Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, I speak in support of the motion as well, since that is the wish of the committee. I would prefer this manner as proposed by Mr. Ootes, where we deal with one item at a time. rather than assuming that by accepting the report, we accept everything in it. This way is more clear in my mind. It is more clear to people who are out there listening and watching as to what we are doing here. I support the motion.

Thank you, Mr. Steen. To the motion. Question has been called. Mr. Krutko.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, I am not too clear. We have five motions here. I am just wondering, by dealing with them individually, because they do have repercussions on each other. Also, with regard to the conclusion, the committee is basically asking for more time to do an in-depth review.

I was not party to the hearings or to the committee. There has to be more discussion around these different motions as they are laid out, because it is still cloudy as to where we go from here. By simply passing these motions, it is concluded, but on the other hand with the report being read out, what I heard is that it seems like they are asking for an extension or more time to wrap up this whole process.

Simply by Mrs. Groenewegen withdrawing that application, does that unilaterally conclude the debate on that aspect, or are we still dealing with the relevancy of the complaint that was filed against the Commissioner? I feel once you file a complaint, it is a serious allegation. I think that by simply withdrawing the application, it does not end there.

My concern is whether this is going to go on forever and a day just because of doing these different motions? I was hoping we would have a chance to ask questions or respond to what is in the report. By simply jumping into the motions, I do not think it does justice to the Members who were not party to the process.

I for one feel that it is not over. This process is going to go on for another couple of months. After going through the inquiry in the 13th Assembly, now this, I think there are some serious allegations being raised in the context of this report, and I think that we as Members in the eyes of the public, we cannot be seen to do one thing one day and then take it back the next day and it is a done deal.

I feel that now with what is being stated here and the statements made on this matter, it is going to eventually possibly blow up into a full-fledged public review. When you challenge people that we have put in place, regardless of who they are, we give them the responsibility to do their jobs. We cannot make an allegation one day and stop someone from doing their job and the next day come back and say "I withdraw it because I made a mistake."

There is going to be more to this than what is being concluded. I was hoping to ask the chair of the committee exactly what was meant by asking for more time to conclude whatever work they were unable to conclude within this time frame.

Mr. Krutko, the motion that is on the floor deals with recommendation 1, and each of these recommendations will stand on its own merit when we vote on it. You can speak to any one of those recommendations. To the motion. Mr. Krutko.

That is the problem, Mr. Chairman. Usually in this process, you basically have a debate around the tabled item and review in the context of the aspects of the Members who were not party to it so we can have input into the process. You do not jump right into the motions without having a debate on the item. That is what I have a problem with. I cannot support something that I do not really understand the implications of, knowing that this process will probably go on a lot longer than we expect.

I think you are correct. The normal process is that a motion can be made at any time. We are just speaking to the motion now. To the motion. Mr. Roland.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The committee has reviewed this and in light of all that has taken place, we felt that this first recommendation was one that we could recommend to the Assembly to facilitate.

Mr. Krutko has asked what impact does this have on other motions. It does have an impact. With accepting the Honourable Jane Groenewegen's application to withdraw her application of bias, we feel that then opens the door to the second recommendation, but that does not conclude the items as we have listed.

There are five recommendations here that the committee has put forward and hopes that the Assembly would see that those recommendations would all be adopted. However, we understand there needs to be debate on each one. Based on that, for the first motion that is on there, there is support. We as a committee accepted that, and we are putting that forward to the committee, but yes, we do expect debate on each one as they come forward. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Roland. There is a motion on the floor. To the motion. Mr. Nitah.

Thank you, Mr. Nitah. To the motion. Question is being called. All those in favour? All those opposed? The motion is carried. General comments. Mr. Miltenberger.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Since we have already opened the door for motions, I would suggest that we proceed logically. I move that the Legislative Assembly advise the Conflict of Interest Commissioner that she may transmit her report on her investigation to the Speaker.

Thank you, Mr. Miltenberger. There is a motion on the floor. The motion is in order. To the motion. Mr. Steen.

Mr. Chairman, if we follow the thought pattern of this process, the only thing stopping the Conflict Commissioner from tabling her document to the Speaker in the first place was a request from this Assembly because of the application of bias. If the application of bias is removed, there is nothing preventing the Conflict Commissioner from presenting her report to the Speaker. Why would we need to inform her to do so? Is there something here that is not being said?

In other words, can this be interpreted to say that the report is only going to the Speaker and not to the House, so that people have access to this report that is not yet tabled in the House? I have to ask the question because I do not understand the need for this particular recommendation.

