Thank you, Mr. Nitah. The honourable Minister responsible for the Department of Resources, Wildlife and Economic Development, Mr. Handley.

Mr. Speaker, certainly our government will not violate the Interim Measures Agreement, so if there is any violation of that, then that is grounds for not issuing a permit. However, at this time, I am told that there is no violation by this application and I have no reason to deny the permit. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Minister. Supplementary, Mr. Nitah.

Thank you, Mr. Nitah. The honourable Minister responsible for the Department of Resources, Wildlife and Economic Development, Mr. Handley.

Mr. Speaker, I would expect that if the treaty is relevant, then it certainly would take precedence over the Interim Measures Agreement. Thank you.

Thank you, Minister Handley. Final supplementary, Mr. Nitah.

Thank you, Mr. Nitah. The honourable Minister responsible for the Department of Resources, Wildlife and Economic Development, Mr. Handley.

Mr. Speaker, I am not having face-to-face discussions with Minister Nault. I am sending him a letter and I expect to have a response speedily but I really cannot pin a date down to it. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Minister. Item 6, oral questions. There are no further oral questions. I apologize to the House for my scratchy voice. I was making a speech yesterday and I should not have been, so I am a little hoarse. Item 7, written questions. Item 8, returns to written questions. Item 9, replies to opening address. Item 10, petitions. The honourable Member for Yellowknife South, Mr. Bell.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I would like to present a petition dealing with the matter of Bill 9, Commercial Vehicle Trip Permit Act. Mr. Speaker, this petition contains 809 signatures of Yellowknife and other residents from areas and communities around the North, places like Inuvik, Fort Simpson, Fort Smith, Rae, Ndilo, Ingraham Trail, Prelude, Hay River, Tuktoyaktuk, Fort Providence, Enterprise, Aklavik and Nahanni Butte. Essentially, Mr. Speaker, these folks all oppose Bill 9, Commercial Vehicle Trip Permit Act. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Bell. Item 10, petitions. Item 11, reports of standing and special committees. The Chair recognizes the honourable Member for Yellowknife South, Mr. Bell.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

1. 1 The Special Committee on Conflict Process is pleased to present our second report as mandated by the Legislative Assembly on July 23, 2001. The mandate of the committee was expanded and extended to report no later than October 23, 2001.
1. 2 The report, entitled Confidence in the Integrity and Standard of Government, offers for consideration of the Legislative Assembly our findings and recommendations.
1. 3 The tasks of this committee have been challenging, arduous and complex. It has been a learning experience for each of us. It would be fair to say that no committee member relished the responsibilities associated with this mandate, but all felt the need for transparency in government and that the requirement to be accountable to the public for our actions was critical, Mr. Speaker.
1. 4 Without exception, my fellow members undertook these obligations with the sincere intention of resolving the issues in a manner that was open and fair to all concerned. They devoted many hours to this task and they did so with open and ready minds, careful discussion and thoughtful analysis. I wish to express my sincere gratitude to each member for their invaluable assistance and contributions.

2. 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. 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.
2. 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.
2. 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.
2. 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.
2. 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.
2. 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.
2. 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.
2. 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.
2. 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.

1. Bias Allegations

(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.

2. Whether Inaccurate Submissions Were Made on Behalf of the Conflict of Interest Commissioner to the Special Committee.

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.

3. 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.
2. 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.

2. 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.
2. 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.
2. 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.
2. 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.
2. 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.
2. 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.

