[ Page 3403 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Oral Questions.

Pre-build section of Alaska gas pipeline. Mr. Macdonald –– 3404

Staffing of Infant Development Program. Ms. Brown –– 3405

Rock blasting in Alice Arm. Mr. Passarell –– 3405

Water pollution in greater Victoria. Mr. Hanson –– 3405

Long-term care review team. Mr. Cocke –– 3406

Committee of Supply; Ministry of Health estimates. (Hon. Mr. Mair)

Votes 114 to 124 inclusive approved –– 3407

Committee of Supply; Ministry of Municipal Affairs estimates. (Hon. Mr. Vander

Zalm)

On vote 162: minister's office –– 3407

Mr. Barber

Mr. Levi

MONDAY, JULY 21, 1980

The House met at 2 p.m.

[Mr. Davidson in the chair.]

Prayers.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Speaker, I'm pleased to see that we have a friend in the gallery today who lived in Vancouver at one time and now resides in Victoria. I wonder if the House would welcome Mrs. Bunty Ward.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, I ask leave of the House to make a statement and move a motion.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Shall leave be granted?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker....

AN HON. MEMBER: No.

MR. BARRETT: ...I move....

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member....

AN HON. MEMBER: Too late.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: No. Hon. member, the Chair made no indication that a "no...." The obvious move at that time was for a member to indicate to the Chair that a "no" was expressed. I have that expression. The motion cannot be moved, hon. member, without unanimous consent. There is not unanimous consent.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, the House is not informed that this is a motion dealing with the fact that the federal House of Commons is debating an important matter related….

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. BARRETT: I didn't hear a "no."

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member, the Chair was clearly informed that a "no" was given.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Chairman, you called on me to proceed, and I started. Then he said "no" after I was called to proceed. Once being recognized, I should proceed.

HON. MR. CHABOT: On a point of order, I clearly identified a "no." Unfortunately, you didn't hear it. I repeated it to bring to your attention that I wasn't supporting the statement from the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. BARRETT: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I chose this particular route because the matter of the pre-build natural gas line is important to all British Columbians and this is the best way of dealing with this issue. I heard no one over there say "no."

AN HON. MEMBER: You sure did.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please, hon. members. The Chair is obliged, when a "no" is brought to the attention of the Chair, to rule that unanimous consent is not given. Unanimous consent in this case has not been given. My hands are tied.

MR. BARRETT: On the point of order, I was called and recognized to have the floor after I asked for leave. You called on me saying that I had the floor. I was then prepared to move and only then was any move made. Whoever said "no" was out of order because I already had the floor.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member, with all due respect, the Chair has an obligation that when unanimous consent is asked for and the Chair hears no ''noes" and allows the member to proceed at that time, as has happened in this House before, it is the obligation of an hon. member who has said "no" to stand in his place or to let the Chair know that in fact he did say "no" at that time. That has been done. Hon. members, the Chair cannot allow, under our standing orders, a member to proceed with unanimous consent when in fact there is not unanimous consent.

MR. BARRETT: I'll ask again, so that it can be clearly spelled out. I am asking for leave to make a statement on a debate that is taking place hour by hour in the House of Commons affecting energy needs. I ask leave to make a statement and move a motion so we can go on record in this House as being opposed to the pre-build.

Leave not granted.

MR. BARRETT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. We know that there's no opposition over there to the pre-build.

MR. LEA: On a point of order, I bring this up so that I can ask you to look into it. During this last session every time a member of the opposition gets up and asks for leave to make a statement, the Minister of Lands, Parks and Housing (Hon Mr. Chabot) says "no." There's no point in having this rule in our book if at some time it isn't allowed.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member, the Chair is straining to find a point of order.

MR. LEA: What I'm asking you to do, Mr. Speaker, is to come back to this House and report on the relevancy of having this rule in our rule book when the Minister of Lands, Parks and Housing says "no" every time.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member, it is not the task or role of the Chair to report on the standing orders. If members are not happy with the standing orders, there are means open to each and every member of this House. The point is well made by the member.

MR. HOWARD: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I think it would be incumbent upon the Chair to ask those in the chamber who may say "no" in such an instance — particularly in this instance — to identify themselves in their place by saying "no," because even though the rules prevent it,

[ Page 3404 ]

there's nothing to stop someone in the gallery from hollering out, "no," and the Chair hearing that. In this particular instance it was the minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources (Hon. Mr. McClelland) himself who said "no" to such a request for leave, and that should be on the record.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member, the member is clearly now engaging in a debate on the subject. The point that the member raised is well taken. Nonetheless, our standing orders are clear.

AN HON. MEMBER: It isn't well taken if it's against the standing orders.

