Mr. Speaker, as Members may be aware, social union negotiations became a very high profile issue in the Quebec election campaign. Now, with the Quebec election behind us, all participating governments are eager to successfully conclude these negotiations.

The primary objective of a new social union arrangement is to provide for more effective and efficient delivery of social programs to all Canadians. These negotiations will shape how governments in this country relate to one another and to all Canadians.

In recent years, Mr. Speaker, the GNWT has come to be recognized as a legitimate participant in a variety of intergovernmental forums where issues of national significance are considered by federal and provincial governments.

Discussions about social policy reform began at the 1995 Annual Premiers Conference in St. John's, Newfoundland. Since that time, this government has been working toward a strong national partnership which would oversee the more effective and sustained delivery of social programs and services to all Canadians.

With the establishment of Nunavut and with Aboriginal self-government agreements, the makeup of the Northwest Territories will change forever. However, all northern governments will continue to be faced with the realities of the north.

Our government's goal in these negotiations, Mr. Speaker, is to ensure that these realities are reflected in the social union framework for the nation.

Discussions around the social union framework cannot separate responsibility for the provision of social programs and services and the fiscal arrangements that provide the necessary capacity for governments to provide comparable services to all Canadians.

We all know, Mr. Speaker, that delivering social programs and services in the Northwest Territories is more expensive than in southern Canada. We know that we must face the challenge of delivering these programs and services in a high cost part of Canada where access is a major factor in providing comparable and affordable services.

For this government to be successful in delivering social programs and services to territorial residents, the outcome of social union discussions must recognize that we have responsibilities equal to those of the provinces. The ongoing challenge for us is to maintain access to social programs and services that are taken for granted in most provinces.

The GNWT is committed to these objectives. We will continue to be active participants in the negotiation process that will hopefully reach a successful conclusion in the coming months.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

--Applause

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, first of all I think I have to speak about Document 246, the letter signed by the four Ministers. I am one of the four that has not been able to speak to that point yet. Nor have I been asked to speak to that point. For the record I also want to reiterate what my colleagues have said, that I did not knowingly sign an untrue document when I signed that letter. I signed it based on my knowledge that Mr. Morin was not in attendance at the Cabinet meeting, in which that decision on the proposed office complex in Fort Resolution was discussed and a decision was made. I signed it on the basis of knowing that Mr. Morin had also at some point expressed he was in a conflict of interest on that matter. In signing that letter, there was no attempt to mislead or misconstrue any of the facts as I saw them. I just wanted to get that on the record. If there was any misunderstanding, caused as a result of my signing of that letter, then I apologize to the Members of this House and to anybody that would have been impacted.

Now, Mr. Chairman, I would like to speak about the conflict report we are here debating. As MLAs, we all know we have many roles. We have a role to represent our constituents, a role to represent all NWT residents when we pass or formulate policies and pass legislation.

In this situation in dealing with the Conflict of Interest report, we are basically the judge and jury with respect to allegations and the report the Commissioner has made on the conduct of one of our Members, Mr. Morin. It has been said already and recognized that we do have the inherent power to govern ourselves, regardless of what else is out there. We alone are the ones that must accept or reject this report. We alone are the ones that must impose punishment if it is warranted. In acting as a judge and jury, we obviously have an obligation to remain as impartial as possible. I do not think that is possible though, Mr. Chairman.

I know in my own circumstances, we all know the Members that are involved. We are all aware of the media broadcasts, editorials, public opinion, what your constituents are saying to yourselves, what other Members are saying. Right from day one as we started this whole process. I think it is really hard for any Member to be totally objective in this. Mr. Morin has raised the issue of potential bias right from the start. He quite frankly has said that he raised it on the aspects of the current Commissioner even prior to her appointment and that was before anything ever came before her.

I think it is fair to say that since this inquiry started, many of us have heard instances of situations that have been raised that probably raised the potential of bias or certainly the appearance of bias. I think it is fair to say also in reading the report and I, like other Members, have had a chance to read it. I have read it a couple of times that the manner in which the report has been written, the manner in which some of the recommendations have been put forward, I think also raises the issue of the appearance of bias.

Now, we all have fundamental rights of every citizen in this country to be judged fairly, to be impartially judged, and that includes MLAs. We know Mr. Morin has been granted a hearing to see whether or not there are grounds for a judicial review of this whole conflict of interest process that is impacting him. We do not know there was bias in the inquiry process. We do not know that. Was there total impartiality? Again, I say we would not be able to know that. Were the principles of natural justice followed? Again, I do not think we are the ones that can determine that. Mr. Morin has an affidavit that he has filed to the court in support of his application. It lists roughly 24 items he feels have grounds to support his basis of bias in this whole conflict process.

