The Committee Clerk sent notices to the witnesses required for the hearing on July 13, 2001. It was determined that Mr. Selleck was declining to appear and Mr. Bayly would be required to return from Ontario in order to attend the July dates for the hearing. Mr. Rowe, Ms. Morgan, and the Minister confirmed that they would be available on the dates outlined by the special committee. On July 17, 2001, the special committee was advised by correspondence from counsel for the Conflict of Interest Commissioner that they would be unable to attend on the dates tentatively established. It appeared that the special committee's attempts to quickly conclude this matter would again be frustrated by a combination of circumstances.

Issues, Mr. Speaker, also arose with respect to the tape recording of the March 26, 2001 telephone conversation between John Bayly and the Conflict of Interest Commissioner, to which the Minister was privy.

The Minister was prepared throughout to provide an audio copy of the March 26, 2001 telephone conversation. She indicated that any other matters on the tape in question were confidential and should not be disclosed to third parties. Counsel for the Conflict of Interest Commissioner wanted a copy of the entire tape, indicating that there may be other matters on the tape which were relevant to either the March 26, 2001 telephone conversation or issues generally touching upon matters before the special committee. After some difficulties, the tape in question was delivered to the Law Clerk, to be held pending further consideration of whether a portion of the tape or the tape in its entirety should be copied and provided to counsel for the Conflict of Interest Commissioner.

Attempts were then commenced to establish new dates for the hearing. However, on July 18, 2001 correspondence was received from counsel for the Minister requesting that they be permitted to withdraw the original application. While the Minister remained convinced of the merits of her application, her concern was that the proceedings had become far more protracted and costly than was warranted. This correspondence quite properly was framed as a request. This is due to the fact that once the matter is before the special committee, it is for the House to ultimately decide on the appropriate conclusion of matters. If it so wished, the House could direct that the matter be completed irrespective of the request to withdraw by the Minister.

The request to withdraw was forwarded to counsel for the Conflict of Interest Commissioner, requesting that they advise whether they agreed or disagreed with the request. The Conflict of Interest Commissioner responded with correspondence dated July 20, 2001 directed to the chair of the special committee. The correspondence did not squarely address the question of whether or not she agreed with the request to withdraw. However, the Conflict of Interest Commissioner did indicate relief that the Minister had decided to withdraw the application. In doing so, she communicated concerns that the fairness and propriety of her conduct and the integrity of her office had been brought into question by the Minister in a most public and protracted way. Further lengthy materials in the form of speaking notes of counsel were also submitted. The materials did not go to the question of whether there was agreement about withdrawal of the application.

The special committee felt it was necessary to have a further public meeting prior to session commencing to consider its options and to draft its report to the House.