Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, I will be supporting this resolution. I would like to outline my reasons for it. I do not believe that Ms. Roberts has demonstrated any malice in the reflection of her job. I am not convinced that there was any demonstration of actual bias that was found but, Mr. Chairman, I think it is worth noting in the terms of reference of the committee under point 2 that after the consideration of the allegation of an apprehension of bias, the committee is also to consider related matters which have arisen or may arise during the normal course of proceedings of the special committee.
Mr. Chairman, until I witnessed some of the proceedings of the committee and became aware of the contents of the taped conversation, I was unaware that the Conflict Commissioner had discussed a Member's conflict case with a member of the government staff. As far as I am concerned, Mr. Chairman, that one incident alone caused me to lose confidence in the ability of the Conflict Commissioner to perform the function of the job as I understand the job to be, or should be performed.
I think that whether there was any bias demonstrated or not, whether there was any malice demonstrated or not, and whether it was a mistake that was made because of inexperience or for whatever reason, as far as I am concerned it is a mistake that is fatal to my trust in her to be able to perform that position.
If you look at section 92(2) of the act, it says that the Commissioner, on the recommendation of the Legislative Assembly, not the Board of Management but the Legislative Assembly, may for cause or incapacity, suspend or remove from office the Conflict of Interest Commissioner. It is not the responsibility of the Board of Management to reflect on whether or not this person should be hired or fired. In fact, it was not the Board of Management that hired her. It was this Assembly. It was the 19 Members of this Assembly that decided whether or not she would have this position and therefore it is proper that it come before this Assembly for a decision.
Having watched the proceedings, I am afraid that I would, even if the committee had not come forward with this recommendation, be prepared to present such a resolution in the House myself because I have lost confidence in her performance of the job.
Again, I do not think anything was done in malice. I just think that it may have been done with the best of intentions, but as far as I am concerned, a Conflict of Interest Commissioner should never speak to an employee of this government about a conflict case or to anybody else. They should not be speaking to the press about a conflict case.
If somebody makes an allegation about conflict against me, I want to know that the investigation will be concluded before the Conflict Commissioner discusses that allegation. I think we should all know that we are going to have that same privacy respected when allegations are made.
Until there has been an investigation, there should be no discussion about whether or not there has been a breach of conflict. We all know how quickly our reputations could be damaged. I think it is absolutely imperative that we know that our reputations are going to be protected whenever an allegation is made until there is something that has been found to either be wrong or wherever indicated.
I will be supporting this resolution, and not even specifically for the reasons outlined in the report. I think just watching the proceedings and specifically, the conversation between the Conflict Commissioner and Mr. Bayly, has caused me to say that was a fatal error. I will have to support the motion for that reason. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.