1992 Legislative Session: 1st Session, 35th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

THURSDAY, JUNE 18, 1992

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 4, Number 21

[ Page 2751 ]

The House met at 2:04 p.m.

R. Kasper: I would like to introduce someone who is both a friend of mine and a friend of working people in British Columbia, in particular those wanting to learn a trade. In the gallery today is Mr. Charlie Farish, business manager for the Bricklayers, Masons and Terrazzo Workers of British Columbia, of which I am a proud member. Would the House please make him welcome.

J. Beattie: I am very pleased to welcome to the gallery today the executive assistant to the hon. Minister of Agriculture, Bill Barlee. Heather Kelliher is a resident of Osoyoos and has worked for Mr. Barlee for the last four years. She was also quite responsible for me running for the nomination which got me elected, so I hope the House won't hold her responsible for that and will welcome her to the House nonetheless.

D. Streifel: I would like to introduce to the House today students and teachers from Cherry Hill Elementary School in the constituency of Mission-Kent. They are touring the precincts this day, and I bid the House make them welcome.

R. Kasper: Contrary to some beliefs out there, I did have a real job before I came here, and I also have more than one friend. I would like to welcome Carole Leslie and her daughter Ainslie. Carole has been a very strong, active supporter of mine in my constituency. Will the House please make them welcome.

F. Garden: I have the pleasure to introduce to the House the Hon. David Zirnhelt's executive assistant today. He's from the wonderful Cariboo and he's in the gallery somewhere: Mr. Rick Barnes.

Introduction of Bills

TEACHING PROFESSION

AMENDMENT ACT, 1992

Hon. J. Smallwood presented a message a from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Teaching Profession Amendment Act, 1992.

Hon. J. Smallwood: Hon. Speaker, this bill deals with critical issues of public safety and the safety of children in our school system. This legislation amends various sections of the Teaching Profession Act. It provides the College of Teachers of B.C. with jurisdiction over the certification, conduct and competence of former members of the college who hold teaching certificates, including persons holding a letter of permission issued by the college.

These amendments are intended to help to ensure that persons who have been found to be morally unfit or professionally incompetent are not permitted to continue to teach at our schools. As a government we are committed to ensuring that children in British Columbia are provided with a safe and healthy environment in which to learn and grow.

Bill 74 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Oral Questions

AIR AMBULANCE CONTRACTS

G. Wilson: I'm delighted to see that the cabinet has finally found a way to get gender equity established, and it is to simply reduce their ranks. Today I was actually going to ask a question on the government's threat to terminate the KAON project, but seeing as the ranks are somewhat thin, I'll move my question to the Minister of Government Services.

My question to the Minister of Government Services is to ask if she will confirm that three air ambulance contracts have been awarded to Carson Air: one for Prince George, one for Kamloops and one for Kelowna. Can she confirm that adequate inspection has been done on Carson Air's bases in Kamloops and Kelowna?

Hon. L. Boone: I know that some contracts have been given out. I will have to take this question on notice and get the exact information. The opposition leader is asking for precise information, and I really don't have that with me at this time.

G. Wilson: I have a new question to the minister. Will the minister confirm that the previous contractor to provide air service for Kamloops and Kelowna continues to provide the service two months after a contract was let to Carson Air, because Carson Air does not have the basis to provide the contract that they have been awarded?

Hon. L. Boone: I'll take that question on notice as well.

G. Wilson: I have a new, general question to the minister, which I'm sure she will be able to answer. It is with respect to the requirement for an audit to be done on all contracts that are let for air ambulance service. Will the minister explain to the House the requirement for an audit prior to the assignment of a contract, and to what extent those audits are carried out prior to the contract being granted?

Hon. L. Boone: Hon. Speaker, I can give you some general comments with regard to that. The government, before any contract is given out, does a thorough search and investigation of all the airlines that receive contracts. As for the extent of that and how it takes place, I will get that information and provide it for you later.

NDP CAMPAIGN FUNDING

L. Hanson: Hon. Speaker, I have a question for the Attorney General. Can the Attorney General confirm that it is illegal to issue provincial tax-deductible receipts for donations to a provincial political party for

[ Page 2752 ]

the express purpose of redirecting that money to a municipal political party that is not allowed to issue provincial tax-deductible receipts for donations made directly to it?

G. Farrell-Collins: Take the question on notice.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: That's a good idea. I'll take the question on notice.

L. Hanson: I have a new question to the Attorney General. The Attorney General should know, and probably does, that the 1988 Surrey Civic Electors elected a slate of candidates that included the current mayor of Surrey, Bob Bose; Bruce Ralston, a sitting councillor; Marvin Shaffer, a recent provincial government appointee; and the current Minister of Women's Equality.

Two days ago I referred to a receipt book that appeared to suggest that political donations were being funnelled through the NDP to the Surrey Civic Electors for the purpose of making a provincial tax-deductible political donation to that municipal party in contravention of the law. Will the Attorney General investigate this issue to ensure that no laws were broken?

Hon. C. Gabelmann: Yes.

L. Hanson: That is a commitment we appreciate.

I have a letter in my possession from Mayor Bob Bose of Surrey on behalf of the SCE, which included the current Minister of Women's Equality as a member of that slate. The letter solicits donations and includes the following words....

The Speaker: Order! Hon. member, the Chair is carefully following the

preamble, and while the Chair allowed the previous question, I will remind the hon. member to state his question to the Attorney General with a minimum of

preamble and with caution concerning the rules about

preambles to questions.

[2:15]

L. Hanson: Thank you for that advice, hon. Speaker. The words in the letter said: "Remember, this donation is tax-receiptable if made out to the NDP, and you get a tax credit of 75 percent for the first $100 donated...and 50 percent for the next $400...." Clearly this is designed to circumvent income tax rules.

The Speaker: Hon. member, would you please state your question directly to the member?

L. Hanson: Will the Attorney General agree to instruct the RCMP to investigate this matter, based on the information I have sent today to the Deputy Attorney General?

Hon. C. Gabelmann: I will agree to have a look at the material and talk to my deputy about it.

RESOURCE COMPENSATION BILL

W. Hurd: I too have a question for the Attorney General, and I hope my colleagues on this side will not give him any more advice.

Hon. Speaker, the opposition appreciates that the Attorney General has taken the wise counsel of this side of the House and has decided to kill Bill 32 on the order paper. But beyond the important role played by the opposition, perhaps the Attorney General would welcome this opportunity to explain why the government gave this bill first and second reading and is now letting it die on the order paper.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: In the great tradition of W.A.C. Bennett, we took a second look.

W. Hurd: We were sort of hoping on this side of the House for a better first look.

Does this mean that cases being heard on resource compensation issues that were being held in abeyance in the courts are now free to proceed? Can he advise us if the Schwindt commission will be guided by those court decisions?

Hon. C. Gabelmann: First of all, to my knowledge, no cases have been held in abeyance. In fact, a particular case that was in progress prior to the introduction of Bill 32 has been continuing in front of the Expropriation Compensation Board. That case has continued during the course of time since Bill 32 was introduced and may still be continuing. I'm not sure of the current status. So no cases have been impacted.

The legislation had a clause in it which stated that it would take effect on the day of introduction and first reading. But, of course, that wouldn't take effect until after the bill had been passed and proclaimed. Therefore the bill has had no impact in the past few weeks and will not have any impact in the months and years to come.

The Speaker: A final supplemental, hon. member.

W. Hurd: Can the Attorney General confirm that the real reason his government killed this bill is that it learned that it was unlikely to survive a challenge under a court

interpretation of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms in this country?

Hon. C. Gabelmann: No.

REVIEW OF GAMING REGULATIONS

V. Anderson: My question is to the Attorney General. Can the Attorney General confirm that the public gaming branch is intending to increase both the number of gaming tables and the hours of operation at B.C.'s 14 casinos?

Hon. C. Gabelmann: The direct answer to the question as posed is no. Earlier this year the Gaming Commission did in fact indicate that upon application in a certain number of areas, there would be

consider-

[ Page 2753 ]

ation given to increasing the number of tables, but the number of additional tables granted was not to exceed the total number in the province that had originally been set in place. The province does now not have as many tables operating as were allowed originally. This initiative took place, as I think I said to the House yesterday, prior to the review that's being conducted by the Minister of Government Services and myself. At this stage, we do not intend to see any additional tables or hours in place pending this review.

V. Anderson: Again to the Attorney General. While in opposition, the NDP questioned and opposed the expansion of gambling in the province. In fact, the Minister of Labour indicated that his party was taking a stand to stop casino gambling before it made any further impact in this province. Could the Attorney General inform this House why it seems that the position of his party has changed to prompt the Attorney General to consider expanding the gambling business in this province, rather than reducing it?

Hon. C. Gabelmann: I thought I answered that question yesterday in response to the leader of the third party. If it wasn't clear, I'll say again that there is no intention to expand gambling in British Columbia while this review is in place. Following that review we will decide what the limits are to gambling in this province. At this time there will be no expansion.

I know the member's personal view on this issue, and I have a great deal of sympathy for his personal perspective on the issue of gambling. It's a troublesome issue, and with the changes in technology that are occurring now in that field, we have to be very concerned about proliferation that the public may not wish to see happen.

ORDER-IN-COUNCIL APPOINTMENTS

H. De Jong: My question is to the Minister of Government Services. About six weeks ago the Premier was asked whether he would agree to make public the resumés of all applicants to any public position filled by OIC, to ensure the system is indeed fair and open to all qualified British Columbians. Since the minister has suggested that appointments to boards and commissions should be open to all qualified applicants on a non-partisan basis, will the minister responsible for managing these appointments today agree to make public, on demand, the names and resumés of all applicants for OIC appointments?

Hon. L. Boone: We discussed this just recently, with regard to the applications. Taking into consideration the need to protect the privacy of individuals, I believe you'll find that the current act on the books now -- we intend to try to live up to the spirit of that act -- implies that it would be people who had been appointed, but not applicants. So we will not be making known all those applicants. We do have a number of them coming in on a daily basis who wish to put their applications with the government for consideration on boards and commissions. But for those people who are appointed, we will make public the information that is in keeping with the new FOI legislation.

CHARITABLE STATUS OF NDP

The Speaker: The hon. member for Fort Langley-Aldergrove. [Applause.]

G. Farrell-Collins: I guess that's because I'm still alive.

My question is to the Attorney General. We have on record the recent comments of "Father" Dave Stupich of Nanaimo that there's no difference between the charitable status of the Catholic Church and the NDP. Perhaps the Attorney General, as the minister responsible for bingo, could tell us what the policy of the NDP government is with regard to the charitable status of the NDP?

The Speaker: Hon. member, the Chair has difficulty tying that question in with the responsibility of the Attorney General, and I would ask the hon. member to state a new question that does come within the bounds of the responsibility of the Attorney General.

