6.1 Mr. Speaker, in the view of the committee, it must report its comments concerning other circumstances which became apparent only during the course of hearings in this matter.

(a) The Conduct of Mr. Selleck and the CBC

6.2 It is clear, from the evidence heard by this committee, that Mr. Selleck was seeking a story regarding the potential infraction by Minister Groenewegen of conflict of interest obligations. In seeking an interview with the Minister, Mr. Selleck refused to disclose the nature of the issues and preferred instead to embark on a mission of surprise. The committee notes that the Journalistic Standards and Practice of the CBC states:

The information reports or reflects equitably the relevant facts and significant points of view, it deals fairly and ethically with persons, institutions, issues and events. (Emphasis added).

6. 3 Mr. Selleck, in the manner in which he undertook this assignment, has trod perilously close to breach of these standards. At the very least, in the view of the committee, he has damaged his own credibility and that of the organization by whom he is employed.
6. 4 As previously indicated, the information which Mr. Selleck could have provided to this committee was both important and instrumental respecting a number of critical factual issues. Mr. Selleck, both himself and through the representations of his legal counsel, refused to acknowledge the compelling nature of the invitation and summons served on him respecting these proceedings. He refused, through his counsel, to even provide the courtesy to the committee of advising whether or not he would attend or take issue with the request that he provide evidence. He saw fit to only articulate this position at the outset of the formal hearings, Mr. Speaker.
6. 5 When afforded the opportunity to specify the framework of his claim to journalistic privilege by answering questions which would tend to establish, or not, the legitimacy of such a claim, he chose not to do so. Mr. Selleck went so far as to refuse to even be sworn in before the committee.
6. 6 Mr. Selleck and his counsel appeared not to appreciate that the claim of privilege is not one which applies, automatically or otherwise, to proceedings before a parliamentary committee. They unfortunately did not take the time or make the effort to apprise themselves of the nature and authority of such proceedings. Had they done so, they would have learned that not only is journalistic privilege not applicable in these proceedings, such well-protected privileges as solicitor-client privilege do not stand in this arena.
6. 7 The refusal of a witness to answer questions before a duly constituted parliamentary committee is a serious affront to the dignity of the parliamentary process. The authorities on this matter, Mr. Speaker, are abundant and clear, and I am quoting from Erskine May, Parliamentary Practice, 22nd Edition, page 109 through 110:

Witnesses who have refused to be sworn or take upon themselves some corresponding obligation to tell the truth, who have refused to answer questions, who refused to produce or destroyed documents in their possession, who have prevaricated, given false evidence, wilfully suppressed the truth, or persistently misled a committee have been considered guilty of contempt.

Also, Mr. Speaker, from Maginot, Parliamentary Privilege in Canada, 2nd Edition, page 193:

The penal jurisdiction of the House is not confined to its own Members. Nor is it confined to offences committed in the immediate presence of the House by its Members; it is extended to all contempts of the House, whether committed by a Member or by persons who are not Members and whether or not the offence constituting the contempt was committed within the House or beyond its walls.

Additionally, Mr. Speaker, from Beauchesne's Parliamentary Rules and Forms, 6th Edition:

862 Witnesses must answer all questions directed to them even over their objection that an answer would incriminate them.

863 A witness is, however, bound to answer all questions which the committee sees fit to put, and cannot be excused, for example, on the ground that there could be a risk of a civil action, or because an oath has been taken not to disclose the matter under consideration, or because the matter was a privileged communication such as that between a solicitor and a client, or on the grounds of advice from counsel that the question cannot be answered without risking self-incrimination or a civil suit, or that it would prejudice a defence in pending litigation, some of which would be sufficient grounds of excuse in a court of law. Nor can a witness refuse to produce documents on the grounds of an instruction from a client that they not be disclosed without the consent of the client.

