The July 6, 2001 reply material of the Minister contained a request that the special committee hear evidence from witnesses to resolve a conflict in facts that appeared between the Minister and the Conflict of Interest Commissioner. This conflict in facts surrounded the question of what information the Conflict of Interest Commissioner had prior to any complaint being filed and as a result of a discussion and interview with Lee Selleck, a reporter for CBC North television. Counsel for the Minister urged that this conflict in facts was critical as it was alleged that the actions of the Conflict of Interest Commissioner could have been affected by any advance knowledge that she had regarding the details of the complaint. It was suggested that such knowledge could have affected the statements made in the media by the Conflict of Interest Commissioner and the approach in conducting the investigation, once a complaint was received.

The Conflict of Interest Commissioner in her written submissions, stated that the interview with Mr. Selleck dealt with conflict provisions generally and was not about a concern regarding a specific Member of the Legislative Assembly. She further asserted that any suggestion that she had received prior information from Mr. Selleck indicating that the Minister remained a director was incorrect. She stated in her submissions that the CBC reporter did not make her aware of the existence of documentation filed in the corporate registry concerning the identification of the Minister as a director of a company or companies.

The Minister alleged in her material that as a result of a conversation between the Conflict of Interest Commissioner and Lee Selleck on March 15, 2001 the Conflict of Interest Commissioner was aware of the existence of documentation filed with the corporate registry concerning the identification of the Minister as a director of a company or companies. It further alleged that the Conflict of Interest Commissioner was made aware that Mr. Selleck's investigation was based on his view that the Minister was in violation of the conflict of interest provisions of the Legislative Assembly and Executive Council Act.

The Minister further alleged that a tape-recorded telephone conversation between John Bayly, principal secretary and the Conflict of Interest Commissioner, which occurred March 26, 2001, confirmed these facts.