3.1 In order to inform and report on this aspect of the process, it is helpful at the outset to review the main allegations on the part of the Minister and the essential response of the Conflict of Interest Commissioner. The allegations of the Minister articulated by the committee in advance of the hearing are as follows:

(a) That the Conflict of Interest Commissioner, as a result of discussions and/or an interview with Lee Selleck of CBC on March 15, 2001, became aware of the details of an alleged conflict of interest infraction by the Minister. The Minister alleges that at this stage, the Conflict of Interest Commissioner was made aware by Mr. Selleck that he had information from the corporate registry that the Minister remained listed as the director of certain private company or companies, and that he had traveled to Hay River to investigate this matter. The Minister alleges that the subsequent actions of the Conflict of Interest Commissioner, including her discussions with the media, must be seen through the prism of this prior knowledge, and that the prior knowledge affected her approach and the nature of her comments to the press concerning the matter, Mr. Speaker;

(b) That on the basis of the Conflict of Interest Commissioner's knowledge of the alleged or potential infraction by the Minister, the comments of Ms. Roberts made to the media must be interpreted to be in reference to the Minister and not hypothetically with respect to all or any Members, and further that the gist of such comments constituted an invitation to the public at large to file a complaint such that an investigation could be undertaken;

(c) That upon Mr. Rowe contacting the Conflict of Interest Commissioner, the exchange of e-mail correspondence which occurred between the two, particularly during the period March 30, 2001 to April 2, 2001, went beyond the Conflict of Interest Commissioner assisting Mr. Rowe to articulate his complaint and constituted coaching or framing of the complaint against the Minister; and

(d) That despite the Conflict of Interest Commissioner's awareness as alleged of a potential problem on or about the 15th of March, 2001, conflict avoidance advice was not provided to the Minister either at that time or in response to a written request on April 4, 2001, for conflict avoidance advice as permitted by section 98 of the act.

3.2 Mr. Speaker, while these allegations constitute the main thrust of the position of the Minister, a number of other issues were raised by her in support of her apprehension that the Conflict of Interest Commissioner would not bring an open, fresh and entirely objective approach to the investigation of the complaint lodged by Mr. Rowe. These concerns included the following:

• • That in the Conflict of Interest Commissioner's previous investigation of a complaint against the Minister filed by Michael Miltenberger, the Member for Thebacha, the Conflict of Interest Commissioner met with the Minister and inquired of her as to why the Minister did not direct the trustee of her blind trust to effect transfer of the vehicle in question to her name personally. The Minister was concerned respecting this query as in her view it evidenced, at a minimum, a complete lack of understanding on the part of the Conflict of Interest Commissioner that the Minister was prohibited by the terms of the blind trust arrangement from providing any direction to the trustee respecting corporate matters;
• • That during the course of the investigation of the Miltenberger complaint, the Conflict of Interest Commissioner advised the Minister in writing that she would provide a draft of her investigation report to the Minister in advance of it being tabled in the Legislative Assembly. The Minister was not provided with a draft report and her first knowledge of it was at the time of the tabling of the report in the House;
• • The Conflict of Interest Commissioner did not specify to the Minister in the Miltenberger complaint the section which she considered the Minister may have breached. Despite the lack of notice, the Conflict of Interest Commissioner found the Minister in breach of section 75 of the act. This section was never previously mentioned or discussed with respect to the complaint or the Commissioner's investigation. The Minister alleges that, having no notice that this was a breach being considered by the Conflict of Interest Commissioner, she could not provide any response or answer to this allegation;
• • That in the report of the Miltenberger complaint tabled in the Legislative Assembly, the Conflict of Interest Commissioner stated that she had concerns about the legislation generally and some of the limitations on her authority contained in the present act, particularly her ability to impose sanctions in the circumstances;
• • That in the Miltenberger complaint tabled in the Legislative Assembly, while the Conflict of Interest Commissioner dismissed the complaint, she went on to suggest that the Legislative Assembly could consider imposing sanctions. In the view of the Minister, there was no ability on the part of the Conflict of Interest Commissioner to suggest the imposition of any sanctions when the complaint had been dismissed. The matter was completed and the suggestion of sanctions when a complaint had been dismissed and concluded was disturbing;
• • That on January 5, 2001, the Conflict of Interest Commissioner, unsolicited, corresponded with the Minister advising that she had concerns about the adequacy of the Minister's blind trust agreement, despite the approval of that agreement by the prior Acting Conflict of Interest Commissioner, Robert Clark. Despite expressing concerns, the Conflict of Interest Commissioner did not provide the Minister, in her view, with any definitive advice as to how to allay those concerns;
• • That the Conflict of Interest Commissioner suggested to the Minister, on more than one occasion, that the best solution to her situation would be for the Minister's husband to divest himself of any interests he had in the companies in question. The Minister alleged that such advice ran contrary to any previous advice or philosophy associated with family-run businesses;
• • That in a telephone conversation between the Conflict of Interest Commissioner and John Bayly on March 26, 2001, the Conflict of Interest Commissioner confirmed that Lee Selleck had previously provided her with information concerning the alleged infraction of the Minister, namely the Minister remaining a director of certain privately owned corporations.