MR. HOWARD: But it is a well-taken point of order that you should seek that the person stand in his place and say no. That's my point of order.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: That's not part of our standing orders, hon. member.

MR. BARNES: Mr. Speaker, I'd like leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

MR. BARNES: Mr. Speaker, with us this afternoon are Mr. and Mrs. Karl Muldowan. Karl and Ursula are from Vancouver and are visiting in our capital city this afternoon away from their busy schedule. I'd like the House to make them welcome.

MR. KING: Mr. Speaker, I seek leave to make an introduction also.

Leave granted.

MR. KING: Mr. Speaker, I would ask the House to join me in extending a....

Interjections.

MR. KING: Would you call the Premier to order, Mr. Speaker, so everyone can hear this important message?

Mr. Speaker, I would like the House to join me in welcoming the Paul Sorensen family from Revelstoke who are visiting in the capital today. I would ask you to extend a warm welcome to them.

Oral Questions

PRE-BUILD SECTION OF
ALASKA GAS PIPELINE

MR. MACDONALD: I have a question to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources. In view of the grave legal doubts as to whether the federal cabinet, under section 20 of the Northern Pipeline Act can, by order-in-council, repeal the substance and intent of section 12 of the act, which requires that financing be in hand to complete the whole natural gas pipeline by 1985 before part of it can be authorized, has the minister sought legal advice with a view to challenging the position of the federal government with respect to this pre-build, which threatens our markets?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: A legal question has been asked. Interpretation of a legal question....

MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, I asked him whether he had sought legal advice. I didn't ask him for the contents of it or to give a legal explanation.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The question is in order.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: The answer to the question is simple: yes, we have. In terms of our intervention at the National Energy Board, for instance, a representative of the Attorney-General's ministry appeared for the government of British Columbia at the National Energy Board hearings. We have had legal advice throughout all of the period in which this pre-build has been open for debate. Friday last, the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Williams) and the Minister of Industry and Small Business Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips), as co-chairmen of the British Columbia pipeline committee, sent a Telex to the Hon. Bud Olson, who is the chairman of the committee for economic development for the federal government and the chairman responsible for the pipeline matter. The Telex was sent to them, asking them for the full details of what Ottawa expected to happen. All through that, as well, legal advice has been sought and given to the provincial government.

MR. MACDONALD: Having legal advice, has the minister decided to challenge legally the order-in-council of the federal government which threatens the market for natural gas of the province of British Columbia? Is he prepared to take this fight into the courts? Have you made that decision?

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: No, we haven't made that decision at this point.

MR. BARRETT: Check with Alberta.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: I might ask that the Leader of the Opposition might have legal advice because he is seriously misinformed about the matter in terms of what the federal government plans to do. We would like, first of all, to find out exactly what the federal government intends to do, in terms of both condition 12 of the pipeline agreement, and section 20 and all the other sections which relate to the guarantees that are required to be put in place. Until we have that from the federal government I am sure it would be most difficult for British Columbia to decide that any legal action should be taken or not taken. As soon as that happens, the co-chairmen of the pipeline committee, one of whom is the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Williams), will be making recommendations to this government. Until that happens, however, there will be no precipitous action.

MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, on a further question, does the minister not know that last Thursday the order- in-council was passed rescinding the essentials of condition 12, which sets out the conditions? If you are going to take action, why do you put it off day after day? You have that information. It is either a valid order-in-council or it isn't. Why are you not prepared to take action now? Are you serious about your opposition to this pre-build, or did you agree with Premier Lougheed on that and is he really running this province? You're not serious about challenging it.

[ Page 3405 ]

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Speaker, I don't know that that has happened, and neither does the second member for Vancouver East. That's one of the reasons we don't want to jump off the edge of the cliff — until we know what the facts are. It is my understanding that Senator Bud Olson….

Interjections.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Speaker, I think it's important that the opposition understand exactly what has happened and what hasn't happened.

Senator Bud Olson has been quoted as saying that he is waiting this week for a recommendation from the National Energy Board about whether or not the terms of condition 12 have been met. Until that happens and Senator Olson has said he is sure what the National Energy Board will recommend, until we know exactly the position of the federal government.... Again, I must say that a Telex went off immediately we knew that this matter was before the federal cabinet. Until that happens I doubt that it would be possible for any further action to be taken.

MR. MACDONALD: It happened last Thursday.

AN HON. MEMBER: What did they do? Do you have a copy of the order-in-council? I'd sure like to see it.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: There was no order-in-council.

MR. MACDONALD: You're not up to date. I'll come and see you and fill you in.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Show me a copy of the order-in-council.

MR. MACDONALD: You're just playing games.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please, hon. members.

