Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
WHEREAS a letter of complaint, dated February 16, 2009, and signed by six Members of the Legislative Assembly, was addressed to the Conflict of Interest Commissioner, and requested that the Commissioner carry out a formal investigation regarding certain conduct of Mr. Floyd Roland, Premier of the Northwest Territories and MLA for Inuvik Boot Lake;
AND WHEREAS section 101 of the Legislative Assembly and Executive Council Act directs the Conflict of Interest Commissioner to conduct an investigation into such a complaint;
AND WHEREAS the Conflict of Interest Commissioner carried out an investigation and, pursuant to section 101(1)(b) of the Legislative Assembly and Executive Council Act, submitted to the Speaker a report, with reasons, directing that an inquiry be held before a sole adjudicator;
AND WHEREAS the report of the Conflict of Interest Commissioner was laid before the Legislative Assembly at the first opportunity, in accordance with section 102(4) of the Legislative Assembly and Executive Council Act;
AND WHEREAS a sole adjudicator, appointed pursuant to section 103(2) of the Legislative Assembly and Executive Council Act, conducted an inquiry into the matter;
AND WHEREAS the sole adjudicator has submitted a disposition report in accordance with section 106(1) of the Legislative Assembly and Executive Council Act;
AND WHEREAS the disposition report of the sole adjudicator was laid before the House by the Speaker at the first opportunity;
AND WHEREAS the sole adjudicator has dismissed the complaint pursuant to section 106(1)(a) of the Legislative Assembly and Executive Council Act;
NOW THEREFORE I MOVE, seconded by the honourable Member for Nahendeh, that the report of the sole adjudicator be accepted.
Thank you, Mr. Ramsay. The motion is on the floor. The motion is in order. To the motion. The honourable Member for Kam Lake, Mr. Ramsay.
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.
Thank you, Mr. Ramsay. To the motion. We will go to the seconder of the motion, the honourable Member for Nahendeh, Mr. Menicoche.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. This is the conclusion of a process that began about a year ago with the Premier acknowledging that there certainly was an affair, and many Members...My colleagues were extremely concerned that there was an absolute appearance of conflict that launched this inquiry.
I am a strong believer in our institution. We went down that road there, Mr. Speaker. I think, for my constituents and my leadership, they have told me over the years and they, in fact, coming into this fall session, is that we’re not interested in the drama that’s happening there, we’re interested in programs and services and real action of ourselves as an Assembly. That has always been my focus when I share with my colleagues about where I was going to stand. I was public about it and I told my constituents where I was going to stand.
So now, before us, we have the report. To me, yes, Mr. Hughes had to go down many roads, he had to listen to many views. It’s a semi-legal institution that we went through, but for me, his conclusion was that he had no choice but to dismiss the complaint based on the factors he listed in his report.
It may be a technicality, Mr. Speaker, but at the same time it’s a...Legally, this happens all the time in court, lots of people that have even admitted that they’ve done a wrong but at the same time, technically, they get dismissed. So it’s easy for me to stand up here to support the report and tell the people and my constituency that he recommended it be dismissed, and that’s the end of it. That’s the approach that I’m taking and that’s the approach I’d like to see.
We have been chosen as MLAs to serve in this House. It is a great honour. But as is often said, we got a little bit of a price and we have a ransom glory, Mr. Speaker. That means we are public figures. So that’s the cost of the glory, of the honour that we serve.
Again, when I came back here for the fall session, my constituents, as I travel around, told me up front that we’re here to work together, we’ve got to use our best energies and skills to better the lives of our community and our people, and I continue to maintain that focus. I’d like to see that we take this point, we went down every road we could to find out about was there a breach, was there certainly conflict here, and we exhausted all those avenues, Mr. Speaker. My constituency is not happy that we had to use resources, time, money, the energies of the House to continue this debate, but at the same time, we went down that road to explore and we had to see. So, once again, the people want our Assembly to put this behind us now. I believe that I’m up here to say that we’re going to have to start doing that. We have to concentrate. We’ve got just less than two years left and if we’re going to continue to use our energies on spy drama, Mr. Speaker, then we will be doing exactly that, we’ll be using our energies.
One other important point is that we cannot change the result of the report, Mr. Speaker. It’s dismissed, it’s over and it’s time to move on. I know that they’ve told me, my constituency has told me time and time again, it’s not relevant to our government and, once again, we’re using our time and energy. I think the cost of doing that inquiry is something that the public is always watchful for. Those public funds could have been better used for programs and services. That’s what my constituency is telling me.
Because we’ve come to this point of almost a year of this issue, it’s not going to serve us to continue rehashing it, Mr. Speaker. For myself, it’s has been dealt with. I know that the complainants, my colleagues, certainly are not happy with the outcome of the report, but the report is the way it is there, Mr. Speaker. The greatness of Mr. Hughes, who led the inquiry, he listened to all and he’s bound by our legislation as well.
In closing, Mr. Speaker, overall, I’m content with the content of the report. Yes, there was a perceived appearance of conflict but, at the same time, I think the people of the NWT and my constituency still want us to move on, concentrate on programs and services, concentrate on our communities, concentrate on our people to improve the lives and make life better for the whole Territory by working together, Mr. Speaker. Mahsi cho.
