Mr. Speaker, in addition to this issue, the special committee has to some degree been hampered throughout by the absence of an executed contract between the Speaker and the lawyers for the Conflict of Interest Commissioner. Such a contract would provide that legal counsel for the Conflict of Interest Commissioner be paid for by the Government of the Northwest Territories. Disagreement arose between the Speaker and the lawyers for the Conflict of Interest Commissioner respecting certain specific terms of the requested contract.

The Speaker, while confirming that the relationship between the Conflict of Interest Commissioner and her lawyers is one of solicitor-client and thus confidential, requested that details of time spent be provided in legal bills sent to the Assembly so that the reasonableness of time and public costs expended could be assessed. The contract provided that in the event of any disagreement over time spent, the Clerk of the Supreme Court, as an independent third party, would review the bills. The lawyers for the Conflict of Interest Commissioner refused to sign a contract with these terms, stating that such terms violated the solicitor-client privilege of the relationship and undermined the independence of the Conflict of Interest Commissioner's office.

They further stated that as the Law Clerk was responsible for advising the Speaker on the terms of the contract and advising the special committee respecting its functions, this represented a conflict of interest and the Law Clerk should be discharged from her role as legal advisor to the special committee.

The lawyers for the Conflict of Interest Commissioner advised the special committee July 11, 2001, that they would not be attending the public hearing scheduled for the following day. This correspondence stated that "The untenable position in which the Conflict of Interest Commissioner has been placed, described in detail in our previous correspondence, required her to instruct us not to travel to Yellowknife today for the meeting of the special committee."

Therefore, as July 12, 2001 approached, it became clear that various threshold issues had to be decided and it was unlikely that the hearing could proceed as originally intended. These issues, Mr. Speaker, were as follows:

1. Whether new legal counsel should be engaged to advise the special committee, replacing the Law Clerk, as requested by counsel for the Conflict of Interest Commissioner;

2. What, if any, steps could be taken by the special committee to resolve the issue of legal representation for the Conflict of Interest Commissioner;

3. Should the special committee hear evidence from witnesses and if so, what witnesses should be requested to appear before the special committee;

4. Should the special committee conduct any of its proceedings in camera? It was suggested by counsel for the Minister that some aspects of the evidence should be taken in camera;

5. If witnesses were called, how procedurally should their evidence be presented;
6. Should the tape recording and transcript of it respecting the March 26, 2001 telephone conversation between John Bayly and the Conflict Commissioner be provided to the Conflict of Interest Commissioner's lawyers as requested by them; and

7. Should a portion of the investigation report of the Conflict of Interest Commissioner be sealed and delivered to the special committee until conclusion of the matter as requested by counsel for the Minister?

On July 12, 2001, the committee met in camera to decide the question of whether new legal counsel should be retained. The committee decided not to do so and to continue with the services of the Law Clerk.