6. 8 Mr. Speaker, as a result of these apparently ill-informed actions, Mr. Selleck is at risk of sanction by the House.
6. 9 The committee has the power to recommend sanctions to the House and these sanctions are very broad. Mr. Selleck categorically refused to testify and to submit to the taking of an oath. This action is contemptuous of the committee and of the House itself which duly constituted the committee. The committee could make this matter the subject of a separate report to the House and recommend appropriate sanctions. The committee has chosen however to deal with the more significant issues and not waste the valuable time and resources of the House on a contemptuous act that is based more in ignorance than malice. It is however indicative of a reporter and media corporation that simply lack both in professionalism and a fundamental understanding of civics and the democratic values that underpin our system of governance.
6. 10 It further considers that the damage caused by Mr. Selleck to his own credibility and that of his employer, the CBC, is sufficient sanction and one of which he and they are the sole architects.

(b) Conduct of Minister Groenewegen

6. 11 It goes without saying that the public at large is entitled to expect a higher level of ethical conduct than what has been demonstrated by the Minister throughout this matter. Her secretive taping of telephone conversations is, in the view of the committee, inexcusable. As well, her single-minded pursuit of her issues with the Conflict of Interest Commissioner do not speak to a professional and mature approach to serious government responsibilities. Her actions have assisted this government in being side tracked and diverted by concerns that are essentially those of the Minister and not those of the government as a whole. She can fairly share in the responsibility for significant costs, time and energy being devoted to this matter.
6. 12 Furthermore, Mr. Speaker, the Minister can take responsibility for a serious absence of duly informing the Premier on July 19, 2001, of the full contents of the tape recording which would thereafter form part of the record of the proceedings of this committee. She neglected to advise him in any appropriate detail of the contents of the tape. As a result, the Premier did not have in hand a complete picture of these circumstances when he addressed the House on July 23, 2001.
6. 13 Minister Groenewegen is therefore directly responsible for full information not being provided to the House at a time when these events were fully known to her. She chose instead, for reasons that are best known to her, to ignore the fact that secret tapings of telephone conversations had occurred on more than one occasion.
6. 14 She was content with the House being advised of part, but not all, significant information concerning such matters. Despite her being of the view that the taping of the January telephone conversation was justified and irrelevant does not detract from the fact that such conduct is completely inappropriate for government Ministers or Members of this Assembly.

(c) Conduct of the Conflict of Interest Commissioner

6. 15 This committee was both distressed and discouraged by the evidence outlining various aspects of conduct of the Conflict of Interest Commissioner, and indeed with the manner in which she provided evidence to this committee. There appeared to be a pattern of passivity and a reluctance on the part of the Commissioner to be actively and energetically engaged in the issues affecting Members of this Assembly. She has failed to systematically meet with Members since her appointment to review and advise on their affairs. Mr. Speaker, she has left it entirely to Members, in particular Ms. Groenewegen, to seek out expert advice and she saw no role for herself in facilitating this in any fashion.
6. 16 She minimized her responsibilities in dealing with Members and maximized to an inappropriate degree their individual responsibilities without clear or articulated advice on her part. She apparently kept no notes of important meetings with Members or other circumstances. She exercised poor judgment in agreeing to deal with the media when there was a clear and public controversy developing concerning Minister Groenewegen.
6. 17 She failed to give notice of potential sections of the act that may have been breached by the Minister in both the Miltenberger and Rowe investigations.
6. 18 She appears to have misconceived the ability of the House to impose sanctions upon her dismissal of the Miltenberger complaint. Her decision in the Rowe investigation appears to impose a result not contemplated in any respect by the governing legislation.
6. 19 With respect to these proceedings, she approved written submissions placed before this committee which used strident and aggressive language. She did so having previously complained that the proceedings of this committee were unduly adversarial in nature. It appeared at times that her availability to attend before the committee was to be a negotiated item rather than one of duty or responsibility as a statutory officer of the House. She refused to attend a scheduled hearing of this committee July 12, 2001, on the basis of her view that her then legal counsel were being ill treated in their contract negotiations for payment. 6.20 Mr. Speaker, her evidence before the committee was often inconsistent and lacked the clarity and articulation one would normally expect from a person occupying this position with the education and work experience attributable to this Commissioner.
6. 21 While her legal counsel has been careful to point out that this process was not about a review of the competency of the Conflict Commissioner nor a performance appraisal of her to this point, the committee cannot ignore these facts and cannot fail to report to the House its significant concerns respecting same. To do so would ignore a large part of the serious facts placed before the committee in its hearing, and would ignore the conduct of the Commissioner during the course of these proceedings.
6. 22 The committee is of the view that it would be remiss in its obligations to Members generally, and to the House, should it fail to report these serious concerns which were unanimously voiced by committee members.