STAFFING OF INFANT
DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM

MS. BROWN: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Human Resources. Can the minister confirm that in Kelowna the Infant Development Program, an extremely worthwhile program which works with assisting handicapped children, has been granted an additional part-time worker to help deal with their tremendous problem of understaffing?

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: No, Mr. Speaker, I cannot confirm that, although in an interview just recently I was asked if I was aware of that. I haven't had it confirmed by my staff, but it was intimated in an interview that they did have another half-time worker, I believe. I'm pleased that the member made reference to it being such a good service, because it is true, throughout this province, that the Infant Development Program has proven to be an excellent service.

MS. BROWN: Can the minister confirm, therefore, that there is a province-wide freeze on the addition of staff to all other Infant Development Programs, despite the fact that there is an overwhelming need to improve and expand this very excellent program?

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: No, Mr. Speaker, I cannot confirm that. All of our programs have been expanded, as the member would know, according to the budgetary allotment to my ministry, which was increased by 17 percent this year, through the budget that we debated in this House.

The applications for either increasing or adding to any of the programs are done on a regional basis; the decisions in our ministry are made at a regional level, not here in Victoria. So some areas of the province, if they wish to augment their Infant Development Program, would perhaps increase staff, and in other areas would augment yet another program depending on what the need is in that particular area.

The member who has asked the question should know that the regional director in each area has that area's concerns most close to his or her mind and makes the decision on that basis.

MS. BROWN: Is the minister suggesting, then, that the freeze on hiring which was recommended by her colleague, the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Curtis), I think, does not apply to your ministry? Is that what the minister is suggesting?

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: When I was asked questions regarding a freeze on hiring, I suggested very clearly that none of the programs in our ministry, the Ministry of Human Resources, would be cut back; that was not a request of the Minister of Finance. We are not cutting back any services; we have not deleted any services; and any intimation that the member has just made that we are cutting back services just is not true. We have not cut back services, and indeed we have a statutory obligation to fulfill all of those services which we presently have going.

MS. BROWN: Mr. Speaker, if I might just correct the minister, I did not use the word "cutback;" I used the word "freeze." Can the minister tell the House whether the freeze on the hiring of future staff, which was recommended by her colleague, does not apply to the Ministry of Human Resources?

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Where there is a demonstrated need for services and as the regional directors have requested staff, those staff positions will be filled.

ROCK BLASTING IN ALICE ARM

MR. PASSARELL: I have a short snapper to the Minister of Environment, Amax Mines have asked the federal fisheries department to permit blasting and dumping of rock in Alice Arm. Has the minister made representation to the federal fisheries minister demanding that the current ban on blasting be maintained?

HON. MR. ROGERS: No.

WATER POLLUTION
IN GREATER VICTORIA

MR. HANSON: I have a question to the Minister of Health. As difficult as this is to believe, the marine waters

[ Page 3406 ]

adjacent to the capital city of British Columbia and the adjacent municipalities are so polluted that they are a hazard to health. Nine beaches have been closed. The regional health officer indicates that the coliform levels are so high in some beaches that they are not even monitoring them anymore.

In view of the increasing concern that this is raising in this area, have you recommended to your colleague, the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm), that full sewerage treatment for the region should be established to counteract this problem?

HON. MR. MAIR: The short answer to the question is no, I haven't. I certainly will take the question the member poses under consideration, and if my investigations or my ministry's investigations indicate that any communication between myself and the Ministry of Municipal Affairs or the Ministry of Environment is necessary, then I will make such recommendations.

MR. HANSON: I have a supplementary to the Minister of Municipal Affairs. Have you decided to notify the local authorities, the Capital Regional District, to advise them that you're prepared to pay the full three-quarters funding under the Sewerage Facilities Assistance Act. so that full, long-range remedial action could take place on this important problem?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: The Capital Regional District would have to make the application and present the case to the ministry.

LONG-TERM CARE REVIEW TEAM

MR. COCKE: My question is to the Minister of Health. Can the minister confirm that Mr. Paul Hanbury of Kamloops is departing as chairman of the minister's long-term care review team prior to the completion of the work of the team?

HON. MR. MAIR: I'm sorry, I didn't hear the question.

MR. BRUMMET: Read it again!

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, if the illiterate member for Peace River was just congratulating me on reading a question....

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. I must ask the member to withdraw the word, which was inadvertently used. Would the member so withdraw?

MR. COCKE: I withdraw; there was nothing inadvertent about it.

Can the minister confirm that Mr. Paul Hanbury of Kamloops is departing as chairman of the minister's long-term care team prior to the completion of the work of the team?

HON. MR. MAIR: I think the member for New Westminster must have some of Mr. Vander Zalm's licorices, which probably prevented me from hearing the full question the first time round. I know the handicap one is under with those licorices.