Thank you, Mr. Menicoche. To the motion. The honourable Member for Great Slave, Mr. Abernethy.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. In signing my name to the conflict of interest complaint against the Premier, I accepted the process in place to deal with these types of concerns. On Friday last week we received the final ruling of the complaint that was filed by the six complainants. As I understood the process and agreed to it beforehand, I am willing to support the conclusions of the adjudicator. Therefore, I will be supporting this motion today to accept the report. However, in doing so, I want to be clear that I support the report in its entirety, not just the fact that the complaint was officially dismissed as a result of 106(1)(a)(ii), but also that the adjudicator was incredibly clear throughout his report that, and I quote from page 36, which I know has already been done but I’m going to do it anyway, that, “...Floyd Roland, 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, Committees of the Northwest Territories Legislative Assembly in the summer and/or fall months of 2008 without the timely disclosure of that relationship.”
It’s important to acknowledge and learn from the findings of the adjudicator in this case. It’s important to be aware that the precedent is set for future Assemblies. It’s clear from this report that it is inappropriate for a Member of the Executive Council to be in an intimate relationship with the Clerk of Committees of the Legislative Assembly and, by the way, I’ll suggest that this precedent also applies to other staff that are present at committee meetings such as the research staff. Ultimately, it is an important precedent for the future operations of the Legislative Assembly.
I was pleased to see that in retrospect it was even confirmed by Ms. Russell. On page 19 of the report, Ms. Russell is quoted as stating the following when asked questions by the adjudicator, and here’s the quote:
Sole adjudicator asked: “Well, assuming your relationship with Mr. Roland continues, is it your view that you should ultimately be back performing the duties as Clerk of the House?”
The answer: “While Mr. Roland is a Member?”
The sole adjudicator followed it up with, “Yes.”
And then the following answer was: “I accept that it would be better for me to stay at Elections. I fully accept that.”
To me this demonstrates an awareness of the inappropriate nature of a relationship between the Clerk and a Member of the Executive Council. I hope for the remainder of this Assembly and in future Assemblies that Members, including Members of the Executive Council, remember this precedent and perform their duties of office and arrange their private affairs in such a manner as to maintain public confidence and trust in the integrity, objectivity and impartiality of those Members.
Since this situation first came to light, I had a number of conversations with the Premier. I’ve always been consistent in my approach and response to this clear and obvious breach. The Premier and I have always disagreed as to whether or not a breach had, in fact, occurred. Obviously, I believed, and have been proved correct, that the Premier had failed to arrange his private affairs in a manner to maintain public confidence and trust in the integrity, objectivity and impartiality of the Member. I’ve constantly indicated that in the absence of a formal apology, that acknowledges the severity of this behaviour and the negative impact it has had on the institution, that the Premier should, in fact, resign. I still feel this way today. I believe this report clearly demonstrates his guilt and, as a result, I feel that he should do the right and honourable thing.
Believing the Premier to be an honourable man who made a poor judgment call, I expected him to come forward with an honest apology or resign. Clearly, the Premier disagreed with me, which is his right, and felt that he had arranged his affairs in an appropriate manner. I respect his position and his belief and, as a result, obviously, no resignation or apology occurred.
After no apology was provided and no recognition of wrongdoing was provided, I was left with no option; therefore, I signed the complaint. To ensure the credibility and integrity of this government, I had no choice but to sign the official complaint.
For the sake of the families and the people of the NWT, I had honestly hoped that we wouldn’t have to come to this point. Shortly after signing the complaint letter and prior to the beginning of the hearing, I had an opportunity to speak with the Premier on the topic. I once again expressed my opinion and I also indicated that if I was wrong and the adjudicator ruled that the Premier did arrange his affairs in a manner to maintain public confidence and trust, that I would be first in line to apologize and I would go so far as to make an official apology in this House.
We have a decision from the adjudicator which clearly indicates that the Premier failed in this regard. This is once again confirmed by the adjudicator on page 35 when he states, and I quote, “Notwithstanding all of these factors that should have been apparent to Premier Roland, particularly the opportunities to disclose his relationship in early October, he chose to continue it in secret for another six weeks. Once he passed up these opportunities, it is my” -- Hughes’ -- “opinion that he foreclosed the possibility of any subsequent assessment of his actions relating to his disclosure from being judged as having occurred in a timely way.”
The fact is, he did not make the disclosure until he was satisfied that his relationship with Ms. Russell had cemented into a permanent one. What, of course, was wrong was that his primary responsibility to his colleagues in the House, the democratic institution they serve and the maintenance of public and trust of those who he was elected to lead, took second place during that period of time. To me, this means that the Premier’s primary responsibility to his colleagues in the House -- and those are Mr. Yakeleya, Ms. Bisaro, Mr. Jacobson, Mr. Hawkins, Mr. Beaulieu, Mrs. Groenewegen, Mr. Ramsay, Mr. Menicoche, Mr. Bromley, Mr. Krutko, the three Mr. McLeods, Mr. Miltenberger, Ms. Lee and Mr. Lafferty and even the Speaker, Mr. Delorey -- took second place during that period of time from September through the entire month of October and the 2008 October session until late November 2008, arguably even up to the receipt of this ruling. What’s more scathing, in my opinion, is that the public trust of those who he was elected to lead also took second place during that period of time. That’s a tough one for me.