(d) The Conduct of Senior Cabinet Staff

6.23 Quite apart from the question of individuals' involvement in clandestine taping of telephone conversations, a number of actions were revealed before this committee which it feels are worthy of comment. These include, Mr. Speaker:

• • The fact that Mr. Bayly and Ms. Sorensen saw fit to refuse to acknowledge the legitimacy of the invitation and summons served on them to attend before the committee and give evidence;
• • Each Mr. Bayly and Ms. Sorensen disclosed documents relevant to matters being considered by the committee only during the course of their testimony. Interestingly enough, for individuals in the habit of keeping careful and copious notes, no notes were apparently taken or kept regarding the events of March 26, 2001. Each witness was obliged by the terms of the invitation to attend and summons to review and produce all relevant documents that they might have in their possession touching on matters to be considered by the committee. The committee is uncertain as to whether both individuals either failed to take such obligations seriously or failed to meet the standards expected of witnesses attending before a legislative committee.
• • Each Mr. Bayly and Ms. Sorensen, either through themselves or through counsel, refused in the face of specific requests by the committee to produce copies of the letter of reprimand apparently delivered to them on the part of the Premier. This leaves lingering doubts, where there should be none, as to the existence of or content of their letter of reprimand and whether it truly addressed the issues of the conduct in question;
• • Ms. Taylor was advised by government legal counsel to provide no information that may tend to reveal Cabinet confidences. Similarly such claims of Crown privilege do not necessarily apply when relevant information is sought which might otherwise be the subject of Crown privilege.

6. 24 Mr. Speaker, it is difficult for this committee to report that senior officials have adopted an approach of cooperation, transparency and open government in the face of these facts. Rather, the overwhelming impression left was that of reluctant involvement based on political self interest, the selective production of documents and the, at times, opportune absence of memory or clear recollection.
6. 25 This committee is of the view that the requested jointly addressed letter of reprimand is not protected by privacy interests as alleged on behalf of Ms. Sorensen and Mr. Bayly. This refusal is considered to be a very serious issue by the committee and a complete disregard by these public servants of the privileges, power and authority of this committee. Mr. Speaker.
6. 26 In addition, Ms. Sorensen appears to have been aware of the fact that there was a second tape recorded telephone conversation between the Minister and the Conflict of Interest Commissioner. Knowing this, she did not take steps to advise the Premier of this situation or correct his statement to the House on July 23, 2001, which referred to only one taped conversation.
6. 27 The Premier has a right to rely and depend on full and accurate information being provided to him. Similarly, he must ensure that staff who are directly answerable to him are aware of and abide by such standards.
6. 28 The committee questions as well the level of involvement of staff in the Premier's office respecting a conflict of interest matter affecting a particular Member, whether or not they are a member of Cabinet. While the situation is no doubt a difficult one for staff in dealing with, in this case the Deputy Premier, one has to expect that senior level staff are capable of making appropriate decisions as to those issues which they should or should not be involved in.
6. 29 The responsibility for not only the actions of senior officials, but their response to this committee, lies squarely with the Premier. They occupy the most senior civil servant levels in this government. It is only the Premier who can be answerable and accountable for this conduct. It is similarly only the Premier who, in the face of the facts now widely known, who can attempt to restore public confidence in the integrity and standards of this government. In the view of this committee, to leave such conduct without any further redress is, in fact, to condone it.

