- 1 On March 30, 2001, Jack Rowe of Hay River contacted the Conflict of Interest Commissioner regarding a concern of alleged conflict on the part of the honourable Member for Hay River South, Jane Groenewegen. Mr. Rowe alleged that Ms. Groenewegen had breached certain provisions of the Legislative Assembly and Executive Council Act, (the act), by remaining a director of certain privately owned corporations.
- 2 Ms. Groenewegen requested in correspondence dated April 25, 2001, directed to the Conflict of Interest Commissioner, that she stand herself aside respecting this investigation as a result of a stated reasonable apprehension of bias on the part of the Member.
- 3 Mr. Speaker, the Conflict of Interest Commissioner considered the request to stand aside, but concluded that there was no reason why she should not undertake the investigation of this complaint.
- 4 So began a journey that has been challenging, difficult and one that has often traveled through uncharted territory. As is often the case, Mr. Speaker, the ultimate destination can be quite different from what was originally contemplated by all concerned, including interested members of the public.
- 5 Although the matter appears to have been initiated as a result of the conflict complaint by Mr. Rowe, the issues which ultimately became the mandate of the special committee had their genesis long before this particular event. However, the request having been made by the Member, it had to be addressed in a manner that was fair and appropriate to both Minister Groenewegen and to the Conflict of Interest Commissioner.
- 6 The initial attempts to do so by the Board of Management of the Legislative Assembly and the creation of this special committee are detailed in the first report of the Special Committee on Conflict Process, which we presented in the Legislative Assembly July 23, 2001.
- 7 At the time the July report was considered, the honourable Member for Hay River South requested withdrawal of her application to have the Conflict of Interest Commissioner suspended or removed regarding this investigation. The Assembly was at this point left in an extremely difficult situation. Serious allegations had been traded between the Member and the Conflict of Interest Commissioner. The reputation of both the Member and the office of the Conflict of Interest Commissioner had been called into question, and certain highly questionable actions of a senior level government official in the Premier's office had come to light.
- 8 The choice became whether to leave all such questions unexplored and unanswered, or to spend the time and resources inevitably required to bring closure to serious issues that reflected significantly on the integrity of government as a whole.
- 9 The Assembly, by motion passed July 23, 2001, provided the special committee with an extended and expanded mandate to conclude the serious questions which had such humble and unassuming origins.
- 10 The mandate accorded to the committee as set out in the motion of the Assembly of July 23, 2001, was as follows, Mr. Speaker:
That notwithstanding the withdrawal of the application, the Legislative Assembly authorizes and extends the mandate of the Special Committee on Conflict Process to consider the allegation of an apprehension of bias in relation to the investigation conducted by the Conflict of Interest Commissioner, and to consider related matters which have arisen or may arise during the normal course of proceedings of the special committee. (Section 2 of Motion 4-14 (4) as amended July 23, 2001.)
2.11 The committee attempted to refine aspects of its mandate and considered that there were three important issues to be addressed.
- Bias Allegations
- Whether Inaccurate Submissions Were Made on Behalf of the Conflict of Interest Commissioner to the Special Committee.
(a) The allegation that the Conflict of Interest Commissioner had prior knowledge of the details of the alleged infraction by the Minister in advance of a complaint being made as a result of a conversation with Mr. Selleck. The question of whether this was the case and further, what if any effect it had, would be considered by the committee;
(b) The allegation that there was an invitation to file a complaint made during the course of the media interview with Mr. Selleck and that references in that interview could reasonably be held to be in reference to Minister Groenewegen;
(c) The allegation that the complaint made by Mr. Rowe was coached in some fashion as a result of the exchange of correspondence or communication on the issue; and
(d) The allegation that conflict avoidance advice was not given on the matter, Mr. Speaker.
It had been suggested that there was a material discrepancy between the material filed on behalf of the Conflict of Interest Commissioner and the facts respecting the information she had in hand prior to the complaint being laid by Mr. Rowe.
- Whether There are Any Circumstances Which Would Explain the Apparent Error in Judgment Associated With the Minister's Tape Recording of the March 26, 2001, Telephone Conversation.
- 12 The committee had previously decided that in order for it to properly address the questions before it, it would be necessary to hear from witnesses. This was due to the fact that a number of important facts appeared to be in dispute, and the only means of resolving such disputes would be to hear from individuals who could speak to events and circumstances.
2.13 An initial witness list was developed which included the following individuals, Mr. Speaker:
- • Lee Selleck, reporter with the CBC;
- • Jack Rowe, complainant in the conflict matter;
- • Jane Groenewegen, Minister;
- • Carol Roberts, Conflict of Interest Commissioner;
- • John Bayly, principal secretary to Cabinet.
These persons were initially invited to attend the hearing to give evidence, and thereafter summons were issued respecting their attendance at the hearing.
2.14 As a result of interviews which were conducted in advance of the hearing with these witnesses, it was determined that it would be necessary to hear from other individuals. Invitations and summons were accordingly issued to:
- • April Taylor, director of communications, Department of the Executive;
- • Lynda Sorensen, chief of staff;
- • Stephen Kakfwi, Premier.
- 15 The committee also conducted meetings to determine whether certain witnesses would be granted standing, or the status to participate in the hearing process by examination and cross examination of witnesses and the ability to make submissions to the committee, Mr. Speaker. Minister Groenewegen and the Conflict of Interest Commissioner were granted full standing. Applications by John Bayly, Lynda Sorensen and Stephen Kakfwi for standing were denied by the committee.
- 16 All witnesses were entitled to engage legal counsel if they so desired. However, only legal counsel of the witnesses with standing would fully participate in the hearing. In the end, all witnesses save Jack Rowe and April Taylor retained legal counsel to assist them. Mr. Speaker, the committee did not bear the costs of legal counsel for any witness.
- 17 While it was extremely difficult to arrange hearing dates, given commitments of committee members and those of witnesses and their respective legal counsel, the hearing was scheduled for September 18, 19 and 20, 2001.
- 18 The hearing commenced as scheduled on September 18, 2001. The time required to hear testimony from the various witnesses extended well beyond the expectations of all concerned, and after more than 70 hours of testimony the hearing concluded Saturday, September 22, 2001. Many long days and evenings were required to complete this part of the process and the committee extends its gratitude to all concerned for their patience and endurance.
- 19 Final written submissions were received from legal counsel for the Minister and the Conflict of Interest Commissioner September 28, 2001, and reply submissions were received from each October 3, 2001.
- 20 Mr. Speaker, the committee then began the task of reviewing transcripts of oral evidence and the nearly one hundred documents referred to during the course of the proceedings to prepare its report and recommendations to the Legislative Assembly.