Thank you. Member for Thebacha.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. That concludes some of my comments, however, I did want to request a legal opinion from the Law Clerk, and I want the Commissioner and the House to know that this item was discussed at great length in the Ordinary Members' Caucus this morning. It appears that many Members felt they were

placed in a tenuous and difficult situation, having to do the assessment of the Languages Commissioner while the Languages Commissioner continued a relationship with a Member of this House. I would like to ask the Law Clerk, even though the conflict of interest guidelines were looked at, is there any basic conflict of interest that may be in place with respect to this issue, for Members' clarification?

Thank you. Law Clerk, would you check into that matter for the committee?

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, as the issue of conflict of interest pertains to the Languages Commission, there is no legislation, nor are there any policies that I am aware of that would govern the office of the Languages Commissioner in the area of conflict of interest. Accordingly, in the absence of any clear legislation or policy on this issue, the matter must be determined by the individual involved and by this Assembly as to their thoughts and beliefs as to whether there may be a conflict of interest.

If the Member is asking me, and it is a little bit unclear as to whether a Member of this House may be in a position of conflict of interest under the Legislative Assembly and Executive Council Act, I can only state that as all Members are aware, there are provisions in the Legislative Assembly and Executive Council Act respecting a prohibition on spousal contracts in certain circumstances. However, this Legislature has set up a mechanism for dealing with those types of perceived conflicts and that mechanism is through laying a complaint with the Ethics Commissioner. It would be my respectful suggestion that as this Legislature has set up that body specifically to deal with the issue of conflict of interest as it pertains to Members of this House, that that process, the process of the Ethics Commissioner and laying a complaint, should be used prior to debating this issue in the House.

Under the Legislative Assembly Act, the Ethics Commissioner is bound to report back to the House on any findings. It would be at that time that this issue could then be debated in the House. I hope that answers the Member's question, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you. Are there any further general comments? Mr. Zoe.

Ms. MacPherson.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I apologize for being less than clear. Mr. Chairman, I am saying that there may be an issue, but I respectfully suggest that it is not appropriate for me to rule on that issue or render my opinion at this time, given the very clear process that is set forth in the legislation with respect to conflict of interest.

There have been allusions to a Member and, of course, there are different restrictions in the Legislative Assembly Act that affect Ministers, for example, more significantly than ordinary Members. The full factual background would have to be put to the Ethics Commissioner in order for the Ethics Commissioner to determine whether there has been a possible contravention of this specifically with respect to government contracts and potentially the very broad obligations that are contained within section 67 of the act, which affects all Members.

So, for clarity, I am suggesting that because this House would ultimately have to deal with any report of the Ethics Commissioner, it would be appropriate to follow that process prior to debating this issue.

Thank you. General comments, Mr. Gargan.

Mr. Chairman. Ms. Harnum did say that, or the Languages Commissioner, I am sorry, said yesterday that she did get a legal opinion on whether there was a conflict or not. What was the result of that opinion, in your interpretation?

Mr. Gargan, who are you asking; the Law Clerk or the Languages Commissioner? The Languages Commissioner.

I believe what I said yesterday was that I was not the one who had requested the legal opinion but, my understanding was that this issue was brought up just shortly after my appointment and it was discussed. There was a decision made that there was not a conflict of interest. I do not know. I was not involved in those discussions.

Thank you, Mr. Gargan. Are there any further comments?

Yes, just for the record. By whom was this given?

Thank you. Ms. Harnum.

The message was conveyed to me simply that the Members had discussed it and that they had decided that there was no conflict of interest. I do not know the background. I do not know whether they asked for a legal opinion or whether they simply discussed it themselves and said there was no conflict. I do not know.

Thank you. General comments. Mrs. Marie-Jewell.

Mr. Chairman, I believe that the Members on this side of the House have put forth their concerns and that we have made our point with regard to the tenuous position Members are placed in with regard to evaluating the performance of the Languages Commissioner. We have got clarification in respect to the conflict of interest so, therefore, I would like to indicate that we move that this matter be concluded. Thank you.

Thank you, there is a motion on the floor moved by the honourable Member Mrs. Marie-Jewell, to conclude the item before the committee. To the motion. Do you want to vote? Did you make a motion, Mrs. Marie-Jewell? Was that a motion? Does the committee agree that the item be concluded? Mrs. Marie-Jewell.

I apologize. My colleague had a motion ready and I moved ahead of him, so I will withdraw mine so he can put forth his motion and then we will conclude this item.

Mr. Gargan.

Mr. Gargan, we would like to get a copy of the motion and have it translated. Mr. Gargan.

Mr. Chairman, may we break so that I can do this properly? I would like to ask the assistance of the Clerk to draft it properly.