(e) Conduct of the Premier

6.30 Although the Premier appeared to view his position in this matter as detached and peripheral, in the view of the committee there are significant concerns arising out of the facts ascertained at the hearing in this matter:

• • The initial and primary concern of the Premier when learning of these events appeared not to be the unethical and unacceptable nature of the conduct, but rather whether these individuals could be accused of illegal activity;
• • The Premier was aware on July 6, 2001, when he was advised by both Mr. Bayly and Ms. Sorensen that the secret taping of a telephone conversation with a statutory officer of the House had occurred. Despite this knowledge and the public statements considerably after the fact that such conduct is not acceptable and reflects poorly on this government, no action was taken at the time to address the matter.
• • If such action was indeed so unacceptable in the opinion of the Premier, the committee must seriously question why immediate steps were not undertaken. In the view of the committee, the flurry of activity which occurred July 22, 2001, is more than coincidental.
• • On July 23, 2001, in the House the Premier spoke strongly against this committee continuing its work when he was in possession of knowledge available to no other Member other than Minister Groenewegen. Only Stephen Kakfwi and Jane Groenewegen knew of the involvement of the chief of staff in the March 26, 2001, secret taping. The implication of his chief of staff in these events should have required at least disclosure of that fact during the course of debate. Instead, in the view of the Premier, and I am quoting:

There are things that were uncovered in the course of the work. I do not know what they are. The public does not know what they are. There are some innuendoes and suggestions made, [but] they do not appear to be substantial. If there are issues considering conduct, that is for the Board of Management or perhaps myself as Premier, to deal with. [Hansard, July 23, 2001, page 299].

6.31 At the very least, the Premier did in fact know that the chief of staff was involved in a secretive taping of a telephone conversation. He knew or ought to have known that this was substantial and serious. When the Premier suggested that instead the Board of Management should deal with matters, he must be taken to have known that this entity could not hear witnesses or examine evidence. In fact the board's ability to deal with senior Cabinet staff is virtually non-existent. The Premier's lack of action and unwillingness to disclose his staff's involvement with such activity is at direct odds with open and transparent government.

Part VII

Conclusions

7. 1 Mr. Speaker, as the various events and facts of this matter are complex, and the time at which certain events occurred is important, a time line showing significant occurrences with the bias allegations and telephone taping are attached to this report.
7. 2 The public's confidence in its elected representatives places a high demand on not only the Members and our Ministers, but also in senior officials of our government. Conflict of interest legislation does not necessarily have as its primary purpose the improvement of the ethical standards of legislators. Most commentators would agree that the majority of public office holders are decent, hard working men and women who do their best to serve the public interest, as they understand it.
7. 3 Conflict of interest legislation is largely intended to assist elected representatives by providing an objective standard against which they may gauge their actions, and satisfy themselves and the public that they are acting appropriately. This rational was aptly described by the Ontario Ethics Commissioner in 1996, and I quote:

The primary purpose of integrity legislation is not to promote high ethical standards among members, all of whom, we expect, having chosen to aspire to public office, possess the necessary moral qualities that entitle them to be referred to as honourable members in the Legislature or Parliament. Rather it is a standard against which the ever increasingly cynical and suspicious press and public may measure their behaviour in office. It may not appease the more rabid critics, but it will serve as a source of satisfaction to the member whose conduct is under attack to know that it meets the standard by which his peers are also judged.

