Thank you, Mr. Roland. Mr. Handley.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am the same as, I think, all of us here. I am sorry that we have to spend our time on this kind of issue. It is not what I came here for and I am sure it is not what most people came here for.

I have to say that in my view, the allegation of bias is still there. The action has been stopped, but the allegation, in my perception of it, is still there. It is a very serious allegation, particularly to the Conflict of Interest Commissioner, who is the person who is being contracted to give us advice on how to conduct our activities properly. This goes right to the very core of credibility in this House and the officers who are appointed. In my heart, that is serious. It is serious and I have had no difficulty personally with the Commissioner. I have not had much dealing with her because my life is not very complicated, but I have had no difficulty with this person or with the office.

I do have difficulty, though, trying to figure out in my own mind how she is going to be able to continue to operate with a cloud hanging over her head. The next time there is a situation in front of her, there is going to be this doubt about bias and is she conducting her affairs credibly? Is she doing it in an unbiased way? My view is that we cannot leave that kind of situation out there to undermine us.

It is a serious allegation. I guess as a member of the committee, I feel that there is a need to bring this to closure. We cannot just drop it and leave it hanging out there.

There was a suggestion, and I think there have been a number of comments around the room here today, is a special committee the way to do it? I am not a hundred percent sure. There was a suggestion that this should be referred back to the Board of Management. I am a new member on the Board of Management. I am not sure whether this fits in there, but I guess, in closing, I would just like to say that I would be interested in hearing the Law Clerk's advice. Is this something that should be referred back to the Board of Management? I ask that simply as a question.

Ms. Peterson.

Mr. Kakfwi, do you want to respond to the legal advice on the management services board or do you want general comments? I have a list here with other Members on it.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to respond in part, but I would also like to make additional comments. I think it is customary for everyone to make general comments. If there is an opportunity to comment again, I would like to have that. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Kakfwi. Next on the list I have Mr. Dent.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I take it that we are speaking to the motion. Mr. Chairman, I will speak in favour of the motion.

The allegations and the apprehension of bias impacts all of us. I think the public in particular want to know that we are going to have an open and transparent system. Public and Members must have confidence in the office of the Conflict of Interest Commissioner in order to be seen as credible in doing her job.

Now the Minister has asked to withdraw her application. In so doing, she again restated her position that the Commissioner was biased. Had she withdrawn the position that there was bias, then perhaps this would be really over.

I have had countless people ask me what in the name of heaven was going on. I am afraid that I have not been able to answer very well. I have typically held out that when the special committee concluded its work, we would have a better idea of what the issue was.

I think we need to know. There is going to have to be some reckoning. The public has to have some understanding what has happened, why it has happened, and how this whole process has been worked out. I think that it is clear that it has demonstrated that there is some weaknesses in our legislation, and I think that it is going to be important that we find a way to repair that legislation so that we do not find ourselves in a similar situation again.

I am in favour of the committee continuing with its work. I know that Ms. Lee says that she has no confidence in the process unless she is involved. I thought it was interesting that Mr. Antoine basically proposed the answer there by pointing out that it is up to all Members of this Assembly to look after our own. So it is our responsibility as an Assembly as a whole to deal with issues like this. I think that we have to remember that we face a reality here. That reality is one of time. In this Legislature, it is our custom to delegate all of the issues that we consider.

For instance, we have three standing committees responsible for program areas. We have one standing committee responsible for rules. We have two special committees; one for languages and the other is on the sunset clause and self-government. On top of that, to look after our administrative issues, we have the Board of Management. So typically, all of the issues that we consider are delegated for consideration by committee. Why is that? It is because we would have to sit for 260 days a year if we were going to deal with everything through the committee of the whole process, which is the only way that we can do things and have 19 Members of the Legislative Assembly involved in things, to deal with issues on a free and equal basis.

It would be unlikely that we would be able to really do our jobs well if we were tied to sitting in here in meetings for five days a week, 52 weeks of the year.

Mr. Chairman I think that the members of the special committee have already waded through all of the information up to this point. I think that it is better to keep them working on something that they have developed some familiarity with, rather than moving it to another process at this point.