When the Members who signed the complaint letter, without assistance of the government-funded lawyer, were able to provide enough evidence to clearly demonstrate that the Premier did fail in this regard, the Premier’s government-paid lawyer was unable to convince the adjudicator that he should find that contravention had not occurred. Fortunately, he did have a great lawyer working for him. The lawyer was able to convince him -- and that’s Hughes -- and I once again quote from the report, specifically page 36, “Rather than me” -- Mr. Hughes -- “recommending to the Legislative Assembly the imposition of a punishment as provided for in section 106(1)(b) of the act, she” -- Ms. Peterson -- “submitted that my” -- Hughes -- “focus ought to be on section 106(1)(a)(ii), which sets out reasons why, notwithstanding a contravention of the provisions of the act, the complaint should be dismissed.”
Given that the complainants are not lawyers and we did not have any provided to us like the Premier, we failed to recognize the importance of this argument and as such did not make any response to it. Frankly, I don’t really understand the value of clause 106(1)(a)(ii). If it existed in the Criminal Code, criminals who can demonstrate that they didn’t mean to commit the crime -- that is, they were distracted or they didn’t mean it -- would be, like, go. To me, it’s an odd clause. It’s a bit of an odd escape clause that was put in place by former Legislatures and, quite frankly, I don’t understand it. But, regardless, in the end, the adjudicator has based his decision on the evidence and the arguments presented to him. I believe he came to the right conclusion and his decisions are the right ones based on the evidence and the arguments provided. In the absence of any counterarguments or reasons outlining why 106(1)(a)(ii) should not apply, the adjudicator had no other choice but to accept it and dismiss this complaint. Therefore, as mentioned earlier, I will be supporting this motion.
However, before I sit down, I would like to once again send a message that I have sent previously. I would like to encourage the Premier of the Northwest Territories to do the honourable thing and take responsibility for the damage that his failure to arrange his private affairs in such a manner that maintained public confidence in his integrity, objectivity and impartiality has caused. This can be done by way of a sincere and general apology that acknowledges his actions or if the Premier is unwilling to provide that sincere and genuine apology, he could always resign in the best interests of the Legislature and the people of the Northwest Territories and to those people who took second place. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Thank you, Mr. Abernethy. To the motion. The honourable Member for Weledeh, Mr. Bromley.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I will be supporting this motion. First I would like to recognize the good fortune this government has of having a Conflict of Interest Commissioner with the experience, qualifications and wisdom Mr. Gerrand exemplifies and of having the opportunity to call upon an equally esteemed individual such as Mr. Ted Hughes for the duties of an adjudicator when one is called for.
The Legislative Assembly and Executive Council Act provides the legislation and guidelines for conduct of Members of the Legislative Assembly in relation to conflict of interest and maintaining public trust in our democratic process. When questions of interpretation arise, it provides a way to resolve these questions and this has been done in this case.
The issue here was that in the absence of any recognition of wrongdoing by Premier Roland, Members, out of concern for the impacts of the Premier’s conduct on a democratic process, raised the question with the Conflict of Interest Commissioner. Mr. Gerrand, after a thorough review, agreed there was a serious question to answer and moved the question into the hands of adjudicator Hughes. The results are clear. A grievous error of judgment was made by Premier Roland, as reflected in the following quote from the decision tabled in the House on Friday last, and I quote from the report, “In a thoughtful and well reasoned closing submission Ms. Bisaro, on behalf of the complainants, in a manner that was devoid of any adversarial flavour, made the same point in the following words:
‘Mr. Roland’s commitment to his family apparently shown by the lack of disclosure of the relationship until he decided it was a lasting one, while commendable for the family values it may reflect, disregards his obligations and duties to the people of the Northwest Territories and the institution of public government. He had opportunities to amend his travel plans and business commitments to make it a priority to deal with his personal situation, to advise his colleagues and family, but he chose not to. We believe it not only contributes to the loss of public confidence and trust, but also shows a lack of respect for all.
‘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 we seek your confirmation.’”
Mr. Hughes continues, “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. That is to say Floyd Roland, 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, Committees of the Northwest Territories Legislative Assembly in the summer and/or fall months of 2008 without the timely disclosure of that relationship.
“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 the Commissioner seeking confirmation of what they believed to be wrong.”
Further, Mr. Roland’s legal counsel suggested that were Mr. Hughes to find this conclusion, he must also conclude that the error was made in good faith and that the complaint must be dismissed as per the legislation. Such was in fact the case as per the following quote in the tabled document, and I quote from page 37, “...I have also concluded that Premier Roland had an appreciation of the error he had made when he posed the question during the presentation of his evidence of whether he had arranged his affairs appropriately. In answering his own question he acknowledged that in hindsight he probably should have come forward sooner with his disclosure. As he spoke, his sincerity was both apparent and real. In making that acknowledgement, in the manner that he did, he left me with no doubt that his error of judgment was one made in good faith.