Thank you, Mr. Steen. To the motion. Mr. Bell.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. In speaking to the motion, I want to address a concern that has been raised, specifically when the application was withdrawn. As Mr. Steen has indicated, there is nothing to prevent the Conflict of Interest Commissioner from transmitting the report. In fact, it would now come directly to the Speaker. By our statute, that automatically triggers that it must be tabled at the soonest available opportunity. There is nothing here that Mr. Steen should be reading into this that is not being said. We expect that now, immediately, the Speaker will have the report and will endeavour to table it as soon as he possibly can. That is the intent here. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Bell. To the motion. Mr. Steen.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the Member for that clarification. I take it then that this is nothing more than a clarification of the process. In other words, we all agree the process would have happened anyway. If you have a motion to allow the withdrawal of the application, then the second automatically follows, so I do not understand why it is a necessity. Since it is simply to clarify the process, I will support it.

Thank you, Minister Steen. To the motion. Question has been called. All those in favour? Opposed? The motion is carried. Mr. Bell.

Mr. Chairman, I move that, notwithstanding the withdrawal of the application, the Legislative Assembly authorizes and extends the mandate of the Special Committee on Conflict Process to consider the allegation of an apprehension of bias in relation to the investigation conducted by the Conflict of Interest Commissioner and to consider related matters which have arisen or may arise during the normal course of proceedings of the special committee.

Thank you, Mr. Bell. The motion is in order. To the motion. Mr. Bell.

I think it is important to recognize that while the formal application has been withdrawn, the allegation of bias has not been withdrawn, and the Minister still maintains there is bias. For that reason, we think it is important that the committee endeavour to look into the matter and clear the air.

As I had indicated earlier, it is of the utmost importance that the Conflict of Interest Commissioner have the confidence of both Members and the public. These allegations have called this into question. We do feel compelled to investigate and make recommendations to this House.

I think it is pretty clear, Mr. Chairman, that we need an extended mandate in order to get to the bottom of this, and I do not think we would be doing the public any service at this point and leave things hanging without resolving all of these allegations and issues that are both direct to the bias and peripheral issues. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you, Mr. Bell. To the motion. Mr. Steen.

Mr. Chairman, number 3 is one of the reasons why I have had a problem with simply adopting the report and assuming everything falls as being accepted. In my understanding of this process, once the application of bias is removed, then there is really nothing left for the committee to extend.

You cannot extend a mandate that is not there anymore. The mandate was based on the fact that the bias application is being filed. Once the application is removed, there is no more mandate for the committee, so you cannot extend the mandate.

Furthermore, if there are other aspects of this investigation or process that we are going through that suggests bias, someone has to file it. Someone has to file a complaint. There is no more complaint, so we cannot very well give the committee the authority to do something that is not there.

Furthermore, if we assume to follow the thought that there is in fact a bias and it is going to clear the situation up that the Conflict of Interest Commissioner has raised, as far as her reputation being affected, that is totally something separate from the issue at hand here. She has an opportunity to file like everyone else, but I am beginning to wonder how this is going to sell.

Let us take into consideration, Mr. Chairman, if I may, a public document that is not tabled, and I am open to someone objecting to me using it here, but it is the letter from the Commissioner to the committee that was made public yesterday from Carol Roberts, and it is the letter she wrote to the committee.

She writes in the last paragraph:

"Finally, the Minister says that despite her request to abandon the proceedings before the special committee, she continues to remain convinced of the merits of her application. I respectfully request that should the special committee determine that the Minister's request to abandon ought to be accepted, then it ought to be recommended to the Assembly that the Minister, having had the opportunity to present her application in the forum established solely for that purpose and having now abandoned her application, should not be permitted to again assert those allegations on the floor of the Assembly where I will not be able to respond to them."

Mr. Chairman, I take this to mean she would be satisfied that this stuff being withdrawn, provided there is no opportunity for someone to bring these allegations up again where she will not have the opportunity to respond. So therefore, she should be satisfied. If it is withdrawn, it is withdrawn. What is the committee going to be investigating? There are no more allegations. It has been withdrawn. I cannot see myself voting in favour of this motion and spending more public money for something that has no results. It has no mandate.

I also have to take into consideration the fact that in the end, after this process is over and done with and the Conflict Commissioner's report is before this House and this committee, it will be up to us to decide if it is biased or not. It will not be up to the committee. They may recommend it was or was not, but in the end, in my mind and everyone else's mind, the House is going to have to decide whether the thing is biased or not.

That is one of the points the Conflict of Interest Commissioner raised in the letter. What was the point of all of this special committee process, if in fact it is the responsibility of this committee and this Assembly in the end to decide whether the report stands as is or is biased and thrown out?

I raise questions here that in my mind justify saying no, this thing should stop. I will vote in that manner.

Thank you, Mr. Steen. Mr. Miltenberger.