The special committee has significant concerns that a number of varied and serious allegations have been made, which at the present point in time have no definitive resolution. These allegations include:

• • The allegation by the Minister that the statutory functions of the Conflict of Interest Commissioner have not been duly carried out and are affected by a reasonable apprehension of bias on the part of the Conflict of Interest Commissioner in the conduct of her investigation of the Rowe complaint;
• • The allegation of the Minister that the written submissions made on behalf of the Conflict of Interest Commissioner contain serious factual discrepancies;
• • The allegation of the Minister that there has been a "pattern of avoidance" on the part of the Conflict of Interest Commissioner in dealing with this matter and the process of the special committee;
• • The allegation of the Conflict of Interest Commissioner that neither the Board of Management nor the Legislative Assembly, through the special committee, ought to have undertaken a review in this manner respecting her actions;
• • The allegation of the Conflict of Interest Commissioner that it has been an unfair process and improper to require her to defend her actions and that the Speaker has undermined her independence by placing any limitations on her right to counsel;
• • The allegation of the Conflict of Interest Commissioner that her concerns about the process are compounded when the application to withdraw is made in the face of seeming pressure to produce the whole of the tape recording.

These allegations and innuendo which flow from them are indeed very serious. Quite apart from the various allegations made by each the Minister and Conflict of Interest Commissioner, the special committee is disturbed by the steps by both which have resulted in the process being both more costly and protracted. It is disturbed that the factual accuracy of material put before it may be in question. It is disturbed by the knowledge of a telephone conversation occurring between senior staff and a statutory officer of the House, which was surreptitiously tape-recorded.

In the view of the special committee, serious issues of public confidence have been raised by these proceedings to date. Mr. Speaker, these include:

1. The Office of the Conflict of Interest Commissioner is charged with a variety of functions. One such function is to ensure that Members meet the requirements of the act respecting conflict avoidance. In addition, the general goal is to ensure that Members of the Legislative Assembly conduct themselves in a manner which engenders public trust and confidence in their integrity. The office must therefore be in a position to deal fearlessly with complaints of infractions and with independence from political influence or interference. Members should exercise the utmost judgment in bringing forward allegations concerning the due conduct of these responsibilities. However, once such a question is raised, the Assembly must also ensure that the fulfillment of these serious statutory obligations is beyond reproach and it has a duty to ensure that the confidence of the public is duly entrusted to this office and those who occupy it. Once such a controversy has been embarked upon, the air must be cleared so both the confidence of Members and that of the public at large can be restored.
2. The ability of a Conflict of Interest Commissioner to properly fulfill his or her statutory duties depends to a large degree on maintaining an effective working relationship with Members. This is particularly so as the Commissioner must provide advice on an ongoing basis to Members with respect to the proper ordering of their interests. When a cloud has been cast over the conduct of a Conflict of Interest Commissioner, the maintenance of such relationship becomes very difficult, if not impossible.
3. The conduct of Members of the Legislative Assembly reflects on the credibility of the Assembly and its ability to maintain public confidence in its actions and initiatives. The public deserves to know that its faith in the integrity of Members of the Legislative Assembly is rightfully sustained.

Furthermore, the striking of a special committee to deal with such serious issues requires a high level of conduct and professionalism for those who actively participate in this process. It requires that those who undertake roles do so in a way that assists the special committee in fulfilling its mandate. Direct and concise responses to issues, attendance at committee hearings, use of appropriate language in written submissions and due respect for the special committee process and requirements should all be present without question. These standards have been noticeably absent at various stages of the proceedings to date.