G. Farrell-Collins: Thank you, hon. Speaker. I will do that. I thought the Attorney General was responsible for the Gaming Commission, and that's the reason I asked that question of the Attorney General.

I'll ask a different question. As the Attorney General of this province, in the event that the RCMP investigation may find that there was money transferred from the....

Interjection.

G. Farrell-Collins: The question is coming.

Will the....

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, please, hon. members.

G. Farrell-Collins: In the event that the findings are that money was transferred from a charity to the New Democratic Party, will the Attorney General commit to introduce into this House a bill that would require, in such cases, that the money be repaid to the charities who first deserved it?

The Speaker: Hon. member, that's a hypothetical question. I will again invite the hon. member to ask a question within the rules of order. Please proceed, hon. member.

G. Farrell-Collins: Hon. Speaker, I will ask a very simple and straightforward question of the Attorney General, in the hope that he will answer it. Could the Attorney General inform the House whether or not political parties fall under the definition of religious or charitable organizations as laid out in

section 207 of the Criminal Code of Canada, which deals with bingo operations?

[ Page 2754 ]

Hon. C. Gabelmann: I'll take that question on notice.

Presenting Petitions

W. Hartley: Hon. Speaker, I ask leave to present a petition to the House.

Leave granted.

W. Hartley: Hon. Speaker, this petition relates to a request to the House that the members ban the spraying of fungicides, herbicides and pesticides in Pitt Meadows.

L. Hanson: I ask leave to table a document that I referred to in my question to the Attorney General earlier today.

Leave granted.

G. Farrell-Collins: Point of order, hon. Speaker. Understanding the rule that points of order with regard to question period should be brought up after question period, I would ask some clarification from the Speaker, and perhaps the Clerk of the House if necessary, as to whether or not the Gaming Commission of this province falls under the responsibilities of the Attorney General. If it does, are questions regarding the Gaming Commission to the Attorney General not in order?

B. Jones: Point of order. On many occasions in this House we have had rulings by the Chair that seem to be in a continual perpetuation of challenges to the Chair. I think we see the member doing that at this moment. It's not a point of order. What he's doing is challenging the Chair, which is inappropriate in this House.

The Speaker: Thank you, hon. members. I do regret, hon. member, that that was not a point of order, but I'll take your comments into consideration.

Orders of the Day

Hon. C. Gabelmann: I call second reading of Bill 64.

MEMBERS' CONFLICT OF INTEREST

AMENDMENT ACT, 1992

Hon. C. Gabelmann: Bill 64, the Members' Conflict of Interest Amendment Act, 1992, is finally ready for debate in this House, and I'm delighted that we're able to proceed today with that.

The government has made clear its commitment to strengthening the act that is now on the books. Conflict-of-interest rules that are strong and fair are essential to ensure that the conduct of government is open and honest, and is seen to be so by British Columbians. The amendments contained in this bill will strengthen the act, and by so doing will meet the rightful expectations of British Columbians that members of cabinet and of the Legislative Assembly adhere to the highest standards of ethics.

By clarifying conflict-of-interest requirements, the amendments will also assist present and future members to avoid inadvertently coming into conflict. Our objective, hon. Speaker, is to have conflict-of-interest rules in British Columbia which are second to none in terms of rigour and fairness. The amendments in this bill are merely the first step towards that objective.

[2:30]

The bill broadens the definition of conflict of interest so that it applies not only to the making of a decision but also to any exercise of powers and performance of official duties and functions generally. This change is in recognition of the possibility that a conflict of interest can occur prior to the actual taking of a decision, and that the appropriate focus for the definition is the discharge of public duties and responsibilities in general.

Another important addition to the act contained in these amendments is the inclusion of a definition of "apparent conflict of interest." This is defined in terms of a reasonable perception which a reasonably well informed person could properly have that a member's ability to carry out official powers, duties or functions must have been affected by that member's private interests. Inclusion of that definition is important in recognition of the principle that justice must not only be done but also be seen to be done.

In addition to the other specific requirements imposed in the act, this bill also contains a new

section which will clarify the obligations of members by explicitly prohibiting them from exercising their official powers, duties and functions where they have a conflict of interest or where there may be an apparent conflict of interest. This bill also increases from 12 months to 24 months the period during which former members of the executive council or persons on whose behalf they have made representations are prohibited from receiving contracts or benefits from the provincial government.

In addition, former members of the executive council and former parliamentary secretaries are permanently prohibited from making representations to the government respecting any specific ongoing transactions involving the government in which they were directly involved. That prohibition applies whenever such a representation would result in anything other than a general benefit.

Further prohibitions on the activities of executive council members and parliamentary secretaries outside their public duties are added by amendments making it an unqualified prohibition to hold an office or directorship other than in a social club, religious organization, political party or Crown corporation. The provision permitting the holding of an office or directorship in a Crown corporation is an addition to the list of permitted activities.

The amendments also augment the procedures for dealing with conflict situations in the following ways. The Clerk of the Legislative Assembly or the secretary of a cabinet committee meeting records the disclosure of a conflict, its general nature and the withdrawal of the member from the meeting. The Clerk or secretary, as the case may be, then files the information with the conflict-of-interest commissioner. The commission is to

[ Page 2755 ]

keep all such filed information and make it available for public inspection. In the case of a cabinet committee meeting, the filing requirement is that the conflict information is to be filed as soon as practicable after the relevant decision has been made public. This is necessary to protect appropriate cabinet confidentiality.

Where a member of the executive council has a conflict or an apparent conflict of interest, that member is required to refrain from attempting to influence the matter and, at any subsequent meeting involving the matter, must disclose the general nature of the private interest and withdraw without voting or participating. In such a case, the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council may appoint another member of the executive council to act in the place of the withdrawn member.

The amendments also provide that, while the failure of a member to comply with the procedure for dealing with the conflict does not in itself invalidate any affected contract or financial transaction, the transaction is voidable by the Crown up to two years after the decision. It would not, however, be voidable against any person or organization who acted in good faith and without actual notice of the member's failure to comply. This

section is designed to protect both the interests of the Crown and the interests of innocent persons and organizations.

Another new provision allows any person affected by financial gain realized through a violation of the act to apply to the Supreme Court of British Columbia for an order of restitution against the person who realized the financial gain. The government or a Crown agency is also empowered to seek such restitution.

Existing provisions with respect to the required filing of disclosure statements are also amended to require continuous disclosure by members within 30 days of any material change in assets, liabilities and financial interests of the member, his or her spouse and minor children, and private corporations controlled by any of them.

The provisions dealing with the commissioner are also strengthened. A member of the public who has reasonable and probable grounds to believe that there has been a contravention may request that the commissioner give an opinion on the matter. Under the act at present, only members of this assembly may make such application. In addition, this Legislative Assembly may by resolution request the commissioner to give an opinion on the compliance by a member of the Legislature, just as at present the executive council is able to do with respect to members of the executive council.

The amendments repeal the present prohibition of discussion or inquiry by this Legislative Assembly where a matter has been referred to the commissioner.

[E. Barnes in the chair.]

Finally, the provision respecting penalties will now include the new

section prohibiting conflicts or apparent conflicts as contraventions of the act. It will also be a contravention to refuse to file a disclosure statement within the time required, or to fail to comply with a recommendation of the commissioner.

I believe these amendments will strengthen and improve the Members' Conflict of Interest Act and express the Legislature's commitment in this important area of public life. In addition to these amendments, the government proposes to undertake a process by which conflict-of-interest issues can be considered more generally, including possible application to others in public service in addition to members of this assembly.

D. Mitchell: I'd like to also speak to Bill 64, the Members' Conflict of Interest Amendment Act, 1992. I'd like to note for the benefit of members of the House that this is an important bill, which affects all of us as members in our responsibilities.

I'm concerned about the process by which the bill has come to the House. We've talked a lot about process, especially as we head towards what we believe may be the conclusion of this sitting of the Legislature. Many bills are coming through very quickly.

This is an important bill. We had first reading and introduction of this bill yesterday in this House, and here we are today debating it in second reading. We are having our major debate on the principle of this bill one day after receiving the bill. I think there's a concern about that that has to be expressed, because this is an important bill. It deserves a look; it deserves scrutiny by members of this House; and it also deserves study by the general public as well.

I'm concerned that the speed -- the haste, I might say -- with which this bill is being brought before us does not allow for that kind of exposure and study. That's a general concern that I think must be raised. I'm looking forward to seeing how the Attorney General deals with that concern, because it's an important enough bill that it should take time, because good legislation does take time, as has been noted in previous debates in this session.

The principle of this bill is very important. In fact, the whole issue of conflict of interest strikes to the very heart of the public's faith in their elected representatives. That's an issue that affects all of us as elected representatives, and it affects the future of parliamentary democracy.

When we're talking about conflict of interest, we're not only talking about conflict of interest in its most narrow, legalistic definition. We're talking in a very broad sense about faith in our institutions. We're talking about the relevance of debate in this chamber. We're talking about the efficacy of the debate in this chamber. We're talking about the way politicians behave. All of that is addressed in part by the statute that this bill is seeking to amend. It's a statute that was brought in by the previous government.

It's not a bad statute, quite frankly, but having said that, there is always room for improvement. I think this bill seeks to improve, broaden and strengthen it in a general direction that I think we can be supportive of.

But I think we have to address a few particular concerns in this second reading debate because of the general concern in our country and province right now about politicians -- elected representatives. It's a concern that's reflected very broadly through the news media and literature. I would refer to a current best-seller, a book entitled A Capital Scandal, written by

[ Page 2756 ]

two well-known authors, Robert Fife and John Warren, which looks at politics, patronage and pay-offs in our national Parliament. The fact that it's a current best-seller in Canada says something, I think. The book talks about the crisis of confidence in elected representatives. In the beginning

chapter of their book, the two authors, Fife and Warren refer to what they call the "crisis of confidence." They suggest: "What Canada needs is a hefty dose of political integrity." That's a quote from the book.

That's what the last election that brought us all here as members of this House was all about. The historic election of October 17 that gave birth to this new parliament was all about integrity and honesty in politics. By far that was the number one issue. I think all members will agree on that. The reason we had such a significant change and turnover in this province -- why we have a new government and a new opposition and why a previous government was rejected in a massive way by the voters -- was that there were concerns about integrity, honesty and conflict of interest, which I think this bill speaks to.

We have to recognize that there is a tremendous significance as a result, and that's another reason this bill deserves some very serious scrutiny. It's an important matter, and it's why we're all here.