7. 4 Mr. Speaker, the committee wrestled with the challenge of weighing up the evidence from the five days of public hearings, the volumes of submissions and replies submitted by the Minister and the Conflict of Interest Commissioner to reach conclusions to recommend to the Legislative Assembly.
7. 5 The challenge of this one special committee to provide to the Legislature and the public recommendations that would assist with restoring the confidence in and integrity of government and statutory officers proved to be one that was truly necessary to undertake.
7. 6 Members of the committee viewed their obligation to assess the apprehension of bias issue extremely seriously. The office of the Conflict of Interest Commissioner is one which occupies both a sensitive and responsible position, one which must both work with and be detached from Members. However, the committee was obliged to resolutely review all facts and allegations.
7. 7 The committee was drawn to the Members' Conduct Guidelines, which are etched in glass outside this Chamber. These guidelines were provided to every one of us when we were first elected to the 14th Legislative Assembly, and these guidelines should be held higher than they have been in recent times. We are of the view that the following portions of the guidelines are appropriate and bear repeating, Mr. Speaker:

As a legislator, I will do my best to fulfill my duties to the Legislature, the public and my constituents and my colleagues with integrity and honour;

To my constituents, I owe my best efforts at effective representation, as well as accountability, honesty, fairness and courtesy;

To the Legislature, I owe respect, as well as dedication to my role in ensuring integrity of our government and in earning, through my actions, the confidence of people;

To the public, I owe a responsibility to work for the well-being of all residents of the Northwest Territories;

To my colleagues, I owe fairness and respect for our differences, and the duty to work together with goodwill for the common good.

7. 8 Mr. Speaker, integrity, honesty, accountability and moral conduct are indeed lofty principles and ones that we know that voters would like to see in the individuals that are fortunate to be elected to the Legislative Assembly. One assumes that once elected that we do not lose these qualities. Furthermore, some of us are singled out by our colleagues to take on responsibility as Premier and Ministers of the government. This places these individuals on a higher plane where the standard of integrity and conduct are even more important and their actions must demonstrate those principles.
7. 9 Mr. Speaker, democracy is founded on the principles of equality and respect for all individuals, which can be referred to as mutual respect. Mutual respect means that we owe the same consideration to others when making decisions that affect them as we feel we are owed when others make decisions that affect us. Some have indicated that there are five principles of democracy that follow from mutual respect: social equality, deference to the majority, minority rights, freedom, and integrity, Mr. Speaker. A familiarity with these principles provides a foundation for judging ethical behaviour in the public sphere and for resolving ethical dilemmas in a democratic context.
7. 10 These five key principles of democracy imply certain ethical duties on the part of public officials and in this case the Premier, Minister, Conflict of Interest Commissioner, principal secretary and chief of staff. First, they have a responsibility to act as impartially as possible when carrying out their duties, especially those established by law. Second, they are acting as trustees for the entire citizenry, and therefore they have a fiduciary responsibility not to abuse that trust. Third, they have a duty to account for their activities and decisions.
7. 11 As indicated, the committee undertook an impartial process where all parties to the issues had an opportunity to present their perspectives fully. The Assembly can be assured that the committee considered the issues in a fashion that was free from bias.
7. 12 While the committee attempted to narrowly articulate its mandate for the purposes of the hearing to be conducted, it is apparent that as result of the hearing, important facts and circumstances were revealed. Therefore, in the view of the committee, in order to responsibly complete its tasks, it must report on all such matters that it considers significant and to make recommendations that it feels must be made arising from these matters.
7. 13 Both elected Members and members of the public have had occasion to question the expenditure of time and money in this matter. However, when a question of apprehension of bias is raised regarding a statutory officer of this Legislature, and one who is charged with the responsibility of both advising Members on conflict matters and investigating conflict complaints, it is a matter of significant public interest that those concerns be resolved. The public must have confidence in the fulfillment of these very important obligations as they represent a cornerstone in the foundation of integrity of elected officials.
7. 14 Mr. Speaker, the obligation of this committee to continue its work became even more pressing when the early facts regarding the March 26, 2001, tape recorded conversation became known. This was not an issue that could be ignored as it reflected so directly on the standards of this government.