3.3 Mr. Speaker, the Conflict of Interest Commissioner, in her written submissions to the special committee and in her evidence provided at the hearing in this matter, addressed these concerns as follows:

(a) That she did not have specific knowledge of any alleged infraction at the time of her conversation with Mr. Selleck on March 15, 2001. In any event, even if she did have such knowledge, it did not affect her investigation of the Rowe complaint, nor could any reasonable person conclude that such knowledge would affect her investigation of the complaint;

(b) That when the Conflict of Interest Commissioner was contacted by the media subsequent to the airing of the Northbeat television program March 26, 2001, which detailed the alleged infraction of the Minister, the Conflict of Interest Commissioner specifically stated that she would not discuss any Member's arrangements in particular but would speak to the responsibilities of Members under the act generally and the role of the Conflict of Interest Commissioner respecting investigation of complaints;

(c) That the contact with Mr. Rowe concerning the filing of his complaint was with a view to requiring Mr. Rowe to properly articulate his complaint and properly provide grounds and objective evidence for the complaint. Such actions were taken by the Conflict of Interest Commissioner with a view to ensuring that only properly formulated complaints against Members, including this complaint against the Minister, would be the subject of investigation by her;

(d) That it was neither the role nor the responsibility of the Conflict of Interest Commissioner to alert or apprise the Minister of any suspected infraction. Rather, it is the responsibility of Members to ensure that their affairs are ordered in compliance with and pursuant to the provisions of the Legislative Assembly and Executive Council Act;

(e) That with respect to the Miltenberger complaint and report generally, due to the timing considerations associated with the House rising in the fall of 2000, it was not possible for the Conflict of Interest Commissioner to provide a draft report to the Minister, although she made an effort to place the report in the hands of the Minister some hours in advance of it being tabled in the House. The Conflict of Interest Commissioner remained of the view that the House could generally sanction a Member pursuant to parliamentary privilege although such sanctions would not be available pursuant to the Legislative Assembly and Executive Council Act. The Conflict of Interest Commissioner further stated that it was entirely appropriate for her to provide commentary on the legislation at any point, including within the context of an investigation report regarding a Member tabled in the Legislative Assembly; and

(f) Mr. Speaker, that in corresponding with the Minister on January 5, 2001, with respect to the provisions of the blind trust agreement, the Conflict of Interest Commissioner was attempting to assist the Minister respecting vulnerability arising from the operation of family owned businesses which are the subject of blind trust agreements. The Conflict of Interest Commissioner further stated that she provided the Minister with various forms of trust agreements which they could discuss, but that ultimately it was the responsibility of the Minister to retain such expertise, including that of trust lawyers or accountants, to assist her with properly ordering her affairs. The responsibility of the Conflict of Interest Commissioner was restricted to approval of such arrangements and not the development or creation of such solutions. Similarly, if concerns or allegations were raised in the public domain respecting possible infractions, it was the responsibility of the Minister to attend to such actions as may be required. It was not the responsibility of the Conflict of Interest Commissioner to alert or advise a Member of such allegations.