I have heard the comment that we could spend the money in much better ways. I have to say that I cannot disagree with that. Absolutely, we could spend the money better. I certainly regret that we have come to this point in this issue and that we are spending as much money as we are in this whole process.

Again, this comes back to how do we carry on? Could we send it to the Board of Management? It sounds like, from the Law Clerk's explanation, that there is a bit of a mandate problem there, but there is an even bigger problem and that is the Board of Management does not report to this Assembly.

As Mr. Antoine pointed out, it is important that the Members of this Assembly make the final decision on this issue. It is up to us to make the final decision, and it is only when recommendations come back to us from a committee that we have a chance to consider them and to make that final decision.

I do not think that all 19 of us have to sit around a table and hear all of the arguments all the time. I feel quite comfortable in delegating issues, whether it is to the Governance and Economic Development Committee or the Special Committee on Official Languages to come back and make recommendations, that I can then count on their expertise to provide us with the background information so that I can make informed opinions.

The other suggestion that I have heard is that we bring in a retired judge to carry on the process. I would argue whether this was kicked to the Board of Management or to a judge, the costs to bring this to conclusion are going to be the same. At this point, people have applied to bring in witnesses. They want to be heard. It is going to be an expensive process no matter how we bring this to resolution. However, I think we have to bring this to some resolution. It is not going to be easy and it is not going to be cheap. It is not going to cost us any more to have the special committee do it.

They do not get paid more for every day that they meet. Their costs are going to be the same. The costs that they would have for witnesses or for counsel and those costs are not going to be any different, whether it is a retired judge or the Board of Management or the special committee. So I say let's stick with the process that we have started, because I do want to see some resolution to this issue. I want it to come forward and I believe that the quickest way to do that is to ask the special committee to continue, to extend their mandate and ask them to continue their consideration of this issue and to bring it to a final report to this House for a debate. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you, Mr. Dent. To the motion. Mr. Braden, Mr. Delorey, Mr. Allen, Mr. McLeod, Ms. Lee and Mr. Kakfwi, in that order.

Mr. Chairman, in the course of our work here and life and business everywhere, as we all know, things are going to go wrong. That is inevitable. How we manage things when they do go wrong is really how we are measured how effective we are. How we can all rise above the problem, clear the decks and get on with life. We are really into this from that perspective, Mr. Chairman. Just what is it we are managing here?

The motion suggests we are considering the allegation of an apprehension of bias. That seems to be reasonably well-defined in the context of this. Then it goes on to say related matters which have arisen or may arise. Like Ms. Lee, I am a little apprehensive of that. We are really leaning very far over the edge on this.

In terms of what is the rest of the job description here, the committee report -- very well written and very thorough -- pages 10 and 11 outlines six issues of public confidence. That gives us a little more substance.

I guess I would really like to know -- and I am going to lead up to a question in just a moment here, Mr. Chairman, that perhaps our Law Clerk could help us out with -- just what it is we can indeed manage here? Can we really, at the end of an extended mandate for the committee, arrive at a committee's opinion as to who is to blame for more stuff here?

We already have five of our offices or institutions involved in this, and blame has been ascribed or alleged to the Conflict Commissioner and to a Minister. It has already affected the office of the Deputy Premier. The Speaker's office has been involved, and so has that of the principal secretary.

I would like to know, if that is what we need to do, okay, but how can we come out of this stronger and better? Unfortunately, one of the special committee's terms of reference does not include coming back with recommendations about how we might amend the legislation itself so we do not end up in this mess again. That is not part of the job description, and I do not think it is appropriate that we try rolling that in tonight. I am not going to propose that.

I will come to this question that I would like to pose to our Law Clerk, if it is appropriate, Mr. Chairman. Could the Clerk or perhaps a Member of the committee advise what other steps, new processes or new ingredients are going to be brought into an extended mandate for this committee that is going to help solve this? What new things can be done that have not already been tried? Can someone address that for me? Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

It is out of the scope, but I will allow the legal counsel to respond. Ms. Peterson.