“What occurred here is, I believe, the type of situation that the legislators of the day had in mind when they placed section 106(1)(a)(ii) in the act. It follows that the complaint is dismissed.”
Mr. Speaker, I have every confidence in Mr. Hughes and I fully support his conclusions based on the evidence presented at the hearings. With this acceptance, I am sure we will hear from Premier Roland a clear and coherent apology to our public for his actions, an apology which reflects the clarity of Mr. Hughes’ report, a new depth of understanding about how his actions breached public trust and confidence in his integrity, objectivity and impartiality.
Mr. Speaker, I have to comment on one further issue. At the same time admitting that while I fully accept the adjudicator’s report within the context of the information available to him on this case, we in the Assembly have a much more thorough and ongoing record of behaviour and, in my opinion, questionable judgments by Premier Roland. Within this context, my enthusiasm for the less significant part of the report entitled “Disposition” is somewhat dim. I asked myself, did we fail in making the full context of Mr. Roland’s record available to Mr. Hughes and, if so, how or why? During the course of the lead-up to the public hearings, I learned that while legal counsel would be provided to Mr. Roland, it would not be provided to the complainants, apparently because of an unintended consequence of a recent revision of the Legislative Assembly and Executive Council Act. Legal counsel was also provided to the adjudicator. As I learned during the hearings, the hearings are essentially legal proceedings with an adversarial relationship between the complainants and the defendant. Mr. Speaker, in such a venue, to prohibit legal counsel to any party is to undermine their rights and effectiveness in upholding the law. That is, it is unfair. In my opinion, that is unfair. As a consequence, I will be writing to the Board of Management urging them to address this shortcoming of the legislation.
In summary, Mr. Speaker, I thank the Conflict of Interest Commissioner and the adjudicator, Mr. Hughes, for their important service. I thank them for the clarity they have brought to our question and the confirmation that, indeed, a breach of public trust in competence has occurred. This is a significant finding that I anticipate will help avoid such contraventions in the future. I fully accept the adjudicator’s report and I look forward to the Premier’s apology and will vote in favour of the acceptance of the motion in the House here today.
Finally, I want to thank the public for their support and their forbearance with respect to the personal and financial costs that resolution of issues such as this bring. I know they are aware of the need for resolution of fundamental and important questions for a healthy democratic process, one that is fair to all in order for it to proceed. Mahsi.
Thank you, Mr. Bromley. To the motion. The honourable Member for Frame Lake, Ms. Bisaro.
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.
Thank you, Ms. Bisaro. To the motion. The honourable Member for Tu Nedhe, Mr. Beaulieu.
Mahsi cho, Mr. Speaker. I have very few words to say about this motion. I represent the people of Tu Nedhe and the people of Tu Nedhe do have mixed feelings on what has occurred and what this Legislative Assembly should have done. I have given the people of Tu Nedhe opportunity to speak to me on the matter, and over the last year I have taken 12 trips into two of the communities that I do represent.
The majority of the people in Tu Nedhe didn’t care to discuss this or had not given me the opportunity or taken the opportunity to discuss the conflict of interest inquiry with me. A few people, actually, that did discuss the report with me were mixed on it. Some people thought that the Premier should resign his position as Premier as a result of what had occurred, and some people said that there was absolutely no negative impacts upon them and thought that whatever report that came out of this should be accepted and that if that report made some recommendations, then those recommendations would be what the Legislative Assembly should follow.
I made a decision early in this that once the inquiry started, that I would accept the report and if the report had found that the Premier was in conflict, then it would be up to us as legislators on what the punishment would be.
So with those few words, I say that I support the motion and I accept the report. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Beaulieu. To the motion. The honourable Member for Hay River South, Mrs. Groenewegen.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It is a regrettable day in our Assembly that we need to be talking about a matter such as this.
Mr. Speaker, the Premier’s conduct I believe has put all Members of this Assembly in a very untenable situation. We’ve had to ask ourselves do something or do nothing, and that’s a question that I have had to ask myself many times during this process. Is this something that I can say and do nothing about?
I guess I have been in this Legislative Assembly for 14 years. I have devoted quite a large chunk of my working and adult life to this institution and it does bereave greatly when we have to deal with situations such as that before us today. I respect this institution and I think we all have an obligation, every one of us elected to this office, to try and up hold a standard that the people can feel is acceptable and we feel is acceptable amongst ourselves.
Mr. Speaker, I have to ask these questions and I don’t want to rehash what happened in the inquiry, but from me signing the letter came down to a question like this: Should the standing committees in our Legislature and the work they conduct have a reasonable expectation that they can work and speak freely without the partner of the person who is the head of our government being in the room? Should Members in the performance of their duties in this House also reasonably expect that when they rise on a point of privilege or a point of order in this House, that the table officers who serve us should be free of any bias or perceived bias in assisting the Speaker in crafting responses to those points that are raised and very serious to Members in the performance of their duties?
Mr. Speaker, I am conflicted today because although I will accept the findings of the report, there are parts of it that I have a really difficult time with. Mr. Speaker, other Members have spoken to the integrity and the vast experience of Mr. Justice Hughes and Mr. Gerald Gerrand, and indeed they are highly respected, but I think that the findings of the report that the adjudicator did not have the opportunity to rule outside of the options and arguments that were available to him. In other words, he had to take the evidence before him and rule on that. He did not have the opportunity to bring his own opinion or anything. He could not pull something out of the air that was not presented.
