November 27, 1998

CLARIFICATION:

Conflict Commissioner says she didn't intend to recommend that Morin vacate his seat

Read Anne Crawford's report.

Nunatsiaq News

IQALUIT — Conflict of Interest Commissioner Anne Crawford has told Nunatsiaq News that she did not intend to say that former Premier Don Morin should vacate his seat as a result of her findings.

In a story published November 26 on our Internet edition, and published November 27 in the paper version of Nunatsiaq News, we reported that Crawford had invited the NWT legislative assembly to remove Morin as premier and to declare his seat vacant.

This interpretation of her report is, however, incorrect. The error resulted from a misinterpretation of the following words:

When a Member uses his or her office to put cash into their own pockets, then I would take the position that the trust of the people had been betrayed to the point where the seat should be declared vacant.

I am fully aware that resignation or removal from a post as Minister would be the inevitable result of the Assembly accepting the findings I have made in every jurisdiction in Canada.

Commisioner Crawford explains that she intended these words to mean that:

1) Her findings showed that Premier Don Morin's violations did not extend to deriving monetary gain through the use of his office, and that his seat should not, therefore, be declared vacant;

2) That removal from office or resignation is now a normal political practice in Canada for cabinet ministers found to have committed violations similar to those she found Morin to have committed.

However, Commissioner Crawford informs us that she was not inviting the legislative assembly to either remove Morin from the premiership or to declare his seat vacant.

Nunatsiaq News apologizes for these errors and misinterpretations.

For the sake of clarity, here is the entire text of Commisioner Crawford's conclusions and recommendations.

Conclusions

This has been a long and expensive and largely unnecessary process.

The Act in s. 79.2 creates and easy and simple way for a Member who has a concern with any element of his or her obligations under the Act to simply write to the Conflict of Interest Commissioner and obtain a binding ruling.

The letter must be from and signed by the Member. In the letter and the exchange that follows, the Member must be completely honest about the situation. In return, the Member will receive written advice. If followed, this advice will protect the Member against any complaint under the Act on the basis of conflict of interest.

Mr. Morin knew about this section of the Act.

He could have asked for advice on his house.

He could have asked for advice on his fishing trip, or Lahm Ridge Towers, his relationship with Roland Bailey, or how to make a declaration at a Cabinet meeting and how it should be recorded. It would even be possible to request advise if you had made a declaration, but it failed to show up in the minutes of the meeting.

If Mr. Morin had made these requests, much of this Report would never have been written.

If Mr. Morin had properly informed his staff about his land dealings, another two issues would likely be gone from the terms of reference of this Inquiry.

If Mr. Morin had been honest and taken the care he should have with the documents he wrote, used and signed or asked others to sign and if he had set proper conflicts standards for his staff, there would have been almost nothing left to inquire into.

If Mr. Morin had taken these steps, there would have been little need for the time and expense and the drain on northern resources which this hearing represents. He, and the people of the Northwest Territories, would have been spared the embarrassment of such a detailed inquiry into such serious allegations. He would have been spared the personal and political turmoil that will likely follow this report.

Instead, Mr. Morin has chosen a path of confrontation and counterattack.

Mr. Morin, in the Assembly and on the public record, challenged Mrs. Groenewegen "or anyone else who may believe there is wrongdoing, to file a complaint against me with the Conflict of Interest Commissioner; that is, if they have the guts and the political backbone."

The record in these proceedings shows that from start to finish Mr. Morin has tried to use this Inquiry as a means to attack Mrs. Groenewegen, the complainant. He has not focused on his own office and conduct .

Mr. Morin is not entitled to live in a fancy big house unless he pays for it. Mr. Morin is not entitled to take a fishing trip arranged by a friend who has government contracts. Mr. Morin is obliged to govern himself by the standards set out in the Act.

It is now time for Mr. Morin to take responsibility for his actions.

It is also time for the Assembly to seriously consider what Mr. Morin has done.

Mr. Morin, on three occasions, has asked the Commissioner or the Clerk of the Assembly, and through them the Assembly itself and the public, to accept or act on documents which were not accurate and which he knew were not accurate.

Mr. Morin has arranged to receive special treatment and obtain a benefit from a Contractor who has done most of his $150 million of business with the Government of the Northwest Territories. It is little wonder that there are rumours and rumblings of favouritism and preference. Even with the cleanest tendering in the world, if the people at the top are accepting personal benefits, the whole system will come under scrutiny.

Both of these violations were done with full knowledge, with time to reflect and with an understanding that others might not approve. I see them as wilful and deliberate violations of the Act.

Mr. Morin asked for and accepted free travel and fishing from a contractor who bid for many northern contracts. Mr. Morin knew that Mr. Bailey had post-employment obligations for the first year after he left the government. If Mr. Morin had cared to even look he had access to all the Cabinet Documents which would have confirmed the issues Mr. Bailey had been working with and around. He knew Mr. Bailey was his Principal Secretary’s apartment mate. He knew of Mr. Bailey’s extensive and controversial bids on major government consulting contracts.

You may say that it was an innocent fishing trip, but if you were Mr. Bailey’s competitor you would have left the office angry and frustrated the day you learned about it. And you would think twice about tendering against a man with Mr. Bailey’s inside track. That is bad for government and bad for the economy, because we need competitive tendering. It is bad for democracy at its basic levels when we no longer think of merit and ability as been the important factors and start to think of who-you-know and where-your-friends-are as being the basics for success.