This issue has been addressed by a number of commentators throughout the country, and I would like to refer to just one of them. Bill C-43 was brought in in our national Parliament very recently, and it is

an act dealing with the subject of conflict of interest in terms of federal legislators. There has been very good and broad-ranging debate on that bill. I'd like to refer to some comments by one particular member in committee stage on that bill. The member is Mr. Paul Martin from the Quebec riding of LaSalle-�mard, who is quoted in the federal Hansard . I'd like to read a brief quote into the record, because I think it strikes to the heart of the subject matter here, the underlying principle of this bill. Mr. Martin said:

"Increasingly, the public is losing faith in the credibility of the political process. Increasingly, the capacity of political parties to attract candidates from a variety of backgrounds is being undermined. The problem is that the more diverse the background of the candidate, the greater the possibility of conflict of interest. Now, this is true for people from business obviously. But it is also true of people from most walks of life, from the cultural communities to the professions and from agriculture to labor unions.

The dilemma that arises is how to satisfy the legitimate demands of the public in terms of conflict of interest legislation, on the one hand, with the need to recruit candidates with the different backgrounds required to contribute to the nation's good, on the other."

I think that in his comments in the House of Commons, Mr. Martin sums up very neatly the challenge that we have with conflict-of-interest legislation. On the one hand we want to ensure that elected representatives strive to achieve the highest level of behaviour, with no conflicts in the execution of their public duties and responsibilities, but at the same time we do not want to discourage the very best and brightest in our province from considering public life as a career option and thereby making a contribution to the province as elected representatives. That's the challenge: achieving that balance.

It's not a difficult one. It's only difficult if we strive to bring in legislation that is constraining in some way and that will produce disincentives to the best and brightest of our citizens who could make a contribution to public life but might be scared away by legislation or regulations that are too restrictive. That's the context in which I'd like to raise a couple of concerns about this bill.

The bill affects only British Columbia. While there are national concerns, in British Columbia in particular we have a record that unfortunately is not enviable. We have a record in terms of our very recent past in dealing with conflicts of interest and with the behaviour of elected representatives, including of course a well-known former Premier. That unfortunately casts a shadow over the province and confirms the requirement, in my view, for this kind of legislation, the act that this bill was seeking to amend.

The conflict-of-interest commissioner of our Legislative Assembly recently appeared before the Canadian parliamentary committee in Ottawa, and he had some very good news, some very positive words, for our national legislators. He said: "We're on the road to recovery in British Columbia, which is one jurisdiction of the country where there was perhaps some room for improvement." Now that's a typically modest statement from our commissioner, but I think he's suggesting a direction that we all hope we're heading in: that we are, in fact, on the road to recovery in British Columbia.

I believe that one reason we are on the road to recovery is the legislation that exists, which this bill was seeking to amend. That was a step in the right direction.

[2:45]

The commissioner I refer to, of course, is Mr. Ted Hughes. Mr. Hughes also recently made a speech here in Victoria to the Certified General Accountants' Association of British Columbia. Many members of this House attended the luncheon where he made those remarks, which were entitled "A Most Honourable Profession." In that address Mr. Hughes quoted someone else; he quoted Mr. Roy Bonisteel, who was writing in the United Church Observer. The quote is quite interesting, because it reflects on the essence of what being a politician is all about. Roy Bonisteel said:

"Being a politician is likely the most unpopular profession in our country these days. Public opinion polls show them to be only a few notches above cat burglars in garnering our trust and respect. To serve our country in the political arena should be one of life's finer pursuits; instead, for idealistic Canadians it has become a one-way street to ridicule, disillusionment and shattered dreams."

We have to ask ourselves what has gone wrong, when perhaps only a generation ago to be an elected representative was a most honourable profession. I think Roy Bonisteel sums it up quite neatly when he says that today elected representatives are often held in disrepute. What has gone wrong? How has it come to that in one generation, which is all that it has taken? Mr. Hughes, in his speech here in Victoria, suggested that one of the answers lies in the use of position to create privilege for themselves. The bestowing of

consequen-

[ Page 2757 ]

tial benefits on themselves and the taking advantage of the public purse has led to politicians falling into such disrepute.

Very sadly, this has happened; very rarely, it has happened. Mr. Hughes, our commissioner of conflict of interest, has hit the nail right on the head in his remarks. He suggested that we are on the road to recovery here in British Columbia, but that it's going to take some effort to put the honour back into the term "honourable member." I think that's what we all seek to do. That's why we have all come here. That's what the election of last October was all about. We've all come here to try to restore the integrity that should naturally fall on elected representatives in our society.

How does that fit into the context of these amendments to the Members' Conflict of Interest Act? What are we doing in this bill? Are we going in the right direction by broadening the definition, which the Attorney General referred to in his second-reading comments? There are some significant changes in this bill. Three of them, I think, are of greatest concern, of greatest interest.

The broadening of the definition of conflict of interest, which also includes an apparent conflict, which the hon. Attorney General referred to in his remarks.... We have some concerns about the definition of an apparent conflict. The definition in the act is in very legalistic language, and it certainly is open to

interpretation. I agree with the Attorney General when he says that justice must not only be done but must be seen to be done, but the definition of what is in fact an apparent conflict is definitely going to be the cause of further discussion when we get this bill to committee stage. I think it's important to be precise in our definition of that term.

The bill also changes the requirement for financial disclosure, which is the essence of conflict-of-interest legislation. Instead of having annual financial disclosure, there is now provision for ongoing financial disclosure whenever a material change occurs in an elected representative's life. That's a positive move. I see no problem with that. In fact, I think that's a positive move in the right direction. If we're going to have disclosure, it should be full disclosure, and there is no reason why it could not be on an ongoing basis. That's the essence of our legislation.

The third major change -- the one that perhaps causes the greatest concern -- is the permitting of members of the public to request a conflict-of-interest inquiry under this bill. This bill would amend the act so that not only could Members of the Legislative Assembly bring forward concerns and complaints under this bill, but members of the general public could as well. We will want to question the hon. Attorney General when we get to committee stage on this

section in particular.

I hope it's not being legalistic, but it's important to point out that there are potential problems with conflict in carrying out official duties while not trying to further private interests. It would be interesting to get some examples of what the hon. Attorney General thinks might be potential conflicts between carrying out official duties and not furthering private interests, because those are broad categories of definition. It would be interesting to know what kind of precedents are referred to, or what kinds of examples might be contemplated.

The only concern about the public coming forward with complaints -- which I think may be a very good move, because if a member of the general public has a concern about a potential conflict of an elected representative, they should have the opportunity to come forward to the commissioner of conflict of interest with that complaint -- is that we would want to ensure that this was not going to lead to witch-hunts by special interest groups, by people who were planning mischief, or vexatious complaints that might be coming forward. We would want to make sure that there was a safeguard to protect against that.

Of course, I believe that the safeguard may lie with the commissioner of conflict of interest, who would vet any of the complaints that came forward. Has the hon. Attorney General given any consideration as to whether or not that is going to be practicable, and whether there is any concern that the commissioner's office is going to have to be staffed much differently than it is today to deal with complaints coming forward, whether or not there will be a significant volume of such complaints?

Members of the public, under this bill, would be able to request an inquiry, but the public must have confidence that their complaints will be acted on and that this will hold members to higher standards ultimately. If that can be achieved, I think it can be supported. But we have some concerns which I'd like to flag. I think it's important that they be addressed. There are other concerns that we have, but I know that we can address most of those during the committee stage. I think the bill has some general principles which are worthy of support. I've flagged the need for more study on this, because I really think that we're moving very quickly on an important bill here.

I'd like to note in this second reading debate two other sections of the bill which I think are significant. Under this bill the act would be amended to allow the appointment of an acting minister. In the event that a minister of the Crown became the subject of a complaint, an acting minister could be appointed. I would raise the question as to whether or not that amendment is necessary, because I would note that even during this session we've had a precedent. When the hon.

Minister of Finance came under a cloud of concern because of involvement with the Nanaimo Commonwealth Holding Society in his own constituency office, he was replaced by the hon. Minister of Government Services. So we have a precedent already in the session where that has happened, because of the whole affair relating to the Nanaimo Commonwealth Holding Society. So I wonder whether or not the amendment is actually required under the act, although it might be a good idea to enshrine this in the statute. It's interesting to note we have a precedent without the amendment even being called for.

There's another

section of this bill that is interesting as well, which allows for special assignments of the commissioner, whereby the commissioner of conflict of interest can take on, at his discretion, special

assign-

[ Page 2758 ]

ments. Again, I wonder whether or not this needs to be codified in legislation. Although I'm heartened to see it there, I wonder if it's necessary, because, even during this session, again relating to the Nanaimo Commonwealth Holding Society affair, the commissioner of conflict of interest, Mr. Ted Hughes, has taken on a special assignment at the request of all parties of this House to look into past practices relating to the use of constituency allowances by members of this House.

Again, dealing with that precedent relating to the Nanaimo Commonwealth Holding Society affair, the commissioner has intervened -- taken on a special assignment. Whether or not it's necessary to codify that ability in legislation is an interesting point, but the fact that the commissioner is already able to do that is, I think, heartening, and the fact that it exists under current law..... Whether it's necessary or not we'll discuss in the committee stage.

The bill is an important one. Conflict of interest is an issue of great concern in British Columbia. We have all come here as newly elected representatives -- most of us rookie elected representatives -- in the hope that we can restore some integrity, some honour, some honesty to the profession. We consider ourselves to be honourable members. We want to put the honour back into the term "honourable," and as a result, we're willing to suspend any skepticism or disbelief we have about the intentions with respect to some of the concerns I've flagged in this bill.

I look forward to the debate on this important piece of legislation, and in particular to the closing remarks of the hon. Attorney General. I hope we don't rush headlong into the committee stage of this bill, where a Committee of the Whole House considers this legislation. I really think we need some exposure time on this legislation, whereby not only members of the House but members of the general public would be able to comment on it. With those few words, I am pleased to take my seat.

J. Weisgerber: Mr. Speaker, I rise to support the principle of these amendments. It's always important for us to look at ways to strengthen and improve legislation, and sometimes there are demonstrations of the need to strengthen and improve legislation. It may well be that this piece of legislation is one of those.

I think it's worthwhile recognizing that the conflict-of-interest legislation was originally brought in in the last session of the Legislature, and it was important in the role it played in the events as they unfolded. I suspect, however, that the legislation as it is proposed to be amended by this particular act still leaves some areas that may warrant further attention to conflict of interest.

I note in the brief time I've had to look through the legislation that, while the legislation seeks to lengthen the time in which a cabinet minister would be prohibited from lobbying government, doing business with government or accepting contracts from government, there is no attention paid to MLAs who might retire and immediately go to work for government.

The first example that comes to mind, obviously, is Bob Williams, who, on the eve of what appeared to be the election of his party after almost 20 years in opposition, decides not to run again; he's too busy. His business interests demand that he not run again. At least, that's what he told the press when he announced that he wouldn't seek re-election. But we see him back almost immediately in a very serious senior position, in which he probably has a great deal more influence than he might enjoy as a cabinet minister.

Again on the eve of what would appear to be an opportunity to be re-elected and to be on the government side for the first time, we see Gordon Hanson decide not to run again in order to pursue private interests. In fact, it turns out he finds himself with two jobs with government and one for his wife.