3. 4 The responsibility of the committee in assessing the question of apprehension of bias is not to determine whether there was actual bias on the part of the Conflict of Interest Commissioner in her dealings with Minister Groenewegen. Rather, the responsibility of the committee is to assess and determine whether an objective, reasonable and informed person would have legitimate concerns, in light of all the facts and circumstances, about whether the investigation could be conducted by the Conflict of Interest Commissioner in a completely objective and dispassionate fashion.
3. 5 While it is difficult to remove individual characteristics, attitudes and perspectives from this process, the committee must bring an objective and detached analysis to the issues.
3. 6 It became apparent that the question of the extent to which Mr. Selleck advised or discussed with Ms. Roberts on or about March 15, 2001, the particulars of any alleged infraction by Minister Groenewegen was an important factual component to the consideration of this issue.
3. 7 It is regrettable and most unfortunate that Mr. Selleck refused to testify and provide information, which could have been of assistance to the committee in resolving this issue.
3. 8 While his conduct will be the subject of comment in another part of this report, the committee wishes to state unequivocally that the failure of Mr. Selleck to even apprise himself of the nature of the information sought from him, and the importance it might have to the determination of issues before the committee, was both frustrating and distressing.
3. 9 Mr. Speaker, the committee did have available to it a transcript of the taped telephone conversation which occurred between Ms. Roberts and Mr. Bayly on March 26, 2001. During the course of this telephone conversation, the interaction between Ms. Roberts and Mr. Selleck was discussed. Ms. Roberts stated during the course of this telephone conversation, and I am quoting:

...and I don't know how he's clipping together the piece, but it was on conflict generally and he did tell me he'd gone to Hay River and done some investigation and asked me some hypotheticals....

...let me just try and think of how he phrased it. I think what he specifically asked me was he had done a company search and he noticed Jane's name still on the company registry as a director of the company.

3. 10 Ms. Roberts indicated during the course of her testimony before the committee that at the time of preparation of her written submissions to the committee, which were received June 29, 2001, she did not have a specific recollection of this information having been provided to her by Mr. Selleck. Rather, her recollection was to the contrary. Indeed, at the time of providing evidence at the hearing some months later, her recollection could not be better than that.
3. 11 It is open to the committee to conclude that Ms. Roberts' recollection of her dealings with Mr. Selleck on March 15, 2001, would have been fresher in her mind on March 26, 2001, than they were some months later.
3. 12 Given the clear and unequivocal statements made during the course of this telephone conversation, the committee concludes that the Conflict of Interest Commissioner did, in fact, on or about March 15, 2001, have information provided by Mr. Selleck of the Minister remaining a director of companies in contravention of the act.
3. 13 Mr. Speaker, in the view of the committee, this single incident, as with all other allegations taken in isolation, are not determinative of an apprehension of bias. Nevertheless, the committee has carefully considered that on the 14th of March, 2001, one day prior to Ms. Roberts' discussions with Mr. Selleck, she acknowledged receiving the Minister's annual disclosure statement in which the Minister confirmed that she did not occupy any position of director with respect to any company.
3. 14 Having this information in hand one day and being confronted with serious allegations to the contrary the following day, the committee is at a loss as to why the Conflict of Interest Commissioner would not have contacted the Minister to resolve this apparent contradiction. At this point in time, no complaint was pending. The provision of the annual disclosure statement was freshly available to the Conflict of Interest Commissioner.
3. 15 At the very least, Mr. Speaker, one would have thought that the Conflict of Interest Commissioner would have contacted the Minister to either provide fresh advice or receive confirmation of the information provided by the Minister in her disclosure statement.
3. 16 While it is not the responsibility of the Conflict of Interest Commissioner to react to every rumour and innuendo, surely the provision of this information by the CBC ought to have alerted the Conflict of Interest Commissioner to the fact that there was a significant contradiction and potential problem.
3. 17 It is accepted that when the Minister herself became apprised of the problem on March 21, 2001, as a result of an interview with Lee Selleck, the onus shifted to the Minister to take steps to resolve the problem. She in fact contacted the Conflict of Interest Commissioner not once but twice on this date but did not, during either conversation, seek advice or assistance from the Conflict of Interest Commissioner regarding the directorship issue. However, during the period March 15, 2001, to March 21, 2001, the Minister had no awareness that there was any problem. Indeed, Mr. Selleck's requests for an interview were entirely puzzling to her.
3. 18 On the other hand, Mr. Speaker, the Conflict of Interest Commissioner during this period was apprised of the potential problem, and she took no steps to confirm the facts or contact the Minister regarding the contradiction which was now apparent to her.
3. 19 It is this fact, in conjunction with other accumulated circumstances, which in the view of this committee, give rise to a reasonable apprehension of bias. These additional and other accumulated circumstances include:

• • The failure of the Conflict of Interest Commissioner to provide notice to the Minister of the alleged breach of section 75 in the Miltenberger complaint and report. The committee also notes that this same problem occurred with respect to the investigation report on the Rowe complaint. However, this report followed the initial application regarding bias and therefore cannot be taken into consideration in this issue;
• • The invitation by the Conflict of Interest Commissioner to the Assembly to consider sanction of the Minister despite the dismissal of the complaint in the Miltenberger report;
• • The exchange of e-mail correspondence with Jack Rowe, which marked a departure from her prior approach in investigating the Miltenberger complaint, by asking that a specific section be articulated by Mr. Rowe, and exploring with Mr. Rowe facts that at best seemed peripheral to the substance of the complaint. While it is open and at times will be required that the Conflict of Interest Commissioner assist a complainant in properly formulating a complaint, in the view of the committee the exchanges with Mr. Rowe pushed the envelope of such intentions and bordered on going too far in assisting in framing the complaint;
• • The failure of the Conflict of Interest Commissioner to notify the Minister at the point that she considered Mr. Rowe to have lodged a formal complaint (April 2, 2001), waiting instead until April 9, 2001, to so notify the Minister. She stated on April 2, 2001, that she had accepted the communication from Mr. Rowe as a complaint but went on to indicate that she would not be taking action on it on the basis of the information provided to that point. It is unclear what she intended to convey by this communication. In any event, she nonetheless went on to take steps at this point that appear very much to be in the nature of an investigation; and, Mr. Speaker,
• • The fact that the Conflict of Interest Commissioner continued to have discussions with the media after her March 15, 2001, discussions with Mr. Selleck. The Conflict of Interest Commissioner would have known, or at least would have been alerted at this stage, that there was a potential problem concerning Minister Groenewegen. Her willingness to discuss matters with the media at this point, even if stated to be in general and in hypothetical terms, at best showed poor judgment on the part of the Conflict of Interest Commissioner. Given that this matter was now developing a level of controversy in the public domain, a fact which was known to the Conflict of Interest Commissioner, she ought to have refrained from any comment to or interaction with the media.

3. 20 Together, Mr. Speaker, all of these circumstances cumulatively give rise to a reasonable concern about the objective and impartial approach of the Conflict of Interest Commissioner regarding this complaint and investigation.
3. 21 In the view of the committee, a reasonable, objective and informed person viewing these circumstances, would have a reasonable apprehension that the Conflict of Interest Commissioner may be bringing a biased perspective to the consideration of these matters. This is particularly the case when it was clear, in the view of the committee, that the relationship between the Minister and the Conflict of Interest Commissioner was at this point in time troubled or plagued with mutual difficulties.
3. 22 The Conflict of Interest Commissioner and the Minister each adopted stances throughout this matter which tended to deflect their own respective responsibilities for matters and events. This does not speak well of either individual. However, the role of the Conflict of Interest Commissioner is to deal with all Members of the Legislative Assembly in a fair and helpful manner, irrespective of any challenges that a particular Member may pose in terms of his or her personal approaches.
3. 23 In the view of the committee, the Conflict of Interest Commissioner did not rise to this standard, which the committee fully acknowledges is both difficult and challenging.
3. 24 This being said, in the view of the committee, the Minister is not vindicated by this finding. Her actions throughout the matter were characterized by mistrust and preconceived notions regarding the competence of the Conflict of Interest Commissioner. While an objective and informed bystander would, in the view of the committee, have a reasonable basis to be concerned respecting bias of the Conflict of Interest Commissioner, the Minister to a large degree has been the author of her own misfortunes.
3. 25 Given the objective standards required in the apprehension of bias analysis, this cannot detract from the finding of that reasonable apprehension, Mr. Speaker.
3. 26 The actions of the Minister do not speak favourably of her as an elected Member and a representative of Cabinet in this government.