As other Members have already alluded to, Mr. Speaker, the legislation has changed. It used to be that when a complaint was filed, that the Conflict Commissioner would then rule on that prima facie complaint to determine if further investigation was required and there was, that same Conflict Commissioner would then become the judge and the adjudicator of that complaint.
We, for various reasons that we won’t revisit, decided that that process was not the best and that it was possible to refer this to a sole adjudicator. Mr. Speaker, in the changing of that legislation, it was determined that it not be in the government’s rules or policy that the folks that were making the complaint or the person laying the complaint would be funded for any counsel. As we all know, counsel is very expensive and it would be difficult for Members to finance out of their own resources.
Mr. Speaker, none of the Members on this side of the House are lawyers, so we tried to the best of our ability, and I do thank those who were here for every day of the inquiry and worked really hard on this to participate in a process that was, in fact, not an inquisitorial process but an adversarial process. In fact, did not have the kind of guidance that would have perhaps made the kind that perhaps would have made the finding of this inquiry, may have had a different outcome, but we can only speculate.
Mr. Speaker, when all of the facts of this inquiry are boiled down, what do we have left? Mr. Speaker, we are the police of our own conduct in this Legislative Assembly. Was Mr. Roland fair to the Members in his dealings with us in this manner? Was his a standard of conduct that we can be confident in and proud of?
Mr. Speaker, I must say that in the finding of an error in judgment as a layperson and not a lawyer, an error in judgment speaks to me of something inadvertent and perhaps kind of something spontaneous and on the spur of the moment and not something that would go on for an extended period of time like weeks or months.
The other part of that error in judgment made in good faith, I actually took it upon myself to look up what “good faith” meant and I actually looked it up in the dictionary and it means with honest intentions, an error in judgment, an inadvertent decision made with honest intentions.
It was indicated that because of the Premier’s busy schedule that he didn’t have time to consider the Members of this House and he wanted to make sure that the relationship was permanent. As the report indicates, he had opportunity at several junctures to share this relationship even in a discreet manner with those who were in positions of authority, such as the Speaker or the Clerk. Mr. Speaker, we did not expect that the Premier needed to take out an advertisement on the front page of the newspaper to say that this relationship had developed, but there were ways of discreetly and sensitively dealing with this, but the Premier did not take advantage of that.
Mr. Speaker, some of the other Members have made comments that I would like to respond to, but I am just going to stick to the report. I have to say, though, that this is not a spy drama. You know, as a matter of fact, there was no spying. We didn’t even know the Premier was in a relationship with the Clerk until it was disclosed to us and we found out. It never crossed our minds. We never thought of it.
So, Mr. Speaker, I guess it’s important that all Members who are elected to this level of public office consider what would be a normal and acceptable standard of conduct.
Mr. Speaker, I will say today that I sincerely regret the day that I supported Premier Floyd Roland in his bid for Premier and my heart has gone out of this job to some extent. It may never come back. Because I was proud to be a Member of this…I find it hard to come in here. Sorry.
I have been spending some time in my office this week because I like to be passionate about my job, I like to be enthusiastic about it. I cannot come in here anymore with that same enthusiasm because of what we have allowed to happen. I’m sorry. I only have two years to go and I will not run again. I am sad to say that my heart is not here anymore because of this.
Thank you, Mrs. Groenewegen. To the motion. The honourable Member for Thebacha, Mr. Miltenberger.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I, as well, would like to say a few brief words about the motion which I will, as well, be supporting. We are here in this Legislature today for political closure, as it were. Because the complaint was dismissed, there is no legal obligation for us to have any say any further. The case was decided when Mr. Hughes dismissed the complaint, but it was thought that it would help us move forward for the remaining 689 days that we have left before us.
My political perspective on this whole thing starts right back when this Assembly was elected. We came here and we picked Cabinet and we started business. It’s been a long, twisting and often bumpy road to get us 25 months into our term. And this is, in my mind, the last, hopefully, chapter of that bumpy road that we have now this report before this House that has been dismissed. We can talk of the content, rationale and justification all we want and Members have done that, as is their right, but the reality for us in the North is that we have very few months left. This is an important issue to put behind us. A decision has been made and now we have to look forward at the very, very many things we have to do.
I have been in this House, as well, over 14 years and there are definitely peaks and valleys in this business. It is very overwhelming at times. You wonder why you are here and what you’re doing. Our job today, I believe, is to politically bring closure to this. A decision had been done. Whether we say yes or no that we don’t agree, the reality is the decision is done because there was no finding. There was no other consequence or punishment being recommended by Mr. Hughes.
So I hope we can all, once we have our say here today, agree that we are going to look for the future and the things we have to do with rate reviews, energy, cost of living, housing, education, health, you name it. So I will be accepting this report and I will be looking to the future. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Miltenberger. To the motion. The honourable Member for Inuvik Twin Lakes, Mr. Robert McLeod.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, this whole situation has left a bad taste in all of our mouths and a bad taste across the Northwest Territories and it’s unfortunate. As much as we have our views on certain things and as much as we don’t like the situation, Mr. Hughes is a man of great integrity in my opinion. Therefore, the motion is very simple. It just says that the report of the sole adjudicator be accepted and that’s what I intend to do today, is vote for the report of the sole adjudicator to be accepted. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. McLeod. To the motion. The honourable Premier, Mr. Roland.