So if we're going to look at conflict of interest, let's look at all the potential conflicts. Let's deal with the conflicts that we have seen in more than just the recent history. Let's look at the most recent history and decide whether or not some conflicts appear there, and whether or not this would be an appropriate time to deal not only with some of the things that developed on the past government's side, but with some of the actions of the current government in its transition from opposition to government. I think these questions are equally worthy of attention as the conduct of cabinet.

I share the concern of the opposition House Leader about the speed with which this legislation was introduced. Yesterday a bill is tabled; today, in the midst of trying to work our way through the implications of the bill, we find ourselves debating second reading. So the comments we make in second reading are superficial. We do that hoping that there will be a breather, a time lag, between second reading and committee stage.

In the minister's opening remarks, there was no comment about the role that our conflict-of-interest commissioner played in drafting this new legislation. I don't know whether there was any. We all recognize that he has done a commendable job as conflict-of-interest commissioner in the number of years that he has served this Legislature. I hope he looked at and made comment on these amendments that were brought forward.

A final thought I have is that, as with any piece of legislation, we seem to be striking a balance. We are tightening up, if you like, or extending the restrictions on members to attempt to ensure that they do not abuse their office. That's a commendable undertaking and one that I would support with all members of the House. But again we must recognize that as we do that, we place constraints on members, and, perhaps more importantly, we place constraints that may well discourage people from seeking office.

[3:00]

Over the years this House has been served well by members with a wide diversity of backgrounds and experiences that they gained before they came to the Legislature. People who have come from business and entrepreneurial backgrounds have served this Legislature well. They come with a sense of business realities. I would be happier to see a Legislature made up solely of business people than I would be to see.... Well, not quite. I exaggerate. A Legislature made up of social workers and teachers, if that were the sole makeup, might be even less beneficial to the people of British

[ Page 2759 ]

Columbia than a government made up solely of business people.

My point is that there needs to be a diversity of backgrounds in the members who serve in this House. One of the significant groups of people who have served this House well are business people and entrepreneurial people. They, by their backgrounds, tend to have interests that are affected by conflict-of-interest legislation. Even before the act was amended, they found themselves being forced to divulge information to a degree that some members found objectionable. When we introduced the act, some members of my party felt that the legislation was too restrictive.

Some of the members whose spouses maintained their own separate business interests and wealth objected strenuously. Because their spouse decided to come and run for office, they had to declare all of their assets. Every time we impose restrictions on someone, we affect not only that person but those who are associated with them.

In our zeal to amend conflict-of-interest legislation to make sure that there is no opportunity for abuse, we must also ensure that we make the notion of seeking office an attractive one for honourable people, for people who want to serve this province, for people who have skills that they could contribute to this province; that we make this occupation -- this opportunity to serve -- available to the broadest range of people possible. So it is the balance that we have to achieve. Quite frankly, I haven't been able to study this bill in depth to know whether or not we're going further along the lines that we had already started with the first legislation.

I join the House Leader for the third party in hoping that it will be a few days or a few weeks before we have an opportunity to debate this legislation in third reading.

L. Krog: I ask leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

L. Krog: With great pleasure I introduce in the gallery today Ms. K. Wolski from the Parksville Christian School, accompanied by approximately 20 grade 5 and 6 students and some parents assisting. I'd ask the House to make them welcome, please.

H. De Jong: I just want to speak briefly to this bill. I recognize very well that the government really had no choice but to boost conflict-of-interest legislation. However, it does provide some concerns. I think we have to look back at who is being elected in a community. Oftentimes the people who are being elected to office -- whether it's provincial, municipal or any level of government -- have been the movers and shakers in the community. They've belonged to the service clubs, the chamber of commerce and to many organizations that made the community.

I realize that this bill does not necessarily limit the ability of one to serve if one speaks in favour of a charitable organization, as is mentioned in the bill. However, for instance, if a person belongs to the chamber of commerce, and the chamber of commerce is making an application for a lottery grant to build a certain facility which is in the general public's interest in a community, it appears to me that that could be considered a conflict of interest if a member of that area really fought for the particular sum of money to come to that community.

Indirectly, either the members or the community in which they live -- where their friends and relatives are, who are all close to the person who's elected -- may be benefiting from this. Is that a conflict? I don't see it as a conflict.

However, I've had discussions on this matter with the commissioner over the past year: where, for instance, a sum of money was provided for a particular service within an industry -- I'll try to be as precise as I can without naming the specifics of it -- and where people who are very close to me, having been involved with that industry, would be benefiting because it would be available to that particular industry. It was suggested that whenever such a thing came up, the minister in charge could not, for one thing, sign the OIC.

He would have to get another minister to make the requisition, but he shouldn't even speak on it. That in itself, I think, has some detrimental effects on the ability to represent the community and the people, because quite often people are put into a ministerial position where they have some knowledge of a particular item. Certainly that was my experience at the local level: you put people where they are most knowledgeable.

Taking that into consideration in the discussions we have had.... I think this bill alludes to it, that yes, if a minister is to make a provision -- be it the Minister of Social Services to increase the grants or the moneys available to those who are less fortunate -- and the minister has a number of people in his constituency, or very close relatives, who may be benefitting, the minister cannot make that requisition himself, and neither can he speak on it. That's where I see the real difficulties coming in.

If we take this conflict-of-interest legislation to its full extent as it is written in this bill, then matters such as the homeowner grant -- which has normally been by approved by a bill in the House because it's a bill that comes from the Minister of Finance -- and many other increases of funding will have to come through the House rather than be assigned by a minister, even though the ministry's budget is approved in total.

Take the salaries and benefits that apply to the members of this House. We may have a commissioner or someone put in charge of working this all out, or an internal committee of non-elected people or whoever finally comes up with what the MLAs and the ministers should earn and the benefits they're entitled to. By voting for the vote that is to run this Legislature, we would all be found in conflict-of-interest. It would appear to me that I agree with the conflict of interest legislation and with strengthening it.

At the same time, I think that the honesty and the credibility of the individual is ultimately going to be the determining factor of the success of any government in Canada -- whether local, provincial or federal.

We can have all the legislation on the books, which makes it more difficult and cumbersome on people who

[ Page 2760 ]

run for office. I'm particularly thinking of the two-year delay after the person serves. It's quite possible that the government on that side of the House is going to be a one-term government. What about the two years that you would have to wait after being tossed out? Political moods do change, and they can change very fast. We saw that the last time.

In conclusion, perhaps we can delve into some of the details during third reading. I would certainly hope, as the others have expressed, that some time be given so that we can study this thing more thoroughly. At the same time, I'm generally in favour of good conflict legislation. But in the end, the results are up to the individuals serving.

M. Farnworth: Hon. Speaker, it's a pleasure to rise and make a few brief comments on a bill that has been eagerly awaited by members of the public. I know that during the last election it was a considerable topic of discussion: the need for improved conflict-of-interest regulations.

I think the reason that we have this bill is an indication of where we are today. Whether we like it or not, the public holds us to higher standards in terms of conduct both inside and outside the House, how we do our dealings here and, in particular, our private financial dealings.

I think they have to have confidence in us, and I think there are two ways in which they see that confidence. One is, as the member alluded to, the personal integrity of each member, and the other is the integrity of the act that we're governed by. This act is by far the most comprehensive, toughest act in the country. It says to the public: "We heard your concerns during the election campaign. We've heard your concerns over the last few years, and we're addressing them. We're addressing things such as personal interest, financial interest, personal obligations and the ability for ministers, after they leave, to then turn around in another role and lobby the very government they just left."

In my own riding, there was a very controversial piece of land, and it was noted -- not without some concern -- that a Minister of Agriculture, who had previously been charged with the protection of agricultural land, was now lobbying for this parcel of land to be taken out of the agricultural land reserve.

You have to understand -- and I have full sympathy -- when the public asks: "What's going on here?" Here's a case of someone who, not six months before, was saying this land could not be taken out of the agricultural land reserve, that it was not suitable for golf courses and was an important piece of farmland in the province, and who was now saying: "Well, maybe it's a good place for a racetrack; maybe it's a good place for a golf course." That's not right.

This act addresses things like that, and I think it's very important. Concern has been expressed over the two-year period. I think a two-year period is ideal, because it shouldn't be seen that people get into politics, then they get out of politics and go into something else.

[3:15]

I think it's very important that we send the right signals to the public. This act addresses that. It sets a standard which we have to abide by, and that's what the public wants. It's about restoring confidence and faith. If we accomplish that this session, I think we have gone a long way toward restoring, as the hon. member for West Vancouver-Garibaldi said, honour to this profession. I think it is an honourable profession, and I am very proud to be here in this House. That's why I have no problem with supporting this act. I think it's probably one of the most important and fundamentally right things that we do in this session and in this term.

C. Tanner: Mr. Speaker, I rise to address this subject, because it's one that has affected me personally and will affect many members in the House in future -- and has in the past. Like other members who have spoken before me, I too believe this is a very important piece of legislation.

I will summarize some of the points that have been made by other members on subjects that need to be addressed within this act. Members have mentioned that the MLAs who are presently sitting could be affected within two or three years, when they leave this House. They will not be able to have anything to do with this House for the following two years. The implications of that could be very serious for some members.

Interjection.

C. Tanner: Members, including the one vocalizing presently, said that this is probably the most important piece of legislation that has come before the House today, and as a consequence it deserves our very serious consideration. I agree with him. Some members have mentioned that there are constraints on a member's business background; as a consequence, some people on both sides of the House will have reservations about running again. In fact, in the future we will be putting constraints on people who might want to run for public office. The province will be the loser should those people choose not to run because the constraints we've placed on them are too strong.

There are definite implications in this amendment to the conflict-of-interest act toward a spouse's estate. All of us, hopefully, enjoy that blissful state and feel that the implications which fall upon us and our spouses should be seriously considered. There's a delicate balance here that is required between the duty that some of us feel towards the public and the need to serve and fulfil our obligations to the businesses we've built up over our lives, and to our families who will inherit them from us.

A member mentioned that there are cases where charitable organizations are going to be affected by decisions that are made within this House should you be elected. I personally had to resign from two charities, and in September will resign from a third. I flatter myself by saying that those charities do not benefit from my resigning, but, in fact, it's detrimental to those charities as I think I was doing a fair job; I raised a great deal of money for some of them. But I couldn't be a

[ Page 2761 ]

member of this House in all integrity and also be a member of those organizations.

The member who spoke last mentioned that the public eagerly awaited this legislation. I agree with him; they did. They deserve the very best possible legislation they can get. I could be wrong, but I'm not sure that these amendments are the legislation that is needed. I am sure that in my conversation with the government bureaucracy over the past seven or eight months, many of them have mentioned that the act brought in in July 1991 was brought in with some haste. It didn't get total consideration. A year later we have to make amendments; that is proof of the fact that it didn't have sufficient discussion.

