 |
|
|
|
|
  
|
Legislature rejects Schell report
Assembly doesn't support integrity report on a technicality, but still lays $1,000 fine on MLACasey Lessard Northern News Services Published Saturday, November 5, 2011
Without disputing the integrity commissioner's findings, MLAs rejected the report, contending that Integrity Commissioner Norman Pickell should not have included comments Schell made in the legislative assembly, where his right to freedom of speech is protected by parliamentary privilege. The one offence Pickell found Schell guilty of was writing an "intimidating" e-mail to a bureaucrat about a private business matter. The integrity commissioner said the MLA for South Baffin, prior to his time as minister, tried to "influence" Community and Government Services employee Timoon Toonoo after a meeting about a road construction contract between his company Polar Supplies and the Hamlet of Cape Dorset. The hamlet decided to do the work itself, and after a meeting with CGS, Schell wrote in the e-mail to Toonoo that his lawyer was prepared to "take this to the next level," but first would "give CGS the chance to correct the error you made." Schell was accused of four breaches of the Integrity Act, but was found not guilty on three of the counts. It was on the basis of one of the unfounded accusations that the report was rejected. The charge was that Schell asked questions in the legislative assembly that pertained to his own business, which he had placed in a blind trust. That finding relates to comments Schell made about government employee housing contracts regarding hotels; Schell's company, now in blind trust, owns a hotel in Cape Dorset. Pickell dismissed that charge, but the fact that he made reference to the comments in his report breached Schell's rights to the protection of free speech during House proceedings under parliamentary privilege, Quttiqtuq MLA Ron Elliott said in explaining the legislature's decision. "As a legislative assembly, we have concluded that the freedom of speech enjoyed by all members by virtue of their parliamentary privilege is paramount," Elliott, who represented the House on the matter, told MLAs Oct. 31. "As the motion before us today notes very clearly, we are concerned that acceptance of the report of the integrity commissioner would constitute a waiving of parliamentary privilege and, therefore, an infringement of the freedom of speech enjoyed by all members. The implications of doing so are troubling. We are concerned that formal acceptance of the report would inadvertently create a chilling effect on debate in this House. "We are responsible for protecting and safeguarding the privileges and freedoms of all members, including, perhaps most importantly, their freedom of speech," he noted, reiterating the House's confidence in Pickell's abilities. "However, having weighed the options open to us we have concluded that it is necessary to formally reject the report." Despite the fact Schell was found not guilty of a breach of the Integrity Act relating to the comments about housing, the legislative assembly had no other choice; the Integrity Act requires MLAs to either accept or reject the commissioner's findings, Elliott noted. Still, Schell needed to atone for his actions, Elliott said, and did so Oct. 31 with a formal apology. "My actions were inconsistent with my responsibility to arrange my private affairs in a matter that promotes public trust and confidence," Schell said. "I apologize for these actions." Using its prerogative to censure its own members, the House doubled the fine recommended by Pickell in his report, ordering Schell to pay $1,000. "The members of the legislative assembly do not condone" Schell's actions, Elliott said. Acknowledging Schell's apology, "I believe he has done the right thing in this matter," he said.
|
