Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, I have been able to find some of the sections I was referring to which I think are important because every one of these recommendations are very important. It affects careers and lives of personalities that have, by inadvertence, become part of this process.
Mr. Chairman, on page 10, paragraph 3.4, in the latter half of that paragraph, the committee states that:
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.
It states in paragraph 3.5, at the end of that paragraph that, "The committee must bring an objective and detached analysis." I think that is the right standard in determining whether or not this Commissioner conducted herself in a way that raises a question of bias on her part to make a decision about a complaint.
I also believe that this cannot be about job performance of her because it is not fair. I do not think it is fair for us to place any person or person's career in this forum and because she missed doing this or that or whatever, she should be sort of thrown out by a legislative mandate. I just feel that is too heavy-handed. That is not being respectful to the office of the Conflict Commissioner.
Mr. Chairman, I just want to say that while the committee stated their standard under what circumstances they would find a bias, in their reporting about the conduct of the Conflict of Interest Commissioner on page 30, paragraphs 6.15, it states, "The committee was both distressed and discouraged." In the fourth line, it says:
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.
I have two questions about this. One is, has anyone told her that she was not supposed to engage in a pattern of passivity and reluctance, that she had to be energetically engaged? I do not know what that means. If I showed up in a job, three months into doing my job, somebody is saying, "I do not like the way you are conducting yourself, your style or whatever."
The next paragraph says that, "She has failed to meet all Members." Well, I will acknowledge that she did not meet with me, but does that raise a question of bias? She failed to meet with everybody. I mean, listen to this argument. You have to say did she do something that clouded her judgment, that she had a prior judgment about whatever complaint the Member has. In my view, this is about our judgment about her way of doing things and I know that in our workplaces, we have a lot of personalities that we do not agree with. Some people are more gregarious, some people are morning people and some people are night people.
Paragraph 6.16 says, "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 probably controversy."
I mean, these are a matter of judgment. I do not believe that says that she was incapable of making a decision because she had prior knowledge.
On page 31, 6.19, it says, "With respect to these proceedings, she approved written submissions placed before this committee which used strident and aggressive language." I do not know if this is criminal conduct or if this is conduct that goes to her having a bias. I believe that if you have been a professional for 20 years and you have a whole Legislature of a government that is challenging your integrity, I do not know how else you could be other than to be strident and to be aggressive in your defence.
My final point is that in reaching the recommendation on page 40, what I see is erosion of confidence in this Commissioner and I acknowledge that may be the case but I think that the mandate that this committee received from this Legislature was to look at the question of whether or not she was biased. This was not a job performance. All of this came about within three months of her new job and I just do not know how we can reasonably say -- we are not perfect. We are all people who make mistakes. We could be in an office in three months and be expected to know everything?
Finally, I think there might be an argument that can be made that says, having gone through all of this process, everybody has been stained, everybody has been sort of muddied. We just cannot go on unless we get rid of everybody.
That is really unfair to that person because she had to defend herself. She became a part of this process and this committee. This report seems to say things are so messy and it is all -- I do not know. We have to deal with it and we do not know really how to other than to sanction everyone who has been involved. I do not think that is the approach that I want to accept under the circumstances because I have to give respect to the office of a statutory officer. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.