I think every member who spoke has brought up the fact that 24 hours ago we didn't have this legislation in front of us, and the only opportunity that the members on this side and probably most members of the government back benches have had to consider this legislation is the 24 hours since introduction yesterday. As a consequence, while I agree we need the legislation and I agree we need the amendments, I think we need some more consideration.

Consequently it is my intention to introduce an amendment, which reads as follows: with reference to Bill 64, Members' Conflict of Interest Amendment Act, 1992, that all the words after "that" be deleted and that "that" be followed by: "Bill 64 be not now read a second time but the subject matter be referred to the Select Standing Committee on Parliamentary Reform, Ethical Conduct, Standing Orders and Private Bills."

On the amendment.

C. Tanner: I should tell members of the House that it was my intention coming into this debate to vote against this legislation, and that's not an easy thing to do. I think that with the persuasion of my caucus friends, the suggestion I am making now would satisfy my problem and perhaps other unmentioned problems for some other members, and move this into the committee which is specifically for the purpose of discussing it further and calling witnesses. I think one of the witnesses we might very quickly call would be the conflict-of-interest commissioner himself.

The member who spoke before me made a very strong point about the public expecting better of us and of all their elected members in all areas. I think this is a great occasion for the public to have input into what they want to see in this sort of legislation. This is an opportunity to take it there.

My remarks from here on in are a result of having been involved in politics and having observed politicians for about 25 years. My observation, generally speaking, has been that the vast majority of them, while they might have a fairly heavy-duty ego, are honest. In fact, I would say 98 percent of all politicians I have run into are honest, hard-working and well-meaning, and the other 2 percent make it difficult for the rest of the world. If you can get over the ego part, they're quite reasonable people.

It would be very much easier not to address this issue and just to lie down, roll over and play dead, and let the members of the government side say that this is a good piece of legislation. The issue of conflict of interest is important to the public, and there is a presumption on the government benches that because they have brought forward this legislation -- which they boosted throughout the election and which they are boasting about now and have done since -- we should leave it alone and not debate it. I'm afraid I can't let it go quite that easily.

Some parts of this bill, in my view, are window-dressing. It has been said before, and it will be proved subsequent to this, that the passage of this legislation into committee, should it go through without this amendment.... Honesty cannot be legislated. Nothing will impel an honest person to be dishonest, but nothing will impede a dishonest person from being a cheat or satisfy their hunger for gain and benefit by a dishonest act. At the same time, the appearance of dishonesty is an accusation that is easily made and difficult to undo, and unjust innuendo can damage the reputation of a person of integrity very easily.

The conflict-of-interest commissioner did not accept my legal

interpretation of the Constitution Act or that of my legal counsel. The reason I mention this is the reference made by a previous member to Mr. Paul Martin, the Member for LaSalle in the federal House. He laid before the committee his total personal portfolio -- which is extensive -- and outlined piece by piece how the public could interpret the fact that he could be interpreted, if he was other than a man of honour, as being dishonest and as having a conflict of interest. He made a case which was very clear.

He is a man who had the integrity to write in full to the Clerk of his House about his total earnings, wealth and interests, and lay it before the House without being asked and without legislation. He is the sort of man who said: "This can be interpreted as being a conflict of interest."

I'd like to give you an example of what happened to me. As I said, the conflict-of-interest commissioner did not accept my or my legal counsel's

interpretation of what we read in the Constitution Act as to whether or not I had a conflict of interest. My legal advice was that I didn't have; the conflict-of-interest commissioner's legal opinion was that I did have. I felt it important enough to divest myself of that potential conflict of interest, and he advised me to dispose of my shares in the business that I've built up over 28 years, to my wife.

Here we have a peculiar set of circumstances. The members on the other side like to talk about win-win circumstances or win-win situations. I'll tell you about a lose-lose situation. I've given all my shares to my wife, and the assumption is that I then have no interest. Well, of course, I keep half.... What's the expression? I share my wife's bed and my wife's hearth, and we talk as any husband and wife do. To think that the public is protected from my interest, because she's got my shares, is ridiculous. So from the government's point of view, that's a lose situation.

If, on the other hand, three years from now my wife and I have a falling-out -- I understand the odds for that happening after three years in this Legislature are apparently quite good -- I would be in the lose situation. My wife would have all my shares of my business, and I would have no

[ Page 2762 ]

recourse. So there's a double lose situation. The House is not protected by my turning my shares over; I'm not protected if my wife and I have a falling-out. I should mention to the House that I've been married 33 years, and God forbid that it should happen. But it could. I don't think that I as a member should have been put in that position.

The conflict of interest that I had, Mr. Speaker, was ridiculous. I was supposedly receiving income from the provincial government through a lottery machine, which one of my businesses owns, a company that I had over a 30 percent interest in. I have absolutely no control over that lottery machine, the customers coming in to it or the money they spend. However, there is some income to my business through that lottery machine, and the conflict-of-interest commissioner said: "It would be wiser if you unloaded yourself of that burden." I didn't think it was a burden, but he did.

Mr. Speaker, if my basic premise is correct, that an honest person won't cheat, and a cheat cannot be controlled by legislation, then the conflict-of-interest legislation is better served by giving more power, not less, to the conflict-of-interest commissioner. Let him use his discretion, and after consultation with the member and disclosure, let the conflict-of-interest commissioner make an arbitrary decision in writing that this member is free of conflict. That is the way it has been suggested in the bill under federal discretion, right now.

If the conflict-of-interest commissioner is not satisfied, then let him so inform the House. The members, the public and the commissioner are all keeping an eye on him, and the conflict-of-interest commissioner is able to make a decision and advise the House that the member has a conflict.

As the act now stands, a member makes a disclosure, and the commissioner accepts his statement and can point out a potential conflict. But he cannot make a final decision. The final decision has to be made when a complaint is laid by some member of the House. I appreciate that these amendments have been broadened, but the fact of the matter is that the conflict-of-interest commissioner cannot tell you that you have a conflict; he can only advise that you might have one. I think that's unfair.

[3:30]

The commissioner's decision will be made prior to the complaint and will in effect give the member a clean bill of health, so to speak. The member can then take his place in the Legislature. I appreciate that the members of the cabinet and the executive committee are, and should be, subject to more stringent conditions in this matter, but the ordinary members of the Legislature, particularly on the back benches and the opposition side, should not have to jeopardize their family businesses and their life's work merely to satisfy the appearance of honesty.

This is in the same view that people seeking election are required, before exposing themselves to penalty, to give private information for their business for the dubious privilege of being a candidate. This requirement under the Financial Disclosure Act is again unnecessary and should be examined in committee.

I'd like to ask the members of this House to place this bill before a standing committee on Parliamentary Reform, Ethical Conduct, Standing Orders and Private Bills for further input. I request all members on both sides of the House to support the amendment.

F. Gingell: I appreciate this opportunity to speak to the amendment. Conflict-of-interest legislation is always motherhood. It is something that we all support.

An Hon. Member: Parenthood.

F. Gingell: Parenthood.

It is sometimes difficult to try to bring a sense of rational and thoughtful discussion to it when we in this House are dealing only with our feelings towards this and what we perceive to be the public perception, both of politicians and conflicts of interest. I think that it would be well worthwhile for this House to move this piece of legislation to this committee, as proposed by this amendment, to ensure that public input really can be brought to bear.

[M. Farnworth in the chair.]

I also had a similar problem with respect to my being elected to this House, and was required to dissociate completely from all office and responsibility in a corporation that I was involved in creating and had been with since its birth -- speaking of parenthood. It really is a pity if people are discouraged from running for public office purely and simply because they have accumulated business interests over their career.

I think there are some other issues that need to be looked at. The previous speaker mentioned the question of having to move the shares of his corporation or his business to his spouse. My understanding of the law is that if he and his spouse were to come to a marital parting of the ways, she is going to get half of what's his anyway, and if the shares are in her hands, he's going to get half of what is hers. Clearly, moving the shares from person A to the spouse of person A doesn't accomplish anything. For good planning, move the shares to your children.

That will keep your spouse's sticky fingers away from them. Your children are with you forever. You have to have a sense of trust that the children aren't going to take off with them to Las Vegas.

All these things concern apparent and perceived conflicts. We worry about how the public sees what is happening, rather than ensuring that we create

an act which ensures that real conflicts don't take place. It is up to us in our own actions, in the things we do for our own reputations, to ensure when we're dealing with legislation that we behave in a manner where there can be no perceived conflict and no real conflict of interest. If there is no real conflict of interest, that really should be the end of the subject. The fact that the vision in some other person's mind is cause for the conflict-of-interest commissioner to start an investigation really seems to me to not be appropriate.

The member from the third party who talked about the question of non-profit organizations brings up another interesting and important point that really

[ Page 2763 ]

should be thought through. There is nothing in the act, as I understand it, that clearly determines what a private interest is. We all think of these things in financial terms, but that's not the only area that we should be concerned about. There are actions we can take that improve our status within the community, our position, the way we are recognized and all kinds of things that may very well affect one's re-election.

With actions that people take to improve their chances of re-election, not actions taken for the purpose of doing the right thing for all of the people of British Columbia, but things done only for the purpose of getting the support of some particular interest group for the purposes of re-election -- surely there's a conflict there. There is a whole series of matters that need to be looked at.

There is also in Bill 64 discussion about the need to disclose a material change, but no definition of what a material change is. I really do think that needs to be clearly understood. Something that I think is immaterial, someone else may well have the perception that it is material purely and simply because of the value. What is material in your own mind is something you build up feelings and understandings about that are related to relevance, percentage or, I would use the word, material. If it isn't material, it isn't material to me, but it may very well be perceived as being material to somebody else because in their life that transaction would be a material matter.

We do not need to rush this. People have spoken about it being a terribly important piece of legislation. One member even said it was the most important piece of legislation. I would disagree strongly with that. I think that the budget, the Corporation Capital Tax Act and the Guaranteed Available Income for Need Amendment Act, 1992, which we will be dealing with shortly, are much more important pieces of legislation. This needs to be dealt with sensibly, slowly and with careful thought, because we should do it once, do it well and put it to bed.

We shouldn't produce an amended act and have to reopen it in one or two years when we see that there are problems. I would ask members of the House to support the amendment so that more due and diligent consideration can be given to this matter.

Deputy Speaker: The member for Richmond-Steveston.

A. Warnke: Thank you, hon. Speaker. I'm so used to using the term "hon. Speaker" that I will continue to use that, and I welcome your good graces. It's good to see you up there.

The reason I'm rising to support the amendment put forward by my colleague is that the thrust of the bill is obviously in a direction that is widely supported, as the previous speaker mentioned. It could even be termed a motherhood bill of some sort -- motherhood because people want to have confidence in their elected representatives, their politicians. As I believe a couple of members have already mentioned, there has been a stigma attached to politicians, and it is about time to change that. We all recognize that. We hope that by taking certain kinds of initiatives, the stigma that has been attached to politicians will change.