I have six people on my list, so just a reminder of the time. Next I have Mr. Delorey.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would just like to state that like a lot of Members here, I find it very inconvenient, kind of heartbreaking in the way that we are caught up in this kind of issue again. It is taking up an awful lot of our valuable time.

I know the public perception of the last Assembly and what transpired there, the amount of time and money that was spent. In some people's minds, it was very well justified. In others, there were a lot of people who thought there was no conclusion to things that happened in the last Assembly.

I think the issue that came forward here was a non-issue to begin with, or a very light issue that could have been dealt with in different ways. I think there may have been mistakes made along the way in how everything was handled.

I know that as a Member of this Assembly, we are going to be looked at, myself included, in how we deal with it, the decisions that we make on it. Inevitably, I think it is going to come right back here to this House for the Members to make some decisions. We will be watched.

For my part, I have to speak on behalf of the people who elected me and put me here, what I have been hearing from those people since this has come to light. We all know how hard it is to get money to deal with the problems that the people are having out there, and when they see us spending huge amounts of money trying to solve our own problems and allegations, that does not sit well with a lot of people.

I know what has happened has cast a light and will continue to do so on this Assembly. As we have seen earlier today, it has already taken its toll. I cannot overlook the fact, and it has been mentioned here today, that a cloud is cast over the Conflict of Interest Commissioner. I think that is very much a case that is very much alive until it is dealt with in one way or another.

I have been wondering all along on this, regardless of how this special committee and what decisions it made on that charge of bias, who is going to be the winner and who is going to be the loser. I still see any process that we use from here as to who is going to be a winner and who is going to be a loser. I do not think there are any. I think we are all losers by the whole process that has taken place in what we are involved in right now.

I know that we stand in Caucus and every time we sit down to try and find a couple of dates, a weekend, a week, to do things, we are all tied up. We are tied up in committee meetings. We are tied up in one committee or another or doing business plan reviews. That is one thing that comes to mind when I think of the special committee going on to do this. It is another thing they are tasked with. That would be the only reason I would prefer an outside person to look at the whole thing and come back and report to us, because we will have to make decisions along the way somewhere.

The fact that the charges have been dropped...I think it is hard to say something like that and then expect it just goes away. I again go back to the cloud that is hanging over the Conflict of Interest Commissioner and her ability to do her job in the future.

I do not think that the issue is dead, by any means. I do have a problem as well with the paragraph if the special committee did go on, anything that was brought up could lead to further and further investigation and on and on it goes.

For the people I represent, I would have to say that they think there has been enough money spent in this process and the quicker we can bring it to a close and get on with the business of governing and trying to better the lives of the people of the Territories, the better off we are.

I guess we have to find a way to bring some closure to these issues. Then we have not really come to what the original issue was and that is the conflict of interest brought against the Honourable Jane Groenewegen. We are simply trying to decide who is going to deal with that issue. I would have to say, on behalf of my residents, that we have gone far enough with it. We have to get somebody who, if there are other problems, somebody has to bring those problems forward and then we will have to have them looked at. I do believe that it has to be somebody other than the Board of Management, because it has to be somebody who will report back to this Assembly.

In my own mind, I think the best way to do that is with an outside person, whether it be a judge or whatever, but that is the way I feel it should go. Ultimately, it will come back to us to decide, to be our own judges. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you, Mr. Delorey. Next on my list I have Mr. Allen, Mr. McLeod, Mr. Steen, Ms. Lee and Mr. Kakfwi. Mr. Allen.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am compelled to speak to the motion as it is presented. With all due respect to my esteemed colleagues here, there are both arguments that set out a balance, I guess, but I personally cannot support motion 3. I cannot see the committee achieving any more than they already have. I think there are both legal and technical arguments to be presented again, and the public wants access to the information, as stated earlier. It was public yesterday. They want to sort through all the vast number of paperwork. If that is permissible, then I think people have the right to see that.

As a new Member here, I am learning a bit more in observing the proceedings. I believe all the answers have been provided. I think Mr. Steen is correct from a technical point. There is no longer a mandate of the special committee. I think we should at least acknowledge that and perhaps move on.

