to be part of the inquiry either. Nowhere in the terms of reference for the inquiry does it mention the exchange of confidential information. No, I was party to the complaint because I sought confirmation that the Premier had contravened the Legislative Assembly and Executive Council Act, particularly section 75(a) of that act, and that confirmation was received from the adjudicator in his report.
Again, on page 36, the adjudicator said, “...I have given that confirmation and the reasons for it with the results that the contravention referenced in the terms of reference for this inquiry is found to exist.” Again under “Disposition” on page 36 he says, “Counsel for Premier Roland was unsuccessful in convincing me that I should find that a contravention has not occurred.”
On page 37 of the report the adjudicator wrote, “In my view Premier Roland made an error in judgment” and “...I have concluded he was in breach of the identified section of the act when he did so.” All three of these statements tell me that Premier Roland did contravene the Legislative Assembly and Executive Council Act and that I was right to pursue this complaint. It must be noted, though, that the adjudicator goes on to say that the complaint is dismissed, and I accept Mr. Hughes’ determination of dismissal.
I stated before, when asked whether or not I would accept the results of this inquiry, that I would accept the report of the adjudicator and any of its recommendations wholeheartedly. There are no recommendations to consider, but I will support this motion to accept the report. With the tabling of Mr. Hughes’ report last Friday and with this motion today, the process is now complete.
I have one last comment that I must make. As much as I love CBC North, I must say how disappointed I am that accurate media reporting of this story was so very lacking in their reports from last Friday and I’m grateful to Mr. Ramsay for clarifying the point of the inquiry and the conclusions within it today. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.