4. 1 Mr. Speaker, it was suggested through counsel for the Minister that there was a material discrepancy between the material filed on behalf of the Conflict of Interest Commissioner in her June 29, 2001, written submissions and the facts known to the Commissioner.
4. 2 This issue revolves around the question of what information the Conflict of Interest Commissioner had in hand on or about March 15, 2001, arising from her discussions with Mr. Selleck. It again highlights the importance of Mr. Selleck providing information to the committee and the difficult position which arose as a result of his failure to do so, Mr. Speaker.
4. 3 The Minister alleges that in the written submissions of the Conflict of Interest Commissioner, she flatly denies in strident language that she had any specific knowledge of the alleged infraction of the Minister arising from the March 15, 2001 conversation with Mr. Selleck. Yet the transcript of the taped telephone conversation between John Bayly, principal secretary, and the Conflict of Interest Commissioner, which occurred some eleven days later on March 26, 2001, clearly indicates that the Conflict of Interest Commissioner was in fact in possession of this information.
4. 4 In assessing this issue, it was duly noted that the Minister had surreptitiously tape-recorded the March 26, 2001, telephone conversation and she had a transcript of this conversation. This was not a fact that was known to the Conflict of Interest Commissioner at the time of her making her submissions.
4. 5 The Conflict of Interest Commissioner, in her evidence at the hearing of this matter, indicated that when she reviewed the submissions of the Minister and the allegation of the knowledge that the Conflict of Interest Commissioner had in hand from March 15, 2001, forward, she could not specifically recall these facts. If she had any recollection, it was to the contrary, namely that Mr. Selleck had not provided her with such information.
4. 6 She stated in evidence before the committee that she contacted Mr. Selleck by telephone to see if he could apprise her as to what, if any, information he had imparted to her on March 15, 2001. She states that it was a result of these inquiries that her written submissions were drafted as presented to the committee.
4. 7 The committee finds that the written submissions of the Conflict of Interest Commissioner provided to the committee June 29, 2001, were at best inconsistent on this point and at worst inaccurate.
4. 8 However, the question of whether the submissions were inaccurate is not the crux of this matter, Mr. Speaker. Rather, the question is whether such submissions were intentionally misrepresentative.
4. 9 The committee finds that there was no definitive evidence that the misrepresentations by the Conflict of Interest Commissioner were intentional or calculated to mislead the committee. The Conflict of Interest Commissioner did take steps to try and assist her own lack of clear recollection of these facts.
4. 10 The committee does wish to state that given the absence of a clear recollection of the Conflict of Interest Commissioner on this important aspect, she would have shown better judgment to word her written submissions in a less strident and definite fashion. Such wording did not, in the view of the committee, advance the position of the Conflict of Interest Commissioner, nor did it reflect positively on her office which requires a high degree of professionalism, detachment and objectivity. Her choice of words did not in any way reflect her own uncertain recollection of the circumstances in question.
4. 11 Similarly, the Minister ought to have exercised a high degree of caution before alleging inappropriate motives on the part of the Conflict of Interest Commissioner. The fact that the evidence supporting this allegation arose from a surreptitious tape recording speaks poorly of the Minister and reflects adversely on this government as a whole.