My understanding is that Mr. Hanbury has not left his position but has completed his work and is now writing his report from Kamloops. It will be in my hands, I am told, in a couple of weeks' time.

MR. COCKE: Can the minister advise whether Mrs. Jan Thibedeau — a nutritionist from Nelson — announced by the minister on May 27 as a member of the team, is no longer serving in that capacity?

HON. MR. MAIR: No, I can't advise one way or the other on that. I'll have to find out and get back to the member.

MR. COCKE: In light of the minister's refusal, announced by his assistant deputy Isabel Kelly, to accept a member of the health employee workers as a member of the team, is the minister now prepared to cooperate with the hospital workers with respect to the team?

HON. MR. MAIR: Well, Mr. Speaker, I guess I've been engaged in here too long. I don't have anybody looking around for questions to ask me, so I'm going to have to go and check on that with my ministry. I had understood that we had extended an invitation to the unions to get themselves involved in this study. It seemed to me I had some exchange with either Mr. Gerow or a person in his office. I had understood that that was to be the arrangement, but perhaps I'm wrong. I'll check again with my ministry and get back to the member.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. members, the Chair has noticed that there is different attire on some members today. I would point out that under standing order 9 the Speaker "shall preserve order and decorum" in the House. The ruling of the Chair will be that the male members shall wear shirts, ties and jackets in this chamber and would appreciate that members would....

Interjections.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. I am not going to enforce the regulation today, but tomorrow that will be the rule of this House.

MR. BARRETT: On this point, Mr. Speaker....

DEPUTY SPEAKER: It's not a point for debate, hon. member. It is a ruling by the Chair.

MR. BARRETT: I bring to your attention that there is a ruling in existence from Speaker Schroeder that contradicts the statement you just made. I would ask that the House be advised that if rules are to be changed, notification be given members beforehand to avoid any confusion among members coming into the chamber.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: As I pointed out, the regulation was to come into effect tomorrow, for the benefit of those members.

MR. LEA: I need a bit of clarification on the Speaker's ruling. Are you saying that there is going to be a rule how males will dress in here, but none for women?

[ Page 3407 ]

DEPUTY SPEAKER: For the information of the member, no dress of female members of this chamber has ever had to come to the attention of the Chair.

MR. NICOLSON: On a point of order, the House is guided, of course, by the parliamentary authorities and rules but also by practice and by previous Speakers' rulings. I would urge that before hard and fast positions are taken, members and Mr. Speaker refer to the ruling of Speaker Schroeder, with which I am not intimately familiar, before taking such a thing into consideration. I should say that in the years that I've been in this House, since 1972, there have been some considerations made for certain members in terms of their dress; it has been a practice that one or two persons do wear slightly non-conforming attire, wearing not a jacket but I believe a type of caftan. I would think that eight years of practice would actually set the practice of the House. I would ask Mr. Speaker, with respect, to consider that before next day.

MR. LEA: I would also ask that you look at the Constitution Act, because I believe that it says there can be no rule that applies differently to one member than to another.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Where?

MR. LEA: I will get the section, because it does say that in there. I think that your ruling would fly in the face of our Constitution Act, which governs us all. I think the Speaker agrees with me, and I think that the Constitution Act will not allow that rule.

MR. BARNES: I would just like to ask that, when you are considering the new regulation you give us some indication as to what is defined as a shirt, what is defined as a jacket and what is defined as a tie. Because I would point out to the Speaker that last year, in rather onerous times, we were required at least to review the rules and everyone was wearing shirt and tie, for obvious reasons; it was common sense. The weather is changing now, and we may find ourselves in a similar position, and you may be imposing a regulation that will be most difficult even for you, sir, to adhere to.

HON. MR. CHABOT: On a point of order, conditions of this chamber have changed dramatically in recent years. The chamber is now air-conditioned. It might have been a burden on the members to adhere to proper decorum in the House in the past, but it is no longer that situation. I just want to bring to your attention, Mr. Speaker, a ruling brought down by Speaker Murray in 1967 regarding decorum. I wish you would refer to that one as you do your research.

Orders of the Day

The House in Committee of Supply; Mr. Strachan in the chair.

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF HEALTH

(continued)

Vote 114: minister's office, $165,162 — approved.

Vote 115: administration and support services, $25,080,048 — approved.

Vote 116: preventive services, $41,525,910 — approved.

Vote 117: direct community care services, $257,891,426 — approved.

[Mr. Davidson in the chair.]

Vote 118: Hospital Programs, $795,254,313 — approved unanimously on a division.

An hon. member requested that leave be asked to record the division in the Journals of the House.

Vote 119: Medical Services Commission, $345,837,500 — approved,

Vote 120: Emergency Health Services Commission, $34,071,000 — approved.

Vote 121: Forensic Psychiatric Services Commission, $5,126,889 — approved.

