Oh well, it sounds like a restaurant to me. So maybe it is at your end somehow.
Ms. Roberts: Could be.
Mr. Bayly: I'm just on the speakerphone here so that I can take notes if I need to. (Emphasis added).
- 15 This exchange occurred after the point that Mr. Bayly acknowledged that he was aware that the telephone call was being tape-recorded. In his evidence before the committee, Mr. Bayly acknowledged that this statement to Ms. Roberts was a partial truth. He had elected to make the call on the speakerphone and not advise her of the presence of others.
- 16 When he realized that the call was being taped, he took no action to terminate the call. The statement to the effect that he was using the speakerphone so that he could take notes deliberately misinformed the Conflict of Interest Commissioner of the actual circumstances of the call.
- 17 There is also a conflict in the evidence as to whether Ms. Sorensen was present more or less throughout the telephone call. Given the consistency of the evidence of the other witnesses, this committee prefers their evidence to that provided by Ms. Sorensen.
- 18 The committee also finds it at best puzzling or unusual that Ms. Sorensen would, as she indicated in her evidence, accept a formal letter of reprimand for her involvement in this matter when, according to her evidence, she had no knowledge that the call was being tape recorded and had no knowledge that those present in the room had not been introduced to the Conflict of Interest Commissioner as being present.
- 19 In fact her evidence is that the contrary occurred and that she assumed that Ms. Roberts was in fact aware of others being present in the room. It challenges common sense to some degree that she would accept a reprimand for her conduct when, according to her, she was an entirely innocent bystander.
- 20 The committee was also persuaded by the evidence of Ms. Taylor, which was given in an extremely frank and forthright manner. The committee further appreciates the exceedingly difficult position that she would have been in during the course of this telephone call. It could not have been easy for her to provide evidence to the committee given the nature of the evidence in issue.
- 21 During the course of the evidence at the hearings, the committee learned the following additional facts, which it believes are very important to the comments that follow in this report, Mr. Speaker:
- • Minister Groenewegen had previously surreptitiously tape-recorded an earlier telephone conversation with the Conflict of Interest Commissioner, which had occurred on or about January 7, 2001. The conversation was on the same tape used to tape the March 26, 2001, conversation;
- • Minister Groenewegen felt entirely justified in taping this January conversation and felt that, as she only intended it for her own use, there was no harm associated with this action;
- • That all present during the March 26, 2001, telephone conversation between Mr. Bayly and the Conflict of Interest Commissioner were aware that it had been tape recorded (with the possible exception of Ms. Sorensen whose evidence on this point, as previously indicated, is difficult to reconcile with that of other witnesses);
- • That John Bayly and Lynda Sorensen became aware on or about July 6, 2001, that the fact of this secretly taped conversation would become known to the public at large as the Minister intended to refer to these circumstances in written submissions to be made to the special committee;
- • John Bayly and Lynda Sorensen advised the Premier on July 6, 2001, of the secret taping of this conversation and the fact that it would soon become public;
- • The Premier upon learning of this wanted, as apparently a first priority, to receive advice as to whether this was an illegal act;
- • The Minister advised the Premier in passing on July 19, 2001, that she was turning over the tape as required to the law clerk and that there was another conversation on the tape. She did not clearly indicate to the Premier at this time that the other conversation was also a secretly taped conversation;
- • That between March 26, 2001 and July 6, 2001, no mention was made nor action initiated by John Bayly, Lynda Sorensen (if indeed she knew of this having occurred) or Minister Groenewegen concerning the secret taping;
- • Between July 6, 2001 and July 22, 2001 (the day before session was to open to deal with the report of the Special Committee on Conflict Process), no steps were taken by the Premier regarding the actions of secretly taping a telephone conversation with a statutory officer of the Legislative Assembly;
On Sunday, July 22, 2001, a number of events hastily occurred:
- • A policy letter was circulated to Cabinet Members stating that taping telephone conversations without the knowledge of all parties to the call was not acceptable conduct by members of the government;
- • A letter of reprimand was jointly addressed to John Bayly and Lynda Sorensen to be placed on their respective files. It should be noted, Mr. Speaker, that when these witnesses were requested to produce to the committee a copy of the letter of reprimand they declined to do so, claiming privacy rights with respect to this document.