Mr. Speaker, Members of the Assembly, I have waited over a year to say my piece. Now, there are a couple of roads I can take here to set the record straight for some of the information shared, some of the discussion that has taken place behind closed doors, some of the things that the people of the Northwest Territories do not see, how things are reported in the media. The grand kickoff of this by CBC is one thing. I could go down that path. Mr. Speaker, one of the things I have held onto is trying to maintain a level of approach that this institution does deserve.
Now, I know this whole scenario is about a decision that I made regarding my personal life and it did have an impact on this Legislative Assembly. As Members of the Legislative Assembly and one of the longest serving -- there are four of us here -- and the longest-serving Members have much experience through every Assembly with, unfortunately, something of this nature when it comes to the conflict process.
I have listened to Members. Some have come and talked to me. I have heard from many people of the Territories who’ve said many things to me regarding the whole scenario. I must say right now, I must send out thanks to all of those who phoned me, spoke to me in person and told me that we need to get on with business; that this level of debate shouldn’t have happened, shouldn’t occur in this Assembly.
The fact is we are here. The fact is I made a call on my life that affected my family that, because of my position, that decision affected to a much higher degree than it would have been if I had of remained as a mechanic in Inuvik twenty-some, 14-some years ago.
How many people of this Legislative Assembly, even the ones who have served as long as I have, know a great deal about me besides the political life we have together in?
So, yes, Mr. Speaker, we went through a process. I made a decision that impacted my life, it impacted this Assembly. I know it’s impacted Members, as well, to the point where I was called to speak to Members of this Assembly in a forum that is usually allowed for Members to air this type of discussion, to be weighed and measured to a certain degree. I believe I was weighed and measured. Members may not like the decision I made and the impacts it had and, believe me, Mr. Speaker, in hindsight, I would advise anybody else don’t go down the path I have gone down. At the same time, I would have to say a matter of the heart is one that takes over all other matters at times.
As Mr. Hughes has put in his report to this Assembly, I made an error of judgment made in good faith because I chose to notify a family that I had started and was in for 20 years over Members of this Legislative Assembly. That is not taken lightly. Let’s not forget that it was I who came forward to say this was happening. It was not discovered by anybody else. I came forward after I informed my wife and children.
We have gone down a path that will mark the record books forever, unfortunately. In a question during this process, a question was asked of one of the witnesses. What did they think that Mr. Roland gained from this? And there was a bit of a smirk and a chuckle; I don’t think he gained anything. In fact, by my choice, I caused pain to those I care most deeply about, because I made a choice. I caused pain to others that I started to look at a new life with. There is enough pain in that decision alone than to have it elevated to the national scene.
Mr. Speaker, as we went through this process, I was not sure of the outcome, but I went to the Members as I notified the appropriate people and this process started off and Members gave me the opportunity to speak to them in Caucus that I felt even though Members were not happy with my personal decision, they felt that they could get on with the work that we needed to do as a Legislative Assembly. Then it culminated into the motion of non-confidence, another time we are weighed and measured. And now we are to this stage.
I accept that everybody needs to say what they need to say, so that they can put out there why they felt this had to happen. Some would like to put words into my mouth about how I should take the next steps. I will never satisfy every Member in this Assembly. I don’t think any of us can say we can stand up here and say we will satisfy every Member of the Legislative Assembly. But I am sincerely sorry that a decision I made has left a mark on my family, on this institution and my relationship with the Members of this Legislative Assembly. I know the professional people that are in place that have upheld their end, the Conflict of Interest Commissioner, a difficult task that is, the adjudicator, the job he did. We have come to this point and I have waited for months, still getting on with the work we needed to do to see where this would go.
We are now faced with this report and it says, yes, that I did breach section 75(a) but it was also dismissed. Would I make that same decision again? The decision would have come sooner. Would that stop some of this process? I can’t say that for sure.
We have had a very adversarial process in this Assembly, but I am hoping, by getting to this point, that we will be able to move on for the interest of the people of the Northwest Territories, that we will be able to put them first and not ourselves first, and to the people of the Northwest Territories, I apologize because I made a decision for myself first. But I also know that many people in the Northwest Territories would say sometimes you have to take care of yourself. I have been told by all others that I didn’t handle this in the best way, but this is no business for the Legislative Assembly.
I don’t know what tomorrow brings, Mr. Speaker. I just know that I have counted on the support of Members of this Assembly, the majority of Members, and we all have to do that as a Cabinet, for the initiatives, for what we do. I am not asking Members to agree with my choice I made in my life.
Again, I do apologize that my choices caused such harm to the people and to the relationship I have with Members, but I also know there are enough Members who believe in what we have the possibility in the Northwest Territories that we can work together and move forward, get over this.
There is so much more that we could be doing. One wrong followed by another wrong doesn’t make a right. There are many people who would say my choice in timing was not a good choice. I have still a longer journey to go through with my own family.