What has been particularly noticeable in the political culture of British Columbia is that if any politicians across this country have been somewhat stigmatized and have developed a negative image, it is certainly here. We all hope that will change. Of course, there are certain kinds of actions and moves that we can take to change that image of politicians, especially in this province. We must be more sensitive that it has to change.

I think, for the large part, the initiatives taken by widening the conflict of interest in this legislation is the direction to go, but my colleague from Saanich has pointed out very neatly that there are problems in ironing out the details in widening the legislation. It would be most beneficial to all members of the House in terms of improving image that the public have confidence that here is a sound piece of members' conflict-of-interest legislation.

I have a couple of particular problems myself when I take a look at the act. We will look at these, obviously, if we get to committee stage, particularly at

section 10: "A member of the public who has reasonable and probable grounds to believe that there has been a contravention of this act...."

[3:45]

I want to elaborate on this a little bit. As the Attorney General knows, I'm sure, from some of the correspondence he has received.... I have certainly received a lot of correspondence from people making inquiries into the conduct of members. Sometimes it's members of that government or members of this side, though I must confess I have not received a letter requesting an investigation of any of my colleagues from the Liberal Party. To be quite honest with you, it's not because we're virtuous. Some members of the public may still, somewhere down the line, request such an investigation.

What I'm suggesting -- and I'm sure the Attorney General is aware of some of the correspondence -- is that certain individuals sometimes make certain kinds of comments and allegations in which they feel that there must be a conflict of interest. This term "conflict of interest" is used very widely now, and I think to a certain extent the term has now become so maligned that it includes, at least in the public mind, so many aspects of political behaviour that sometimes the strict definition does not apply.

But as I'm sure the Attorney General knows, there have been submissions and requests. Actually, I can think of a couple I have received that the Attorney General may not know of, but the fact is that such requests are made. Some of these requests by the public are entirely warranted. I can think of a few that were entirely warranted. When a member of the public has "reasonable and probable grounds" -- to use the term from the legislation -- I take a look at the letter and say: "So and so is saying something's not quite right with, let's say, Transportation. I didn't think of that.

Why don't we investigate it a little bit further?" And sometimes it's further clarified, and we find that there isn't really a problem at all.

As a matter of fact, I believe my colleague from North Saanich has made the point that 98 percent of

[ Page 2764 ]

politicians are honest. Maybe he's right. I'll lower the figure to 95 percent, based on Whitey Herzog's theory of human behaviour. I won't elaborate on that, because some of it is vulgar, his being a baseball manager and all that. Nonetheless, the conduct of politicians is admirable. The conduct of people in public life is admirable. But there are those who are not. Therefore we do want to encourage members of the public -- I can think of a few members of the public who have some legitimate concerns about particular members -- to come forth, with more than just a brown envelope, and explain if they see a problem with a particular politician.

On the other hand, the wording in the legislation that is before us and that speaks to the amendment that the member is raising.... Terms such as a member of the public who has -- and it's not that they must have -- reasonable and probable grounds.... This is pretty loose. It's not all that certain that we're not opening up a tremendous flood of all kinds of requests that will end up actually bogging down at least one part of the Attorney General's ministry. We really do not want that. We really do not want to see something that is unnecessary.

There is another aspect of the legislation -- since I'm on my feet -- that I would really like to bring to our attention. It addresses the problems addressed by my colleague earlier that perhaps there is a bit too much haste. We do need just a little bit more time to re-examine this legislation, rather than just introduce it yesterday, deal with second reading today, committee tomorrow and off it goes. I don't know if that rapidity is wise. This is not the first time that we've raised this problem.

Another aspect of it that I find interesting is in

section 1, the reference to "spouse." I understand the attempt to broaden the definition of spouse. One thing....

An Hon. Member: You're not speaking to the amendment.

A. Warnke: I am speaking to the amendment, because it is addressing this particular problem that the member raised.

It is one thing to broaden the definition, but I'm wondering if the term and the terms of reference in this particular

section are even appropriate. This addresses the whole question of rapidity. Things are done too fast. I would really like to see clarification prior to the committee stage. I think it belongs in the context of the principle of the bill. There needs to be some sort of clarification of terms when it is applied to the community. As I read it right now, I'm not altogether convinced that we have not incorporated something in this bill that discriminates against a certain part of the population that operates as a family and is comprised of a spouse. I could see how it benefits a person who has a significant other in their family. That disturbs me a little bit.

The amendment that the hon. member has introduced is a very wise and prudent one and one we ought to accept.

[The Speaker in the chair.]

V. Anderson: Speaking on the amendment, I again would prefer that this bill should go back for further study. I am pleased that the hon. minister had agreed earlier that he's not averse to doing an open second thought.

Not only is it a motherhood bill, but it's a fatherhood bill. Although we agree on the general principle behind the bill, one of the concerns that I think the bill is trying to meet is to say to the public that we are open. It may say to the public that we are open in a far broader sense than the bill intends. As I understand, what many of the public are concerned about when they're asking for recall and the opportunity to recall is not primarily in the area of finances, but it's primarily in the area of other concerns and special interest, one-issue groups.

For instance, people in a community who may be on one side or the other of the abortion issue may wish to have their member recalled because he or she consistently votes against their particular interest and concern.

When we talk about the apparent conflict of interest, it has usually been thought about in financial terms. It has already been raised by my colleague that many people in the community are not thinking of interest primarily in financial terms, and that conflict of interest is going against the wishes of the voter who elected them. So it takes on a social meaning, and I think that social meaning needs to be clarified, particularly when the bill has extended it beyond personal interest to apparent conflict of interest.

That word "apparent" opens up a whole new set of expectations and uncertainties in the community that I'm sure will lead to a whole flood of applications to be considered which were not contemplated.

People should be challenged if there is apparent conflict of interest, but what I have often seen happen is that when the application is made to have this apparent conflict of interest made to the Legislature or to the commissioner, a copy of that -- in a more informal way perhaps -- is sent to the press, and it becomes a headline in the press. Even if the commissioner should say afterwards that this person is completely innocent, that headline in the press has already tainted them, and no matter what the commissioner says, that taint will never be undone.

So I think we need to put into the bill, if we want it really dealt with fairly to everybody concerned, is if an application is made, that application has an embargo on it. It cannot be used in the press until it has been dealt with and fairly adjudicated. We have already had too many people tried in the press, and this will continue in a far greater way, with this kind of expectation, than we have ever seen before.

We need to be aware that in the minds of many people in the community, if somebody has been involved in a special interest group, in environment or capital punishment or whatever it is, -- and they have indeed campaigned on that to become a member of the Legislature, this will be taken by the public -- although legally we might challenge that view -- to indicate that they should not be pushing their particular point of view here in the House. This has implications for almost any issue: aboriginal issues, non-profit organizations, many of the societies that

[ Page 2765 ]

people belong to. I think that wherever a person has a membership in a society or an organization -- not a financial interest, but a membership -- it might be taken by the public to mean that if a benefit is given to that society or to that organization here in this House, that member should abstain from the opportunity to put that privilege forward.

This will, hon. Speaker, be particularly difficult for the members of the government and for the cabinet. Even if they're judged innocent by the commissioner, they will be judged out there by the "apparent" conflict-of-interest. That word opens a whole new door and a whole new discussion in the mind of the public. I think we need to be aware of it, so I urge that this go back for further study so that these clarifications can be made before the doors are opened so wide that we cannot control them.

J. Tyabji: I'll keep my comments brief. I'd like to speak in favour of the amendment, as my colleagues have done. The select standing committees, in my view, are the perfect vehicle for the critical discussion that must take place with a conflict-of-interest bill like this one. I think we all recognize that we definitely need new conflict-of-interest legislation.

However, what's happened is that the conflict-of-interest legislation is now at the point where a lot of people are afraid to run for office, because they're afraid that there might be the perception that they're in some kind of conflict -- especially, as the previous member mentioned, people who are involved in societies or who have direct linkages to certain groups. They might feel that they cannot run for office, because it could be perceived that they would be in a conflict.

[4:00]

There are so many things that we need to discuss with regard to this concept and with regard to the idea of the potential for excess access of the public to the conflict-of-interest commissioner. I think there's a lot of discussion that needs to be done there. Perhaps the conflict-of-interest commissioner would need some more power.

I'd really like to strongly urge all members of the House to send this to the standing committee so that we can thoroughly go over all the concepts in the bill and then bring it forward again as something that we can all feel comfortable with and that we can take some time over. If we do refer it to a committee, we'll allow for a lot more public debate outside of this House, just by making it a more high-profile bill.

A. Cowie: I'll be very brief, because I know the Attorney General wants to get on with this. I was not going to speak, but I have personally been accused of a conflict-of-interest over being a parks board commissioner, where there was clearly no conflict. I've been completely cleared with the conflict commissioner, yet it continues for political reasons. I think that if

section 10 were passed as it is, it would still continue for political reasons. So I encourage you to at least look at that

section thoroughly -- that the public would report, or at least go to the commissioner and get an

interpretation -- before proceeding further, rather than dealing with it openly in public, or other members dealing with it. Once it has been dealt with in the press, the member really has no way of defending himself or herself.

On the issue of

section 8....

The Speaker: Hon. member, I must remind you that we're on the amendment, not on the sections of the act.

A. Cowie: Regarding the amendment and why I think the amendment should be supported.... Thank you, hon. Speaker for reminding me. When one deals with material change, one has to think about what that means. We must have a clear definition. If it means 500 shares of some penny stock, I don't consider that material change, but the conflict-of-interest commissioner does. Or at least he recommends that it be brought forward. I doubt if it's necessary, if someone buys or sells some penny stock, that it be brought to the conflict-of-interest commissioner every 30 days; maybe half-yearly or yearly would be good enough. I think those kinds of

interpretations have to be clear. I will leave it at that, because the other members have spoken very well on the subject.

D. Mitchell: Hon. Speaker, I just want to speak to the amendment briefly. I think the member for Saanich North and the Islands has made a very good case for the amendment that he has moved. We have heard a number of members speak to that amendment. I know that the hon. Attorney General is preparing to close debate on this very important bill. For the record, I'd like to indicate that the spirit of the amendment is not a dilatory motion. It's a substantive amendment that is intended to improve the bill.

We have the opportunity to be leaders in the nation in this area when it comes to elected public servants, so that we can return the notion of honourable members to their proper, customary and preeminent station in our society. I know one other member may wish to speak to the amendment briefly before we go on with it.

I hope the hon. Attorney General will address the concerns that have been mentioned by a number of members in the House today. The amendment has been made in very good faith as a gesture toward improving the bill. Perhaps we could activate one of our select standing committees over the summer so that members can deal with this matter, bring it back in the fall and pass it. I don't think there's any hurry to bring in the best legislation that will make us in British Columbia leaders in this area. With those words, I speak in favour of the amendment.