Vote 122: Alcohol and Drug Commission, $12,797,336 — approved.

Vote 123: building occupancy charges, $30,919,000 — approved.

Vote 124: computer and consulting charges, $2,317,000 — approved.

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF
MUNICIPAL AFFAIRS

On vote 162: minister's office, $165,465.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Mr. Chairman, it is a pleasure to participate in this committee, to debate the estimates for my ministry, and hopefully to address any concerns that might be expressed by any of the members here. I am very pleased that I have the benefit of very competent staff. They haven't arrived quite yet, but they are on their way. As a matter of fact, things went a little more quickly in the last few moments than I had anticipated.

We are certainly very pleased in my ministry to have a very competent deputy minister, Mr. Bill Long, who is undoubtedly the most respected senior official in the province in the area of municipal affairs. He has had a long-time experience in both Municipal Affairs finance and planning. I have also had the advantage of the advice of my assistant deputy ministers, Mr. John Taylor and Mr. Chris Woodward. Mr. Long and his two assistants, along with the directors and staff in the ministry, have competently provided expertise and support to all of the municipalities and regional districts throughout British Columbia.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

The Ministry of Municipal Affairs is noted for its quality of staff, as opposed to quantity. Ours is one of the smallest ministries in government in numbers, yet it is the fifth largest ministry in budgetary expenditures.

[ Page 3408 ]

Mr. Chairman, I would like to preface my introduction to the Ministry of Municipal Affairs estimates with some remarks about recent accomplishments of the ministry. Recently we were able to announce the percentage decrease for the contributions by municipalities with respect to welfare costs. This has been reduced from 10 percent to 7 percent. In 1980, now that there are no budgetary restrictions and higher total provincial welfare program costs, the rate would have been $1.72 per capita if the old percentage sharing formula had remained at 10 percent. However, with the percentage of 7 percent the rate has been reduced to $1.20 per capita.

The size and distribution of the 1980 municipal revenue sharing program is also very positive. For 1980 the revenue sharing formula will yield $176.2 million, an increase of $34.5 million or 24 percent over last year's total of $141.7 million. The revenue-sharing program distributes benefits through the seven subprograms, which are: (1) the basic grant, $4.2 million or 2 percent of the total amount; (2) the water facilities grants, $12.2 million or 7 percent of the total; (3) the housing growth grant, $10 million or 6 percent of the total; (4) the municipal major highway grants, increased recently to $15 million or 9 percent of the total; (5) the regional district grant. $2.2 million or 1 percent of the total; (6) the municipal planning grant, $1 million or 1 percent of the total; and (7) the unconditional grant, $131.6 million or 75 percent of the total revenue-sharing program.

The municipal basic grant provides $30,000 to each of British Columbia's 140 municipalities, regardless of size.

The water facilities grant covers 75 percent of annual debt repayments in excess of 2.5 mills for approved municipal and regional water systems.

The housing growth grant distributes $10 million in proportion to the number of housing starts in municipalities and regional districts. The provisional unit value of the grant in 1980 is approximately $300 per housing start.

The regional district grants comprise basic and administrative grants with a combined value of $40,000 for each of British Columbia's 28 regional districts.

Cost-sharing for planning grants also falls under this subprogram. The municipal planning grants can reimburse municipalities for up to two-thirds of approved planning costs. The maximum grant of each municipality is determined on a sliding population scale.

The unconditional grants account for the bulk of shared revenue. They are calculated for each municipality according to its relative population, budget and tax base. The announcement of each individual municipality's 1980 unconditional grant was made in early February in order to give municipalities the opportunity to provide their budgeting accordingly. Unconditional grants for 1980 total $131.6 million, up 19.7 percent over the 1979 level of $109.9 million. An increase of this magnitude should help municipal councils — or did help municipal councils, I think we could certainly say now — to restrain property taxes in 1980.

This increase reflects the province's encouraging prospects for economic growth on 1980 and 1981, as well as our past record of sound economic management. It also confirms the growing values of the revenue-sharing concept that we committed ourselves to in 1977.

The major municipal road-grant program under the Revenue Sharing Act has been increased to $15 million, as I mentioned earlier. That's an increase from $4 million last year, so it's certainly a substantial increase. The municipal highways grant pays 50 percent of approved road projects.

In addition, time limits within which municipalities must complete highway projects or lose provincial grants have been relaxed. The one-year time limit which was stipulated in the regulations caused problems, in that some municipalities were unable to complete projects on time due to external circumstances, including strikes and bad weather. Noncompliance with the time restriction exposed some municipalities to the risk of losing the grant. The provincial government has now amended the regulations to allow municipalities to carry forward into the following year any inadvertently unexpended grant moneys.