5. 1 As indicated earlier in this report, a telephone conversation occurred on March 26, 2001, between John Bayly and the Conflict of Interest Commissioner. There are a number of facts, which are important to bear in mind, leading up to this event.
5. 2 In particular, Mr. Speaker, on March 26, 2001, late in the afternoon, the Minister learned of a CBC Radio report which not only reported a breach of the conflict of interest obligations of the Minister, but which contained a voice clip of the Conflict of Interest Commissioner apparently commenting on the situation.
5. 3 As a result of learning this, the Minister became very distressed and approached Mr. Bayly, principal secretary, for his advice. Mr. Bayly had some previous acquaintance with these issues, having in the week previous spoken to the Minister as to whether or not she should participate in the requested interview with Mr. Selleck of CBC, having discussed the interview with the Minister after it occurred (at which time the Minister learned of the infractions alleged by Selleck) and having contacted the Conflict of Interest Commissioner on or about March 23, 2001, on the matter generally. Mr. Bayly was therefore alive to the controversy which was now well underway concerning an alleged infraction by the Minister.
5. 4 Upon learning of the contents of the 4:30 p.m. CBC Radio news broadcast, a hasty meeting was assembled, which included Mr. Bayly; Lynda Sorensen, chief of staff; Sheila Bassi, executive assistant to Minister Groenewegen; and April Taylor, director of communications. The 5:30 p.m. news broadcast was monitored and the parties discussed how the Minister should respond to this situation.
5. 5 Mr. Bayly indicated in his evidence that he felt it was important to learn the context of Ms. Roberts' comments to the media which formed part of this news report. He also wanted to know whether an official complaint had been received by her as this was not clear from the broadcast as aired. Finally, he wanted to follow up on a question posed to the Conflict of Interest Commissioner during his conversation with her the previous week, namely whether the Minister was at liberty to publicly disclose the provisions of her blind trust agreement, as public knowledge of these provisions could assist the Minister in addressing this controversy.
5. 6 The Minister in her evidence indicated that her agenda or objectives at this point in time were somewhat different than those indicated by Mr. Bayly. She stated that Mr. Bayly had advised her that in his prior conversations with the Conflict of Interest Commissioner the week before, Ms. Roberts had indicated to him her knowledge of the alleged infractions by the Minister. The Minister believed that Ms. Roberts' prior knowledge was a serious matter and indicated that any statements made to the media thereafter must necessarily be interpreted as referencing the Minister.
5. 7 The Minister wanted to determine whether Ms. Roberts would repeat her prior statements to Mr. Bayly, confirming that she did indeed have this information in hand at an earlier stage. This evidence of the Minister was not clearly corroborated by Mr. Bayly.
5. 8 It was known to those gathered as a result of listening to the radio news, that the CBC Northbeat television program to be aired at 6:30 p.m. on that day was going to deal with the Minister being in conflict in more detail. They seemed to be of the view that there was therefore only a small window of time to assess the various options and circumstances.
5. 9 Mr. Bayly concluded that as the information he was seeking from the Conflict of Interest Commissioner would be important in deciding on a response to the situation, he would place a call to her to canvass these issues.
5. 10 No one present appeared to clearly articulate his or her respective objectives in contacting the Conflict of Interest Commissioner by telephone, Mr. Speaker.
5. 11 There were some serious conflicts in the evidence of different witnesses concerning the circumstances of the telephone call and the taping of it. The various versions provided in testimony before the committee may be summarized as follows:
6. a) John Bayly:

• • It was his idea to contact the Conflict of Interest Commissioner by telephone to pursue the three questions he thought were important;
• • The call was made from the Premier's office (the Premier being absent at the time) and the parties intended to use the video machine in his office to view and tape the 6:30 Northbeat program;
• • He had a pen and paper with him to make notes of the conversation with Ms. Roberts;
• • He cannot recall specifically who was in the room at the time the telephone call was made but it would have been some or all of Jane Groenewegen, Sheila Bassi, April Taylor and Lynda Sorensen;
• • He was at the Premier's desk although he cannot recall what side of the desk he was sitting at (i.e. facing the door or facing the window);
• • He placed the call using the hands free or speakerphone function of the telephone. He did not apprise Ms. Roberts at any point during the conversation that other persons were in the room;
• • At some point well into the telephone conversation he noticed that Minister Groenewegen was tape recording the conversation. He did not apprise the Conflict of Interest Commissioner of this fact when he learned it;
• • He indicated to the Conflict of Interest Commissioner that he was using the speakerphone function in the event that he needed to make notes;
• • He acknowledged the Minister making a hand gesture to him to keep the conversation going;
• • At the end of the telephone conversation there was no discussion among those present as to what, if anything, would be done with the tape of the conversation, nor was taping the conversation discussed in advance of the call being made.