F. Garden: I seek permission to make an introduction, hon. Speaker.

Leave granted.

F. Garden: In the gallery is a group of grade 6 and 7 students from Clinton in the riding of the member for Cariboo South. They're accompanied by their teacher Linda Madden and four adults: Shelly Bolster, Ingrid

[ Page 2766 ]

Pearson, Harley Tenale and Frank Thompson. Would the House make them welcome, please.

C. Serwa: I rise to speak in support of the amendment, because it's a member's conflict-of-interest amendment act. In order for the act to work, it obviously has to have the support and interest of all of the members incorporated into the legislation. It is not simply a government bill. It certainly affects all the members in this Legislative Assembly, and it's going to serve as a model for conflict-of-interest legislation that will impact all levels of government and probably all public bodies in the province of British Columbia -- and rightfully so.

From the government of this province I expect nothing less than the highest possible standard of excellence. I expect that same high standard of excellence from all the legislators in this assembly.

I have concerns with respect to this particular act. I happen to be one who really believes very strongly -- and am of a party that also believes very strongly -- in the conflict-of-interest legislation. I have to remind the hon. member for Burnaby North that, in fact, the Premier set guidelines and we brought in conflict-of-interest legislation in 1990. They were effective guidelines, I might add. But the legislation is simply guidelines with teeth. There is no question, hon. Speaker.... Oh, let the raucous crowd carry on.

The Speaker: I call the House to order so that the hon. member can continue in debate.

C. Serwa: I believe that the amendments are necessary. I believe that this will be a living, growing document of legislation and that we will continue to see amendments with respect to the act. Nevertheless, I again stand and speak in support of the amendment put forward by the official opposition, because I believe it's in the best interests of government and this Legislature to develop the best possible legislation. I said that earlier.

One of the things that has transpired is that the executive branch of government has usurped some of the powers of the legislators. I believe that the Legislative Assembly should at least have some access to some of those powers we had formerly. I believe that all legislators, be they on the government back bench, have an opportunity for input into some very critical and important legislation. There is no question that the only commodity we as legislators have to operate with is the faith, trust and confidence of those who elected us to this Legislature. I know that the cynicism out there against politics and politicians is due in part to conflict and apparent conflict.

It is a pleasure to have risen and spoken in support of the amendment. I intend to rise and speak, if necessary, if the amendment is defeated.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: I'll speak just briefly on the amendment and then, following this position, we can hopefully move on to finish second reading debate itself. I should advise members that we will go directly after this to the CORE legislation, rather than to what was on the list. Mr. Stephen Owen is here and has to leave by 4:45, and I'm hoping he'll be here for the whole debate. This is just to give people a sense of the urgency of time.

It was my intention earlier to proceed to committee stage tomorrow. I think there is enough good evidence that that would be a mistake. It would be my intention to move to committee stage not tomorrow but next week to give members an opportunity to reflect on the legislation, to deal with it over the weekend and perhaps to consult with others about the wording. The problem with accepting the motion, hon. Speaker, is that by doing this we would, in effect, delay implementation of these amendments for a year.

The committee would work perhaps over the summer or the fall, and when the Legislature returns next spring it would then deal with the report of the committee. Frankly, I don't think British Columbians want this province to continue for another year without an appropriate act in place on this subject. I think it's important that we get on with it next week. I'm prepared to listen carefully to submissions prior to the debate in committee, and if members have some good amendments that would prove useful, I'd be very happy to see if we can incorporate them.

Members should take some comfort from the fact that Mr. Ted Hughes has been intimately involved in assisting us to develop this legislation. His advice and counsel have been sought from the beginning, right through to the final version of this legislation, and that should give most members who know Mr. Hughes some comfort.

With that, hon. Speaker, I would ask my colleagues to support me in rejecting this amendment.

[4:15]

Amendment negatived on the following division:

YEAS -- 18

Farrell-Collins

Tyabji

Reid

Wilson

Mitchell

Cowie

Gingell

Warnke

Weisgerber

Serwa

De Jong

Dalton

Anderson

K. Jones

Chisholm

Jarvis

Hurd

Tanner

NAYS -- 28

Boone

Jackson

Beattie

Schreck

Lortie

Lali

Giesbrecht

Smallwood

Gabelmann

Blencoe

Barnes

Pullinger

B. Jones

Copping

Lovick

Hammell

Farnworth

Evans

Dosanjh

O'Neill

Hartley

Streifel

Lord

Krog

Randall

Garden

Kasper

Brewin

C. Serwa: The Attorney General must feel like the Maytag salesman, sitting there in the executive branch of the cabinet. He has been all alone this afternoon, and I know that he must be a little bit lonely. It is very interesting that the same scenario that unfolds at the

[ Page 2767 ]

moment with the executive branch of government occurred when we were in government. There was a quiet revolution that took place on the part of caucus at that time, indicating that if the ministers were going to have a short work week, then it was only fair that caucus members have a short work week. I imagine a quiet revolution will probably be underway in the ranks of the private members along the government side.

Interjections.

C. Serwa: I can hear that it's happening.

I'm very pleased to fundamentally support the philosophy and principles of Bill 64, the Members' Conflict of Interest Amendment Act, because, as I said earlier, it's quite in line and in keeping with initiatives that the former administration put forward, first as the Premier's guidelines, and secondly, in 1990, as legislation.

I am really disappointed with the failure of the amendment and the reluctance of the government side to move it forward to committee, because I think that if there ever was a valid opportunity to strive to get the best possible support for very important legislation that affects all of the legislators in this assembly, this was that opportunity. When we look at the requirement and the statement for open and honest government, it seems that the government will have second thoughts about their reluctance.

I know that these series of amendments certainly took high priority with the promises of the government. I have no difficulty with the quality of the promise and the integrity of the Attorney General. I have a lot more difficulty, however, with the current government and the maintenance of their election promises. Nevertheless, the reality is that the bill is before us.

A great deal of discussion has taken place in debate this afternoon on the philosophy and principles of this bill, and rightfully so. I lament again that this important piece of legislation comes in at a late date in the life of this session of the Legislature, and that the time commitments do not permit the length and quality of debate. I certainly would have liked to have heard a great deal more on this particular debate from the government private members, who should have an opportunity to voice their opinions. After all, I reinforce the fact that it is the Members' Conflict of Interest Amendment Act.

There are a number of areas that we will cover in debate when it comes to the Committee of the Whole. I'll have a lot of comments to make at that point in time. My concern is not so much in what the act says; it's what the act doesn't say. Whether the members of this Legislature are aware of it or not, it makes it increasingly difficult for some members of the public in this province to strive for election into the Legislature. The reason is that it is becoming increasingly difficult to keep up with the requirements. Entrepreneurs are involved in different business endeavours and interests.

That doesn't necessarily imply that there's any diminishment in the quality of commitment to the Legislature. It doesn't deny that they will be objective in striving to work for the best interests of all British Columbians. I think that's what we're all here for, not to work for special-interest or single-interest groups. All of our efforts have to be mindful of a responsibility to all the electors in British Columbia, and that is obviously a very diverse and wide group with a wide range of interests and concerns.

This particular legislation, however, leaves out a number of specific areas of concern, some of which I might bring out. We are talking of conflict of interest; we are talking of personal benefit. It appears to me to be a conflict if a member retains a seat in some other level of government and is sitting in the House. I don't think the legislation addresses that.

Interjection.

C. Serwa: The hon. member says that it does, but I have my doubts that there are members in this House who have retained positions on regional districts, as aldermen or....

An Hon. Member: Councillors.

C. Serwa: Formerly aldermen; now as councillors with the new legislation. Thank you very much for the prompting from my friends across the way.

Certainly that appears to be a definite conflict, in my perspective. All members must be mindful of that. It is a conflict.

When I was elected to the Legislature, I resigned from about half a dozen positions.

D. Lovick: Happy days.

C. Serwa: Happy days -- that's what the members says. But it was imperative to me that there was no possible perception of a conflict, whether it be with the parks board, the Small Bore Rifle Association, KEREDA -- Kelowna Economic Recovery and Employment Development Association -- a variety of elements whereby I could have utilized my role to influence government members and the executive branch. I felt that it was important that we not do that, but that we focus specifically as legislators responsible to our constituents and as members of government in the broad sense and members of the Legislature to be mindful, as I say, that our responsibility is to all British Columbians.

What about groups? How do we define "groups?" Where does that conflict...? Obviously if I came in here representing an industry, I would be in direct conflict, in my perception. Under this legislation, as a private member I'm probably not in direct conflict, and maybe my opportunity to influence the executive branch in that field is not as effective as it formerly was. I don't think that is right. But I also don't think that it's right or appropriate that union representatives continue to put forward those specific influences that will benefit their colleagues and themselves when they are out of the Legislature.

Our time here is finite, and we will return to the other world outside the Legislature. I know there are direct benefits that are accrued in that particular

[ Page 2768 ]

situation. So I have some difficulty when either the members here or former members of government are looking after the interests of perhaps one of the large unions -- B.C. Government Employees' Union, for example -- as one of their interests. That to me is a dreadful conflict, and certainly the perception and the reality of that dreadful conflict is out there. I don't know that the apparent conflict controls that, because they're one of a large group. Nevertheless, it's not as different to a member representing an industry, and that's what my concern is.

I suggest that the legislation would have been improved if it had taken the broad range of concerns of all the members of the Legislature into consideration. The legislation has been structured, and I give the Attorney General and the drafters of this legislation.... I think an honest and genuine attempt has been made with the amendments to keep it as open as possible, but there is a bias in this particular piece of legislation, and that bias has crept in because of the influence of some of those special interest groups, or single-interest groups, that the members on the government side of the House tend to represent.

That bias will come out and restrict, reduce the opportunity for a broad cross-section of people of British Columbia to seek office in the provincial Legislature. That gives me a great deal of concern, hon. Speaker. I know that it gives you a great deal of concern as well, because if we're to serve the public, the people of British Columbia, we must be mindful of that responsibility, not only to provide that service but to ensure that all members of this very diverse society have the opportunity to seek election.

I recognize that several sections in there were incorporated as a former member of this Legislature was reluctant to comply with the former conflict-of-interest act. While I'm not going to make any judgment on that, I'm just saying that what has transpired is that even with our government, we are starting to make it so complex and so difficult to comply that perhaps we're not going to get the quality individuals with that broad-based perspective that makes the decisions of this Legislature credible. They have to be credible in the minds of the public.

So faith, trust and confidence are imperative to the success of the actions and the activities of this Legislature. Credibility and integrity are paramount requirements. There can be no compromise. I am certainly an advocate of the spirit, the philosophy and the principles of this legislation.