Several British Columbia municipalities and regional districts were designated to share a total of $25.2 million in 1980 under the Community Services Contribution Program funded by the federal government and administered by the Ministry of Municipal Affairs. The Community Services Contribution Program funds are allocated by the ministry on the basis of the financial condition of the community. The technical characteristics of the project and local environmental circumstances are also considered. The funds are given as a 20 percent grant of total capital costs.

I would reiterate, Mr. Chairman, at this point, that the Revenue Sharing Fund affords municipalities an opportunity to share in the revenue strength of the provincial government. This fund will receive $176.2 million in 1980-1981 — an increase of 24 percent from the previous year's allocation.

The Urban Transit Authority is budgeted to receive $69 million in 1980-1981, to reflect the provincial contribution of 75 percent of the shareable deficits of local transit systems. With the metropolitan transit system now in this program — or having come in last April 1 — the organizational agreements are in place for transit development in the 1980s.

Although we cannot exactly predict what form future transit systems will take, it is clear that very soon now circumstances may require large capital expenditures in urban transit networks. Therefore it is proposed to set aside, through the legislation which was before us earlier, a $55 million fund to be devoted to covering the province's contribution to the future capital requirements of the Urban Transit Authority.

Through direct grants to municipalities and school districts, and by the homeowner grant, the province is playing a major role in restraining the growth of local taxes. Direct grants to school districts will increase $29 million in 1980-1981, restricting the increase in the basic mill rate. The $100 increase in the homeowner grant introduced last year, and again provided for in this year's budget, is another measure to keep the taxes down especially, of course, for those who are receiving the bulk of the benefit — that is, the seniors and the handicapped.

As a step in ensuring the continued vitality of central city areas, we'll soon be discussing new legislation with respect to downtown revitalization. For this purpose we have provided $25 million, to be allocated to those areas that are eligible for the program. Grants under this program will be made to municipalities for the provision of public facilities in designated downtown improvement areas. Grants will also be made to reduce the interest-cost base for private owners who borrow funds to restore building exteriors, etc.

We have a very active Municipal Act Review Committee, representing all facets of municipal affairs, currently developing recommendations for the complete rewrite of the Municipal Act. The Municipal Act has not been substantially rewritten since 1957. Many provisions are outdated —

[ Page 3409 ]

they've been there since 1914 — and redundant. A large number of innovations may now be incorporated into the new Municipal Act.

Also, Mr. Chairman, there have certainly been a great many discussions with municipalities respecting the need for a municipal training officer. This has been pointed out time and time again by municipal people, and we are now establishing in the Ministry of Municipal Affairs an office for that purpose, in order to assist municipalities with respect to their training programs.

[Mr. Hyndman in the chair.]

I mentioned the provincial homeowner grant earlier, but certainly too we're very pleased that we were able to provide in the new Home Owner Grant Act opportunities for the 99-year lease holders.

I hope that we might receive a number of questions with respect to the budget; I'm sure we will. Of course, I'll have staff available then; they're here now. I'm pleased to attempt too answer all of the questions posed during the ensuing debate.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: How many days?

MR. BARBER: The Whip says 14.

First in 1976, again in 1977, 1978 and 1979, the official opposition proposed a royal commission on local government which would do precisely what the government has finally agreed to do — long overdue. The Municipal Act clearly needs a major rewrite. Once again I congratulate the official opposition for having succeeded in its arguments. I congratulate especially the official opposition critic for municipal affairs for making such an articulate and persuasive case that finally, after five years of trying, the government agreed with what we said five years ago.

AN HON. MEMBER: Who was that?

MR. BARBER: I don't remember his name, but Sam Bawlf does. I congratulate all of my colleagues, and myself, for persuading the ministry that finally a major rewrite of a fundamentally inadequate statute should be undertaken. There are, of course, various features that rewrite should include. We trust it won't take five years to encourage the government to see it our way concerning those features, but I'll get to that in a few moments. Nonetheless, congratulations are due to the official opposition for persuading the government to rewrite the Municipal Act.

Congratulations are also due to the official opposition for persuading the minister to change his mind totally regarding 99-year lease holders being eligible for the homeowner grant. Once more, I congratulate all my colleagues for persisting over five years. It is, I think, a measure of the success of the official opposition in this parliament that we are able to take credit for so much good legislation coming forward from the government.

Having gotten off on that rather unusual course, I'd like, if I may, to talk about the problems with this administration's attitude toward local government, the problem with Social Credit's attitude toward neighbourhood integrity and public transit, the problem of the attitude of car dealers everywhere toward the necessity for a successful and well-financed public transit system.