None of us in this Assembly have the experience, I believe, or the legal background, maybe with the exception of Mr. Erasmus, to assess this whole matter. Maybe if you did determine whether it is bias or not, we would have to go through all the transcripts and I understand it is 3800 pages of transcripts and thousands of documents. We would have to redo the whole thing and nobody wants to do that. It is not possible. Now if there was a different commissioner, would the allegations have changed? Probably not. I say they would not have. They would still be there. Would the facts or the testimony have changed? Maybe, we do not know. It depends on the questioning, the questions and the participants. Would the interpretation of the legislation, the outcomes of the recommendations have changed? Well, maybe they would have but again, we do not know.

What I do know is I have sat with Mr. Morin for five and a half years as a Member. I have sat with him in Cabinet as a Cabinet Member for almost four years. I can tell you he is opinionated, aggressive, stubborn and he is even arrogant when it comes right down to it, as some Members have said. I would say to you he is not dishonest, deceitful and I know nobody would intentionally get into a conflict situation just for the sake of it, to spite anybody, for that matter. I think he recognizes he has made some errors of judgement in the handling of his affairs. I do not think there is any doubt about that. I think he has inadvertently crossed that line in carrying out his duties to arrange his affairs so the perception of conflict is not there. When the report came down, we all knew it was less than 24 hours later that he took the honourable high road and resigned as the Premier. He stepped down from that, recognizing there was this really critical report out there against his actions. He has been publicly humiliated, not just in the NWT because of this, but on a national scale. As everybody knows it has been in the southern papers. Southern coverage of these proceedings, I am sure, is taking place. His family and friends have been negatively impacted by the same token in their association with him. My concern, Mr. Chairman, is really surrounding this issue of his application for a judicial review. Like I said, we do not, I do not have the knowledge, I do not think Members have the knowledge of whether there is substantiation or not. There is no mechanism for us in this assembly to deal with that issue. We cannot accept the report or accept the recommendation subject to a judicial review application being turned down or having it upheld and then having to go through that process again.

We all, as Members, have a responsibility to try to be as fair as possible. An impartiality of the process, as I have indicated, is a big question mark right now. Having said that, we all know that the conflict report is before us and we have to deal with it. Members have said, this is our conflict legislation, it is our Commissioner, so rightly or wrongly it is our process and we have no choice really but to accept the report based on that being our process. I reluctantly, Mr. Chairman, would have to support that view.

By the same token, I think that if a judicial review is granted, and we do not know that yet because he has tabled a letter today saying that it is December 11th that the matter may be heard on whether or not they will proceed with a judicial review. If a review is granted, if the report is shown to be biased, I think this legislature will have no choice but to have to revisit this whole issue all over again. It is unfortunate really, that Mr. Morin's inquiry is the one that has to point out some of the flaws in our legislation and the flaws in our system.

I think outside of this current issue that we are dealing with specifics, Members have mentioned this, the need to support an independent review of our current legislation and of the process under which Mr. Morin's conflict inquiry was carried out. I think there has to be a review of matters brought up in the report dealing with government policies and procedures. We have to identify the problem areas that have taken place and right off the bat. The whole premise of the debate now of whether there is impartiality and fairness has to be addressed in future legislation on this matter.

Mr. Chairman, I guess in closing, I support what a lot of other Members have said in respect of needing conflict of interest legislation. All of us want to uphold our offices as honourably as possible and have the highest standards that we can maintain. I do not think anybody can argue with that, but we need to move forward and make the amendments necessary in our legislation and in our policies and procedures. I do not think any of us, whether it is in the current NWT legislature, the new Nunavut legislature, I do not think anybody wants to go through this situation again in having to deal with a conflict report against one of our colleagues. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

--Applause

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, I believe, but I have to confirm it, that the inter-jurisdictional agreements allow for a one-year transition, but I did not want to give him the wrong information. That is why I said I would find out exactly what the time period was and advise him on that. Thank you.

Mr. Speaker, I am not exactly sure of what the time period of coverage is. I will get that information and advise the Member. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, again it gives me great pleasure to recognize Julia Mott, Manager of Sales and Marketing for First Air, members of the Edmonton Oils Alumni, Brian Baltimore, Al Hamilton, Doug Hicks and Dave Lumley. Welcome to the Assembly.