- • The Premier had a discussion with the Deputy Premier at the home of the Premier, at which time it was agreed that she would, the following day, provide him with her written resignation as Deputy Premier;
- • Given the absence of any action concerning the secret taping prior to this time, the multiple steps on this single day are indeed remarkable;
- • It appears that the Premier may not have learned until July 25, 2001, that there was in fact a further secretly taped telephone conversation between the Minister and the Conflict of Interest Commissioner. However, Ms. Sorensen in her evidence before the committee stated that she had reminded the Premier in Hay River on July 19, 2001, that the Minister had informed him of the second taping... [Hansard September 20, 2001, page 154.];
- • She further stated, when asked by Mr. Arvay, counsel for the Conflict of Interest Commissioner, when she became aware of the second taping, that it was on the 19th of July in Hay River [Hansard September 20, 2001, page 159]. It therefore appears that Ms. Sorensen knew of this fact on that date (namely July 19, 2001);
- • On July 23, 2001, the Premier made a statement in the House advising that the Minister had tendered her resignation as Deputy Premier. He stated that in her letter of resignation Ms. Groenewegen indicated that she exercised poor judgment by recording a telephone conversation on March 26, 2001, between the Principal Secretary and the Conflict of Interest Commissioner, Carol Roberts. [Hansard July 23, 2001, page 287.]; (emphasis added)
- • Ms. Sorensen in her evidence indicated that she would have reviewed the draft letter of resignation of the Deputy Premier prior to the Premier seeing the letter;
- • In addressing the debate in committee of the whole on July 23, 2001, the Premier spoke against continuation of the Special Committee on Conflict Process and its request for a continued and expanded mandate, which of necessity would include an examination of the actions of senior staff and the Minister respecting the secret taping of a telephone conversation with the Conflict of Interest Commissioner;
- • The Premier was aware at this point of time, of information that was not in the possession of any other Member of the House, with the exception of Minister Groenewegen: that the chief of staff and the principal secretary had been significantly involved in the events of March 26, 2001. This was not a fact known even to special committee members at the time of this debate;
- • In August Mr. Bayly offered his resignation to the Premier, and during the course of that conversation the Premier declined to accept the offer of resignation.
- 22 This series of events significantly and adversely reflects on the individuals directly involved in the taping of telephone conversations with statutory officers of the House and the broadcast of conversations to undisclosed listeners.
- 23 Mr. Speaker, the matter goes much beyond that. The absence of any action by the Premier on learning of these events early in July and the highly coincidental flurry of activity that can only be described as damage control the day before the session was scheduled to open, reveals that there appears to be no independent yardstick or compass of ethical conduct.
- 24 The primary concern of the most senior levels of this government in the Premier's office appears to have been to doctor the political spin.
- 25 There was no independent or early action to deal with improper conduct. Indeed, Mr. Speaker, the concern appeared to be with respect to the legality of the conduct and not the morality of it.
- 26 No letters of reprimand were issued at the earliest opportunity, no general policy letter about taping telephone conversations occurred immediately after the July 6, 2001 disclosure, no action of any kind was taken or wrongdoing acknowledged by senior staff during the months that preceded this disclosure.
- 27 Had the Minister not elected to make the taping of this conversation known in her written submissions to this committee, it is likely that no steps of any kind would have been taken.
- 28 It is, in the view of the committee, a poor measure of the moral standards of this government, and it reflects on all those who are associated with it, be they as elected Members or staff.
- 29 Mr. Speaker, the measure of moral conduct is not that which occurs when the world at large may be watching. The measure of moral conduct involves taking the right actions even when only those directly involved are privy to the circumstances.
- 30 Ethical behaviour is not behaviour that is undertaken for demonstration purposes. It is undertaken because it is right.
- 31 In the view of this committee, no acceptable circumstances were revealed which justify in any respect the actions of Minister Groenewegen in secretly taping not one but two telephone conversations with the Conflict of Interest Commissioner.
- 32 In the view of this committee, no acceptable circumstances were revealed which justify the involvement of senior Cabinet staff in this matter at all, let alone in the manner in which they were actually involved.
- 33 Finally, in the view of this committee, no acceptable circumstances were revealed which explain the absence of immediate and determinative action to deal with these events on the part of the Premier once they became known.