I think Mr. Delorey is right as well. Our constituents are tired and they are exhausted about hearing about this issue being in the forefront. In question period, we were trying to respond to many of the difficulties our constituents, not only in my riding but in other ridings, are experiencing. It is very tiring on the people. It is hard on them because they are trying to adapt to the vast impacts occurring Territory-wide. Not only with oil and gas, but also in the mining industry and other industries. The majority of our people are still subscribing to the subsistent way of life and they are not adapting too well to the community lifestyle.

We are hearing this. I think we are spending a lot of money. We are spending a lot of time and effort. If we are transparent, we should make people aware that this clouds our ability to perform our duties.

Philosophically, we need to make a presentation to our people that we are going to represent them and represent a value to them, not a value to our ourselves here where we are debating issues that are really beyond our capability. On many occasions here, we see a lot of legal documents floating back and forth. My observation is that the letters state very clearly who is battling who and what legal position...it is not a healthy situation.

I think there are many Members, including myself, I am not going to speak for all, but I think for a few of us who are indentured to represent the majority of people who need to work with ourselves and who need proper representation so we will not be copying a lot of this rhetoric here.

It leads me to believe that, as a Member, we need to conclude this as quickly as possible. I think the mandate of the special committee is concluded. I do not think they will achieve much more than they already have. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you, Mr. Allen. Mr. McLeod.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to make a couple of quick comments on this issue. I have been listening with interest from the outset, when the original conflict of interest complaint was filed against Mrs. Groenewegen for having her name as director on the board of a company that she owns. I watched with interest as a bias application stated the Conflict Commissioner had a bias. Following that, over the news, I hear that there is a tape recording, people listening in to phone calls -- it really paints us all with the same brush, that there are a lot of things happening in this Assembly that are not totally on the up and up.

However, I think we still have the original conflict of interest complaint to deal with. That is something that has been left hanging for a long time, longer than it should have been. The bias application that was there has been revoked. It has been withdrawn and is no longer there. Even though some people have stated that the Minister is still alleging that the Conflict of Interest Commissioner -- she is still making the allegation that there is a bias -- she has withdrawn those comments. She has withdrawn the application. She does not feel strongly enough that there is a bias there to keep her application and follow through with the process, then I do not think we should pursue it.

We may be leaving a doubt. That is true. I, like other people in this room and across the Territories, would love to hear what is on that tape, but until somebody files another complaint, I think we are going to have to live with that.

I really had to ask myself a lot of questions here today, mostly over the tape. Is that the big issue here? Is that what we are looking at extending the mandate for? This issue, which should have been a simple process to deal with, has drawn, has taken a lot of time and money. Where is it going to go next?

I do not know. Was there wrongdoing in some of the other stuff that has come up, especially with the tape and listening in to a phone call? I am told not legally, so I cannot support this motion. Until somebody files a new complaint and starts a new process, I think we have to go back and deal with what was originally in front of us, and that is the conflict of interest complaint.

We have other things to deal with. I know from discussions with some of the constituents in my riding, they feel that we are making a bigger issue out of this than we should have. I have to agree with them. I would like to see this wrapped up. I will not be supporting this motion. Thank you.

Mr. Steen.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I already spoke to the motion, but I have a question here of clarification for the Law Clerk, if I may. Mr. Chairman, there is a suggestion in recommendation 3 that the continuation of the committee would allow them to still review all aspects of the application. I would like to ask the Law Clerk if there is any obligation on the part of the committee to return all the supporting material to the application to the person, in other words the Minister, and subsequently any material submitted towards the committee from the Conflict of Interest Commissioner? In other words, if all the material is returned, what would the committee have to evaluate?

Ms. Peterson.

Mr. Steen, we have a whole list of people here that still have general comments.

I appreciate that, Mr. Chairman, but with that response, there really is a need for a follow-up question in that this particular tape is in the possession of the Clerk, according to the information we have. It is not at this point public to anybody. What happens to the tape when, for instance, the Minister requests that it be returned?