I accept the report. It stated the facts. In hindsight, as I told the adjudicator, I should have come sooner. But let’s not forget that I did come forward. Nobody told me I had to. I believed at that time that was the time; now, in hindsight, yes, sooner.
With that, Mr. Speaker, I hope that once we vote on this, we can go forward and focus on the business of the Legislative Assembly and the people of the Northwest Territories. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Roland. To the motion. The honourable Member for Yellowknife Centre, Mr. Hawkins.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Before I get into my comments, I want to make a significant acknowledgement to the families that have gone through this process. They have suffered greatly, all of them. As much as the Members here have been involved, the family side of this has probably taken a significant beating that we will never understand and appreciate.
Mr. Speaker, many events have unfolded in such a way that I can’t imagine any of us would have foreseen the direction it would have taken and certainly brought us to. In all honesty, in the tone of this Assembly, you don’t hear enthusiasm. You hear people struggling with their words, even the six of them who wrote the initial letter to Mr. Gerrand. You can still hear the tone of struggle in the sense that this has changed the way we do business. It certainly hasn’t changed the way some people feel. I can appreciate and recognize that.
Mr. Speaker, I definitely define today is not a hallmark moment of this Assembly but the truth being is that I certainly hope this is one we can learn from and move forward on. Many people have said that they will accept the report. I certainly hope that that will be the beginning of a healing, a new day, a new way forward. From my point of view, this has been a struggle and a negative tone over the Assembly for a whole year. This tone has caused many difficulties. In leading up to the release of Mr. Hughes’ report, I encouraged the Premier no matter what it said, I said accept the report. He said he was well positioned to accept the report no matter what way it went. Therefore, if I say stuff like that, we should be accepting the report, I see no reason why I couldn’t be committed to that. I will be voting in favour of the report.
Mr. Speaker, the public has been mixed on what has come forward. Not everyone is completely happy with what has happened here. The report is mixed in and of itself. But there are a lot of people that want to see this Assembly close this door, close this chapter and say please don’t open this door again and move forward. This issue undoubtedly has divided us. My only fear is it will continue to divide us. I just hope that those who accept the report are doing it for the right reasons. I hope those who are accepting the report are doing it because they want to. I hope those who are accepting the report do it because they think it is the right choice.
Mr. Speaker, I have said different times that these are dark days. I am very hopeful that this will be the day that we start to let the light back through the Assembly. I have come here and I have had many differences with various Members but deep down inside, I think all of us, even on the ugly days, are still great Members. I think all of us have something inspiring to provide for others, regardless of sometimes we trip over the way we do things. But I think we all provide significant value to the Assembly and to the people of the Northwest Territories.
The tone of this situation has changed the way we do business, but I think through a path of opportunity we can find ourselves again. I think through that path all we have to say to ourselves is we can believe again in each other. We can believe in what we are doing. We can believe in where we want to go, because I certainly do.
I came to this Assembly in 2003 and again in 2007 in the hope of opportunity, in the hope of great things our Assembly can do. I see the people of the North really are inspired by the stuff we can do, the stuff we can get behind, the stuff we can propel forward and say we want to move our Territory this much further forward this time. Sometimes that is not measured in miles, sometimes not even measured in metres. Sometimes it is so thin it is a slight sliver of paper that the change is so small but it can have such a profound effect. That is why people put us here. That is why I am here, because I am so excited about coming to work even on the dark days, Mr. Speaker, because I know those clouds will pass. I know opportunity will be coming before us where we can get behind the Territory from one side to the other, from large communities to small communities. I think we are all here for a reason. I really believe in that. I look forward to what we can do.
Mr. Speaker, this cloud, I am convinced, can part today. As I said before, let’s not just close the door, let’s shut it down, lock it and pack it away, because I don’t want to see it again. This has been a lengthy process, as I have said before, but I think we can do this by setting it aside and say, no more.
Mr. Speaker, there has been a tone of reflection. I am happy to hear that. I believe the words Mr. Roland has said are true and from his heart. I think we all know what has happened here today. I think it is about time to look forward. I think that is the opportunity here, certainly not looking back, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, overwhelmingly, my constituents have told me that they would like to see us get back to work. They would like to see this not hold us down, because they know the good work we can do here. So, again, I say this chapter must be closed.
Mr. Speaker, I have gotten to know Mr. Roland very well over the years. At many times I admire the work he does and the work hopefully he can do in the future. By saying that, that does not mean I agree with the path he chose, but I still respect what he does for his work and I still do respect his commitment to his children, Mr. Speaker. That’s still very admirable.
Mr. Speaker, as I said before, I think we can learn more about ourselves here now about how we’ve dealt with this, as well as how much more we can go through in the future. The only value in this, yes, Mr. Hughes did provide some direction and suggestions and he sets the final disposition of this report, but, Mr. Speaker, I think the end value of this is the fact that the lawyers are the winners, the historians are the winners and the darn media is the winner in this scenario. No one here is this building is the winner. No one’s going to go out of this room today and be championing, yay, yay, yay. The fact is, I hope when the vote comes, it’s clear, decisive and over, because I think before us we can, again, shoot for a new beginning.