--Applause

Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and honourable colleagues. I will amend the record to say the speaker's rear-end in this case. Mr. Speaker, and then there was myself, I was wondering, Mr. Speaker, why I was the only Member of our team that was constantly being covered while in front of the opposition net. I knew it was not due to my scoring prowess and I quickly learned at the intermission that the main goal of the local oldtimers was to keep me off the scoreboard. I ended up being double- teamed and hooked and held and tripped. I did manage to draw one penalty, Mr. Speaker, and I did manage to get a couple of opportunities on goal, and it was only through great saves I might add, that I was kept off the scoreboard? Our team, Mr. Speaker, was rounded out by Joel Otokiak and Thomas Sugassak, a couple of local oldtimers and we had goalie Troy Oakoak for two periods and Walter Haniliak for the final period. I can say also one of the highlights of the day for me was when I was coming on to the bench panting and huffing, a ten year-old sitting at the bench said to me, boy you are a slow skater, I should be playing instead of you. Mr. Speaker, the bleachers were full. There was standing room only, we estimated that there were probably close to 400 individuals that have come out in support of the evening. There were door prizes, autographed jerseys, autographed sticks, a 50/50 draw, t-shirts and all sorts of things that were given away. The grand prize of the evening was two First Air tickets along with two Edmonton Oilers tickets and accommodations at Edmonton House that was won by ten year old Kevin Kanayuk. There was also an unexpected auction of a Team Canada sweater and I would like to advise Members that our honourable speaker got into the heat of the bidding with a local individual, Bobby Maghagak, and the speaker ended up prevailing at $180, but I would like to commend him because the next day he turned that jersey over to the individual who he was bidding against so thank you for that, Mr. Speaker.

--Applause

On Sunday, there was a minor hockey pancake breakfast that again, was well attended by over 100 people in the time that we were there. The Oilers were taken on a snowmobile trip, dog team rides and a tour of the Kitikmeot Foods facility in Cambridge Bay. In closing, I would like to say that the proceeds of the fundraising activities went towards the May Hakungak Library Restoration Fund and to minor hockey. I would like to thank Mayor Wilfred Wilcox and the hamlet staff, Bill Lyall, the master of ceremonies that evening, all the local businesses that provided sponsorship, the over 100 individuals who volunteered in cooking and cleaning and helping out, the community, of course, for their great support, my MLA colleagues for taking up the invitation to participate, the Cambridge Bay oldtimers, of course, who were a part of the whole process and finally last but not least, First Air and Julia Mott, who was the main coordinator and the Oilers Alumni which I will recognize at the appropriate time, Mr. Speaker. Thank you.

--Applause

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to report on the hockey weekend that took place in Cambridge Bay. With the sponsorship of First Air and members of the Oilers Alumni Association, whom we happen to have in the gallery with us today, Mr. Brian Baltimore, Mr. Al Hamilton, Mr. Doug Hicks and Mr. Dave Lumley, they arrived Friday afternoon in the community of Cambridge Bay. There was a feast with music and culture activities that evening at the community hall to welcome them. On Saturday they held some hockey clinics and skating clinics spread out over three different venues over the course of the day.

Of course, on Saturday afternoon my colleagues and I arrived in Cambridge Bay to complement them and make up the MLA Oilers in getting ready for hockey night in Cambridge Bay. We took on a local oldtimers team, Mr. Speaker. We had with us of Members of this House, we had Jiving Jim Antoine who was dancing in and out amongst the opposition players as he scored on a few occasions. He was the leading scorer of the MLA representatives there. We had Mighty Mike Miltenberger who was a dependable stay-at-home type of defence man. Although I think he probably had to do that by default because his partner was Al Hamilton, who every time he got the puck he was up the ice, and Mr. Miltenberger was standing there pondering on what to do in those situations. We also had Fluid Floyd Roland, who was the other rushing defence man of our defence core. I think he must have been watching Al Hamilton because every time Mr. Roland got the puck he would try and take the puck and go up the ice in a rush on every occasion. It led Mr. Lumley to ask me the question, does Mr. Roland know what a pass is? Of course, Mr. Speaker, there was yourself, Stomping Sam Gargan.

--Applause

Mr. Gargan, as Members who were there know, made a valiant attempt to stop the opposition from coming out of their end by trying to stand in front of the forward and of course Mr. Gargan got flattened right on his, I do not know if I can say this is this parliamentary language - got flattened right on his ass. As he lay there on the ice, I was quite concerned about the possibility of a medevac for our speaker, but he did not require that. Mr. Speaker, I seek unanimous consent to conclude my statement.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, I am advised, my colleague, the Minister of Finance, Chair of the Financial Management Board, it is our understanding that that issue has been resolved in respect to the treatment of P3 projects and how they are treated on the balance sheet of governments. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, the senior staff in the department have been fully advising Mr. MacRury, the Nunavut deputy minister of health, of ongoing discussions and negotiations in respect to this issue. It is my understanding that there is a comfort level with the monetary figure that has been reached to date. I would like to caution and remind all Members that the final approval will be either through the Interim Commissioner himself, if it is prior to March 31, 1999, or failing that, April 1st and post April 1st, with the new Nunavut Legislature for final approval from any financial commitments. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.