I'd like to point out that, as we might have expected from a Social Credit Minister of Municipal Affairs, his entire remarks concerned money. As far as we can tell his entire reply will concern money. One of the most damning indictments of Social Credit has always been, from every quarter including their own, that they lack vision. One of the most consistent attacks on Social Credit, and most certainly in regard to its Municipal Affairs policy, is that they lack wit and imagination, and have no shared or value-based notion of what an urban community is, or should be.

Lewis Mumford once said that cities are the storehouses of civilization. Mumford and many others argued that cities, being the storehouses of civilization, require thereby a level of care and respect, a level of public policy that appears to be far beyond the grasp of this most literal-minded minister, who seems to know no more about urban affairs than urban budgets, who seems to care no more about urban life than taxes, who seems to have no more imagination about what it means to live in a vital urban community than to repeat at some length the list of financial contributions his government proposes to make to certain programs.

It's been observed a number of times, but it has to be observed again today, that not once yet have we had from this minister any philosophical, spiritual or learned statement in any regard about what urban life means in North America. We hear instead endlessly and boringly repeated lists of budgetary donations, budgetary interests and budgetary facts — at least as the government would have us believe them. There is one point in regard to all that which should be made when one examines the minister's comments on revenue-sharing. The minister said that revenue-sharing has produced increased revenues. The program this year has produced, I think, $140 million. I'll look it up in the estimates in a moment. The minister neglected to point out that when revenues go up, revenue-sharing goes up, and when provincial revenues go down, municipal revenue-sharing also goes down. I want to predict the obvious, that if there continues to be a significant shortfall in natural gas and forest revenues this year, municipalities must now be prepared to reduce accordingly the amount they will expect to get next year from the municipal revenue-sharing program of this administration. I recall very clearly, in 1977, inquiring of the then Minister of Municipal Affairs as to whether or not the converse was also true, that when provincial revenues went up municipal revenues went up, and when provincial revenues went down so did municipal revenues. He agreed clearly, but that's the basis of the formula; that's the way in which the law works. The minister today could have said that because of the shortfall in provincial revenues, especially in the field of natural gas, municipal governments should today be notified — as I today notify them on behalf of the official opposition — that if the continuing shortfall occurs in the field of natural gas revenues, next year local governments will have to expect a noticeable reduction in those revenues for their own purposes.

A prudent minister who appears to be interested in nothing else than lists of financial commitments and with no idea, philosophic or broader, of what urban life should be about and some notion of how to obtain it, could at least just as prudently have made mention of toe fact that if the current trend continues, next year municipal revenues will be down under the provincial revenue-sharing program.

Interjection.

[ Page 3410 ]

MR. BARBER: The minister agreed and nodded and said: "That's right." Well, of course, he has to agree. That's how the law works.

I think it would be a sensible thing for the minister to announce during the course of the next 14 days' debate on his estimates the extent to which he can anticipate now that municipal revenues will be down next year, in order that they'll be forewarned. At the very least, in mid-September of this year at the UBCM, we would expect him to make a plain, candid and blunt admission of the extent to which municipal revenues will be down next year and will have to be compensated for by reductions in service or by new taxable items being created for the municipal budget or by a combination of both. It's important that in a plain and candid way the minister admit what the problems are with that aspect of revenue-sharing.

I want to get back to the notion of urban life, and I want to talk about the most spectacular area of neglect for which the minister is personally responsible. That lies in the whole field of conflict of interest. I'm going to be disclosing certain things in the next several hours which the minister is likely, or most certainly should be, personally aware of in regard to conflict of interest at the local government level. I'm going to be describing a pattern, ominous and dangerous, in which it has been made clear to us that it has been the deliberate intention of Social Credit for three years to ignore all of the evidence, to refuse to deal with any of the material facts available to them and to refuse to accept responsibility for creating a conflict-of-interest statute in this province that has teeth, intentions that are serious and which has applications that are real.

For three years this government has been on notice in regard to the failure of its conflict-of-interest legislation. For three years we have seen case after case presented to the people, and most recently to the courts of British Columbia, which make it clear that the conflict-of-interest statutes are grossly and indefensibly inadequate.

One of the things that people have a right to expect of all government is that its practitioners be personally honest. One of the problems with local government has always been the problem of conflict of interest when you find real estate developers and land speculators active in circles of local government. The current law is gummy and toothless in almost every regard. It has not served to protect the 17 communities in British Columbia where this month, and for some months past, the RCMP and other police have been investigating alleged conflicts of interest by persons who appear not to know their duty and who clearly know that the law does not require of them the honourable duty in regard to stating and removing themselves from conflict of interest. I'll be referring to some very specific cases in the hours ahead.