So I passionately believe in our opportunity here. I passionately believe in who we all are, every one of us here. And I passionately believe that we can finish today’s vote and move forward and speak to the tone of why we are here and start this with not just the new beginning of less than two years, but a new beginning of opportunity for us all. Mr. Speaker, may we all get back to work with the right perspective and the right tone.
I thank the constituents of Yellowknife Centre for providing me insight on the direction and their sentiments of how they feel about this issue. It doesn’t represent all of them and complete but, as I said earlier, the overwhelming number of them have said they would like to see this closed and we move forward and on to the business of the people. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Thank you, Mr. Hawkins. To the motion. The honourable Member for Mackenzie Delta, Mr. Krutko.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Being a Member of this House going on four terms and 14 years in to this office, this has always been the hardest part of the job, from the 13th Assembly to where we are today.
I think one thing that we realize every time we go through this process, we all get tarred with the same brush regardless of who it was or who it is or what the outcomes are. It does affect the image of this office and I think it’s important to realize we all have a major role to play in consensus government regardless if it’s Members of the Executive, Members of this side of the House and Members of the executive...(inaudible)...and, more importantly, the honour and aspirations that we are here to serve. It’s the people of the Northwest Territories. When we cannot even trust ourselves or be honest enough to each other to admit that something was going on, for me, that is the problem I have. I had to get an e-mail from a particular spouse to realize this was happening. I didn’t clue in that this was even on the radar.
I think, for myself, to have been involved in the committee struck and going out to different hearings, being involved in the day-to-day deliberations of this House, committee structures and the role that we all play, realizing that we all have certain roles to play in the movement of legislation through this House, regardless of how we debate it, what we say in camera or basically how the outcome turns out, that it’s important that the dignity of this institution is upheld. I think that’s the issue for me.
Mr. Speaker, contravention of section 75(1)(a) of the Legislative Assembly and Executive Council Act has definitely been breached. I think, if anything, the outcome and the findings of this report and the amount of time and money that was put into this thing, I think, at the end of it all, yes, there is a motion before us here today. But the question is, have we learned anything from this experience. Is anything going to change in regard to how we do business? Is anything going to happen to improve the way we deal with each other as Members? I think that is the threshold of this problem; that there are fine lines drawn in the sand and certain people are on one side of the line and certain people on the other. Until we remove that fine line, we will never get over this hurdle of the dignity and aspirations of who we’re here to serve and be honest and trustworthy to each other. If we know there’s something going on or something’s happening, at least have the ability to talk to each other. For me, that is the missing link on this process. We didn’t have to go there. I think if we were honest with each other and this issue came forward when it should have and not waited six or eight months down the road, we wouldn’t have had to go through this process.
Mr. Speaker, I think it’s crucially important to realize that the judgment here is fair regardless of the individuals that brought this issue forward by way of the complaint, but they also are resonating to how this happened. They made the decision to get to the bottom of this. To make an issue, but again, was it a fair and transparent process? For me, it wasn’t. But again, that’s the decision that’s going to have to be decided by the Board of Management and look at the rules and procedures of this House and how we go forward.
I think, Mr. Speaker, it’s so vital that we honestly -- honestly -- leave this room tonight with a breakthrough in relationships between that side of the House and Members on this side of the House regardless of who signed the letter or who didn’t. We have to get past that. If that’s what’s going to happen here tonight, well, hopefully it does. But if it doesn’t, for myself, I’ve seen too many bridges burned over the years because of personalities. I’ve seen too many good people get worked over or worked out of their potential because of frustration. I think it’s so critical that we, as legislators here tonight, make the decision of moving forward honestly. That’s all we ask: be honest about where we are going from here forward. I think it’s so essential that we, as Legislators and Members of the 16th Assembly...We swore an oath when we came to this office to uphold the aspirations and dignity of this House and, more importantly, to serve those people of the Northwest Territories regardless of stature. I think we’ve got to do that.
Mr. Speaker, in regards to the inquiry and the commission, I, for one, feel that they did the job with the tools they had. They made the decisions in regard to the judgment of what they had presented in front of them. Yes, I think it could have been opened up a little more and allowed for more inclusion of certain people who, basically, were not able to defend themselves, but I think, more importantly, to allow for a process that’s open, transparent and also the whole conclusion is to bring closure to whatever process we go through.
Mr. Speaker, in regard to the decision that we all stood here today and I, again, would like to say we’re all losers here, there’s no winners, there’s losers, and we are all losers. I think we’ve got to realize that and I think it’s important to realize, Mr. Speaker, that we seriously, seriously take this motion for some meaning and make changes going forward for the benefit of all the people in the Northwest Territories and get over these petty battles that we’ve been fighting going on two years, ever since we got into office, from the election of the Executive Council, to where we are today.
Like I say, in 14 years, this is not the first Legislature that’s gone through this. If anything, every Legislature I’ve been in has gone through this, but the thing is that that’s all people remember of those Legislatures that what we’ve gone through are the bad things that happen and, basically, never talk about the good things that we can accomplish without having to go through these types of events.
So, Mr. Speaker, at the appropriate time I’d like to move a motion to amend.