If I had my druthers, I would have welcomed the opportunity to be a participant in the formulation of this legislation, and having that opportunity -- and I respect my colleagues on the government side -- to communicate directly and to voice our specific concerns so that all members were aware of the requirement for the specific initiatives. I believe that all members are in accord with the concept of the principles. We could have discussed it and ensured that it was broad and open, and yet covered everything equitably and fairly.

[4:30]

I suspect with reluctance that my suggestion that bias had somehow now crept into the conflict of interest amendments is real, and that the refusal to run to committee only adds to my specific concern. Again, that's not to cast any negative thoughts or ideas with respect to the commitment of the Attorney General, because if I respected only one member in that government, I would continue to respect our Attorney General. He deserves that type of respect.

As for the commissioner, I don't think we could have found a man more competent to fill the role. Ted Hughes has earned a justifiably excellent reputation for his knowledge of law. As a former deputy minister for the Attorney General he earned a very good reputation. He has maintained that reputation of integrity, honesty and fairness in spite of enormous pressures -- many of them political pressures imposed on him. So I have no difficulty with the commissioner or with the nobleness of his intent.

However, I do have some difficulty with the legislation that has been put forward at this time and the reluctance of government to open it up so that the standing committee of this Legislature can look at it and perhaps enhance it and certainly enhance its credibility.

Thank you very much, hon. Speaker, for the opportunity to address this important act.

C. Tanner: I appreciate the fact that the amendment didn't go through, and I've got to tell the minister that I'm disappointed. It would have been an opportunity to discuss two other acts which need to be looked at in the same light -- the Constitution Act and the Election Act, both of which relate to conflict of interest and have a bearing on the conflict of interest act. I'm disappointed that there wasn't one individual on that side of the House who could stand up and speak differently than directed by the Attorney General's office.

The Attorney General has had a busy season. He's got another five or six bills on the order paper. He couldn't possibly have given this bill the amount of time and intelligence that were needed to be applied to it. Madam Speaker, I think they've made a mistake. I think they should have let the public have an opportunity to voice their point of view in front of the committee, and I personally will have to vote against the bill.

The Speaker: The Attorney General rises to close debate.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: First of all I need to say that I think a number of very good points have been made in the debate this afternoon, and I don't reject at all the concerns expressed by members opposite. I intend, between now and next week, to review very carefully what has been said on a number of issues. I'm confident at this stage that we can proceed to committee stage next week and end up with a good product. I would like to do that, as I said earlier in my comments on the proposed amendment.

I think in the final analysis what we need here is legislation that has public confidence and the confidence of all members of the House. That's a very important goal. I hope that by taking some days over the weekend to have a look at this -- all of us -- we can

[ Page 2769 ]

in fact achieve a bill next week which becomes

an act very soon.

I was attracted to the idea of spending some further time reviewing the issue, and if I thought the House was going to sit for another month, I would have had no problem with the suggestion that was made. I am very troubled, however, by delaying for a year, or for the most part of a year, the implementation of what I think is really very important legislation -- legislation that we committed to bring in at this session.

We are going to embark on a process to deal with legislation that extends the coverage of conflict to public servants, to the public sector, including municipal councils and school boards; in the process of doing that, I think there could be continuing discussion about the efficacy of the legislation. If next year we need to make amendments to it, then I certainly would be open to that.

Next week's debate in committee can perhaps make some refinements, and then we'll have a year to live with the legislation to see how it works. At the end of that, I think members will feel comfortable about the legislation. I think it strikes the balance that some members have referred to. We don't want to scare people off from running, particularly people who have assets of various kinds, who may feel that this kind of disclosure requirement is too difficult for them. Frankly, what scares off people who have lots of assets isn't the conflict-of-interest legislation; it's the fact that you don't get paid very much when you come here. However, I recognize the concern.

In discussing this with Mr. Hughes, I'm absolutely comfortable that the procedures that will be followed to enforce the legislation will be such that no one should have any fear that their position will be compromised. There are things we give up when we come to public life. The public expects us to have a higher standard, to behave differently in respect of our private interests. The public is increasingly demanding a degree of honour that is tough sometimes to keep up to, but I think those demands are correct. We have to find ways of ensuring that both our standards and the perceptions of our standards are exemplary and of the highest magnitude.

This is a tough bill; I make no apologies about that. If it's maybe too tough, as is being suggested by opposition members, then I'm prepared to look at those questions in the next few days before we go to committee stage. I've chosen not to respond directly to each of the individual issues that have been raised. Most can be dealt with far better in a back-and-forth exchange at committee stage. I've made notes of all the substantive issues raised by members of the opposition, and I will make sure they're covered in the committee stage debate.

With that, hon. Speaker, I move second reading.

Motion approved on division.

Bill 64, Members' Conflict of Interest Amendment Act, 1992, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: Hon. Speaker, with the indulgence of the House, it being 4:40, I would prefer to leave the CORE legislation until tomorrow so that Mr. Stephen Owen could be present while we debate it, if that's agreeable. I sent a note to find out whether he'd be available, but I haven't got the answer yet.

J. Tyabji: I won't be here tomorrow.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: You won't be here tomorrow.

Fair enough, I'll call committee on Bill 56.

COMMISSIONER ON RESOURCES

AND ENVIRONMENT ACT

The House in committee on Bill 56; E. Barnes in the chair.

Section 1 approved.

section 2.

J. Tyabji: As the minister is aware, the opposition has had a recommendation with regard to this section. Wherein as it reads the commissioner is appointed by the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council and reports to the executive council, the opposition would have preferred that the commissioner be an officer of the House and therefore report to the House.

The reason the opposition felt extremely strongly about this is that -- very much in the same way that the ombudsman and the conflict-of-interest commissioner are officers of the House -- we feel that in developing something like a provincewide land use strategy for British Columbia, it's very important for the entire House to be there for the receipt of the report or recommendation, on the understanding that obviously the executive council is the final architect, if you will, of the legislation that would follow from the report or recommendation.

However, the opposition felt extremely strongly that in order for the commissioner to function independent of the executive council, the entire House should be aware of the report or recommendation as it is made, so that later on, when the commissioner goes to the executive council for any kind of negotiations with regard to legislation based on the report or recommendation, the rest of the House would also be aware of the nature of the negotiations.

Therefore when the final bills were drafted and presented to the House, we would be able to debate those bills based on our previous knowledge from the presentation by the officer of the House to the House. I would like to hear the Attorney General's comments with regard to how he feels about it being to the executive council rather than to the House. We really feel that that would be a much better way of dealing with this, particularly because it's not legislation; it's the report or recommendation.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: I understand the suggestions made by the opposition critic. I think it's important for members to know, or to understand, that Mr.

[ Page 2770 ]

Owen's responsibility in his job is to deal with policy and policy advice to the executive council. The ombudsman and the auditor general deal with administrative questions, not policy questions. The ombudsman and auditor general, and soon the freedom-of-information commissioner are agents of the House. The commissioner on resources and environment is, in a different sense, an agent of the executive council, is employed by the executive council. The commissioner reports to the executive council on policy issues.

In other sections of the bill, the commissioner has the authority to make his commentary public; if the commissioner does so, all members of the House will have received that commentary. Because of that essential difference between policy and administration, it is our view that it would be inappropriate to have the commissioner be an officer of the House. In fact, in that sense he's an employee of the executive council.

[4:45]

J. Tyabji: I don't want to belabour this point. When you start talking about the commissioner being an employee of the executive council, I think that would then undermine the independence -- although you do allow for public accounting later on in the bill, which we'll get to. I think that the administrative and policy distinctions, although they're important.... Generally, as for the House, we have the select standing committees for dealing with policy issues.

What I would put to the Attorney General is that in this case we have policy issues of such magnitude and far-reaching consequence that there is no one select standing committee that you could refer the commissioner to. Therefore the House would basically be the Committee of the Whole, in effect, bringing together all the members of the House to hear the report of the commissioner.

It seems to me, too, based on the mandate given to the commissioner, that because it is an overall land use strategy that's being developed and because we're looking at various resource uses, recreational uses and wildlife uses of the land, and the environmental parameters that surround those uses, these are things that we all have to take

part in putting together. Just as in a discussion I had yesterday with another person.... When we were dealing with the constitution, we saw a very constructive process developed in the House, which unfortunately the House doesn't really have an avenue for. We did it during the estimates debate. If the estimates debate weren't on, we wouldn't have had the opportunity to do that. Yet I think it was recognized by all three parties that everybody had some extremely constructive input that they could offer to that process, which pushes the process further along.

As far as the work of the commissioner goes, I know that when the reports and recommendations are ready, the opposition would love to have the ability to hear them prior to their going to the executive council, so that we could have input and contribute at that stage of the process. We all know that the executive council has the final decision, but we also know that each of us in the House brings different perspectives and talents to the table.

It's with that in mind that the opposition feels very strongly that each elected member of this House should have an ability to hear that report or recommendation when it's brought forward, rather than its going straight to the executive council. We feel very strongly about that.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: Once again, to read subsection 3(2), "if the commissioner considers that the public interest will be best served by making a report to the public," the commissioner can and will. Therefore all members will have access to such a report. Let's remember that what the commission is doing is working to help the executive council, the Minister of Forests, the Minister of Environment and other ministers to develop policy.

Many of the recommendations that will come forward will end up being reviewed by the various ministries, by cabinet committees, by cabinet itself and then, following that kind of process, being enacted into public policy. It's not so much that a lot of what's being done is in the way of reports. Much of what might be done can be done in an ongoing way, almost daily, without benefit of a formal report.

It seems to us.... First of all, we recognize the need to not have the commissioner report to one minister, because of the need to have an interdisciplinary approach to this and to not tag the commissioner with one particular ministry's identification. So we chose this rather unique idea of reporting to the executive council, because it's an ongoing policy-making issue. We recognize, however, that if the commissioner were to be seen by the public to be independent and free to make recommendations to government independent of government, there needs to be some independence built into the procedure. We've done that by a fixed term of office. We've done that by the

section I've just referred to in terms of making public any reports if he chooses to. It just doesn't make sense from a policy-making perspective to have what is a daily, ongoing policy-making process report to the House, when in fact it may be that the House wouldn't be sitting for some months in a given year. We'd be getting on with making decisions about resource use planning in this province.

J. Tyabji: With regard to

section 3(2), I will certainly talk to that when we get there. But going back to the point that the Attorney General was making about the fact that it is an ongoing policy-driving exercise, we recognize that. However, although we have the orders-in-council and the bills, I think the Attorney General will agree that the process that serves the public better by far is with bills and the exercise in the House where we have debate on bills.

The unfortunate thing with regard to how we bring things about is that if we get the reports to the executive council -- when the opposition deals with it, it is either at the same time that the general public receives it, where there is very little avenue for debate, except whatever we might be allowed through the media -- when it comes to the House in the form of a bill through the executive council, it's in finished f