1. b) Jane Groenewegen:

• • Mr. Bayly was going to call the Conflict of Interest Commissioner to both determine whether the Minister could make public the provisions of her blind trust arrangement and to follow up on his prior conversation with her in which she indicated that she was aware of the directorship issue;
• • She went to her office to get her handheld tape recorder as she intended from the outset to tape the conversation, although she did not specifically state this intention;
• • Mr. Bayly dialed the Conflict of Interest Commissioner and the Minister set the tape recorder down on the desk beside the phone;
• • Although she was not paying particular attention to who was in the room as she was focused on the phone conversation, she believes Sheila Bassi, April Taylor and Lynda Sorensen were in the room during the call;
• • She was standing beside Mr. Bayly during the course of the call and at one point, she made a hand gesture to him to keep the conversation with the Conflict of Interest Commissioner going in order to try and obtain the information from the Conflict of Interest Commissioner that she was seeking.

1. c) April Taylor:

• • She felt that the telephone call was placed from Mr. Bayly's office and not the Premier's office. However, she indicated in response to questions, that due to the fact that the configuration of the two offices are identical, it is possible that the call was made from the Premier's office. She reported that part of her recollection that the call was placed from Mr. Bayly's office was on the basis of his being comfortably seated at the desk with his back to the window;
• • She noticed the Minister leave the room, presumably to retrieve her tape recorder from her office;
• • The call was placed by Mr. Bayly using the speakerphone function. She assumed that he would indicate to Ms. Roberts who was in the room and when he did not do so, she became very uncomfortable with the situation;
• • She distinctly recalls who was present and where they were seated or standing, partly because of her acute discomfort with the circumstances of the call. She recalls John Bayly sitting at the desk in the chair facing the door, Lynda Sorensen standing next to him at his left shoulder, the Minister being seated at the desk around the end of it, her (Ms. Taylor) being seated directly opposite to Mr. Bayly and Ms. Bassi being seated to her right;
• • She was of the view that the tape recorder would have been clearly visible to all those present in the room;
• • She felt that it was not her place to raise her concerns about the circumstances of the call or her discomfort with her superiors, particularly the principal secretary, the Deputy Premier or the chief of staff.

1. d) Lynda Sorensen:

• • She recalls the hasty assembling of John Bayly, Jane Groenewegen, Sheila Bassi and April Taylor as a result of the Minister's concerns regarding the CBC Radio news broadcast;
• • She recalls that a telephone call was made to Carol Roberts but she cannot recall seeing a tape recorder;
• • She was in and out of the room in which the call was occurring as she was expecting a call from the Premier and she was listening for another phone to ring;
• • Mr. Bayly was sitting in the chair at the Premier's desk with his back to the door as it is never Mr. Bayly's practice to sit in the Premier's chair;
• • She was not aware that those present in the room were not introduced to the Conflict of Interest Commissioner, and she did not know that the Conflict of Interest Commissioner was not made aware of their presence. In fact she assumed that this had been done. She did not introduce herself as being in the room at any point.

5. 12 Mr. Speaker, it is always difficult to reconcile different versions of the same event, and the committee is aware that memory can be fallible and inaccurate.
5. 13 On the basis of the evidence of all these various witnesses, the committee concludes that the tape recording of this conversation was not a premeditated occurrence. However, the fact that it did occur was easily known to those present.
5. 14 It is possible that Mr. Bayly did not recognize that the call was being tape recorded until some point part way through the conversation. From the outset though, Mr. Bayly was in charge of the telephone call and he took no steps to apprise Ms. Roberts that others were listening in on the call. In fact at one point during the conversation, the following occurred:

Ms. Roberts: I said I have no knowledge of that. But I don't -- I said it's not up to me to investigate whether...Hello, are you still there?

Mr. Bayly: Yeah, I'm still here.