When you are the Premier everyone is watching you. It is a position of high honour and high profile. You are setting the standard for others. The public service follow the example of what the Premier does as much as what the Premier says, and probably more. If the standard is low then you will attract and keep people who like low standards.

Mr. Morin forgot to tell his cabinet colleagues and his staff that he was selling some land in Fort Resolution to the Deninu K’ue Development Corporation. He was entitled to sell his land and the community was entitled to buy it. He was not entitled to promote or push forward the sale through his political office.

He says he was not at a meeting where he signed the minutes stating he was present. He says he really didn’t have to make a declaration, or maybe he did, but he did it before the meeting started. This is missing the basic point. He failed to inform anyone of the conflict. As a result, no one knew that Mr. Morin and his office should not be involved in the Ft Resolution Office project.

The same day Danny Beaulieu came toYellowknife to have Mrs. Morin sign the land deal, Mr. Morin’s staff were calmly making appointments for Beaulieu to discuss progress on the project! His staff were contacting government departments and agencies to push through a deal which would put money directly into Mr. Morin’s pocket.

When Mr. Morin’s friends — and I use that label advisedly — obtained, under the most extraordinary circumstances, a hugely profitable office lease, which no one else had been able to get, Mr. Morin used his office and authority to tell everyone that the deal was fair and that those who complained were just whiners and snivellers. Mr. Morin was not believable because his own position was already compromised by accepting favours and benefits.

He brought down his own reputation and the reputation of his office of Premier. He brought down our reputation in the Northwest Territories. It will take years of work to regain what he has taken away from each of us.

There is nothing major wrong or out of date in the Northwest Territories law on this subject. The Act is clear. The basic principles are: full disclosure - so that conflicts are easy to identify; notice — so that the attention of others is drawn to your conflict and withdrawal — so that you do not become involved in advancing your own interests when you should be serving others. It is not the Act which needs changing here, it is the conduct of the Premier.

Recommendations

The Act requires that I make a recommendation to the Assembly of the appropriate penalty. I have heard the presentations made by Mr. Morin’s lawyer, and those who want to read them can look at the transcripts which will accompany this report.

I am not prepared to read the possible punishments set in out in the Act as being written from worst to best. There are times when a fine would be the best answer. I would impose a fine in a case where a member persistently failed to file his disclosure statements. There are times when restitution would be best. I would order restitution if an innocent person had a loss as a result of the members conduct.

When a Member uses his or her office to put cash into their own pockets, then I would take the position that the trust of the people had been betrayed to the point where the seat should be declared vacant.

I am fully aware that resignation or removal from a post as Minister would be the inevitable result of the Assembly accepting the findings I have made in every jurisdiction in Canada.

Reprimand

Costs

Section 83(1)(b)(vii) of the Act permits the Commissioner, as a punishment, to make an recommendation to the Assembly that the member pay costs. Costs are based on the money spent to put forward a case.

Aside from Commission counsel and counsel for Mr. Morin, I recognized three participants in this proceeding: Jane Groenewegen, the M.L.A. from Hay River and complainant, Mike Mrdjenovich, businessman and Roland Bailey, businessman, both from Yellowknife. Over the course of the hearings the role of each has changed, but each has been important in achieving the balance needed to make this process work.

Mr. Mrdjenovich and Mr. Bailey say they do not want costs. Ms. Groenewegen has asked for her costs. She has been very reasonable. She has asked that her costs to bring forward the complaint be included. She has not asked that the costs of her participation in the hearings be used to find costs.

She says that she will rely on the Legal Defence fund and the money she has raised. I do not think that the people, companies and organizations who contributed to the Defence Fund saw their contribution as a way to help Donny Morin out of his obligation to pay costs. I am not prepared to total up all their contributions and apply them to Mr. Morin’s credit.

I am satisfied that Ms. Groenewegen was a necessary and interested party in this proceeding. Particularly in the initial stages of the Inquiry she was the factor which moved this worthwhile complaint forward. This Legislation encourages public participation and allows for complaints from any person.

I still believe that there should be a regular way of funding complainants’ and other’s legal expenses. I would still be prepared to recommend paying Mrs. Groenewegen’s legal fees to the Management Services Board, if they were prepared to consider the matter again. But in the absence of that decision or support, it is not Mrs. Groenewegen who should be paying for the costs of bringing this complaint forward.

I also consider that the conduct of the Member from Tu Nedhe suggests that he, of the two, should be the one to pay. The Premier directly challenged Ms. Groenewegen, in the Assembly, to file a conflicts complaint.

I have also taken into account the significant personal attacks on Mrs. Groenewegen as an aspect of the defense of this case, both through counsel in the hearings and directly by Premier Morin in the press. And these attacks continued right into the last minutes of the hearings.

If paying costs under the conflicts legislation is punishment, this is an appropriate case for it.

I recommend to the Assembly that, failing appropriate and full public funding, that Mr. Morin pay, and Ms. Groenewegen receive, all of Mrs. Groenewegen’s costs in these hearings, from start to finish, plus one dollar, which is to be paid personally, in cash.

The dollar should be payable, whether or not there is public funding.