It is a shameful thing that for three years this administration has sat on and ignored a significant body of proposals put to them by the Union of B.C. Municipalities in regard to cleaning up this act. For three years they have done precisely nothing to act on the legitimate and responsible recommendations of the UBCM. For three years, therefore, we have waited in vain for this government to propose any statute or any amendment to a current statute which would deal with the problems that not just the official opposition and not just the RCMP and not just local police and not just neighbourhood groups concerned about conflict of interest, but also the UBCM itself, have acknowledged as legitimate and authentic and troublesome.

It is a damning thing that under this government it should be stated publicly, as it was some weeks ago, that there were and are 17 separate investigations underway into alleged conflicts of interest. Now if there were one or two, it might be understandable that one or two foolish and stupid and perhaps criminally intended people had thought they could get away from and ignore the requirements of a tough statute. If there were only one or two people, you might understand it that a tough statute couldn't apply to every crook in the land, regardless of how motivated by self-interest that crook may be. But when you deal with the situation wherein the RCMP themselves say that there are 17 investigations running simultaneously — that is a matter of public record — then you have to ask whether or not there is something wrong with the law and not just the 17 individuals who allegedly are involved in conflict of interest. Surely if the law were tough, clear, direct, blunt, to the point, understood and enforced, the likelihood of, in any one week in the year, 17 different investigations for a very serious offence, the gravity of which is that it undermines public confidence in local government.... That is the most serious aspect.

AN HON. MEMBER: Maybe the law is too tough.

MR. BARBER: "Maybe the law is too tough," the Attorney-General says. Well, hardly. Unless, of course, you think Mr. McKitka had a point after all. Surely no one would think that. "The law is tough," the Attorney-General says. He hints that maybe it is too tough and that is why we have too many investigations. That is what you said. You said: "Maybe it is too tough." In fact, the law is clearly inadequate, and I'll be demonstrating that in a few moments.

I will be talking about, chiefly, the apparently wilful neglect by this minister and his predecessor in the field of conflict of interest statutes. I will be talking about the fact that on November 24, 1977, the executive committee of the UBCM made a report on conflict of interest. This report, I am advised, was submitted to the then Minister of Municipal Affairs, Mr. Curtis. The general proposals on conflict of interest occupy four pages. They include comment, a discussion of legislation in British Columbia, legislation in other provinces, controls over local government staff, ethics legislation and a series of recommendations: 1(a) through (f), 2(a) and (b), 3(a) through (c), 4(a) and (b), 5 and 6 as well.

The Union of B.C. Municipalities has, in a detailed and thoughtful and helpful way, put forward recommendations which this government has sat on and done nothing about for three years this November 24. Why is that? Why would any government where we have seen mayors found guilty in criminal court and where it is a matter of common knowledge that those stories abounded for years in advance and nothing was done until finally the RCMP made a break, not with the assistance of provincial law but finally under the provisions of the Criminal Code…? Why was any situation like that, and several others, allowed to come to such a pass?

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

Let me talk about how the law, at the moment, deals with conflict of interest. Present legislation dealing with this is limited to three statutes alone.

The first is the Criminal Code, which, of course, is

[ Page 3411 ]

written by the House of Commons in Ottawa. The Criminal Code applies, in particular, in sections 108 to 114 and section 383. The Criminal Code is the first, but clearly not adequate, protection against conflict of interest.

The second is the Municipal Act, sections 50, 51, 59, 155, 183 through 188, and 189 and a couple of other provisions which only remotely and indirectly lessen the possibility that conflict-of-interest situations will arise.

The third is the most recent, a statute brought in during 1974 by our administration, viciously attacked by certain opposition members then and viciously attacked by certain developers active in local government. I am referring, of course, to the Public Officials and Employees Disclosure Act. This particular legislation requires written disclosure of specified financial and other information every six months by provincial and municipal elected officials and candidates, and by employees if they are designated by the cabinet or council or regional board. Employees' statements are not available to the public unless an employee is prosecuted under the act and the court decides to release the documents. Penalties are invoked only if statements are not filed in accordance with the act. There is no provision for the disclosure of the immediate families' and the officials' business interests which may create a conflict. Violation of the act does not mean that an official may lose his or her seat or that an employee may be dismissed. I think of the recent failure of disclosure on the part of the mayor of a northern Vancouver Island municipality.

The Municipal Act itself, however, is clearly the principal statute with which we are concerned. Among the many failures and omissions of that act are those which do not state what constitutes conflict of interest except by implication. There is no clear statement in law as to what shall constitute a conflict of interest in the current Municipal Act except, of course, by implication. That is grossly inadequate. It does not set out procedures to follow if conflict-of-interest situations should arise and it does not penalize officials and employees for behaving improperly in ways which are specified in the act. The restraints under the Municipal Act are limited to disqualifications from office for certain prohibited employments and contractual interests, and the oath of office. Generally these restraints do not apply, in fact, to local government employees. The use of privileged or confidential information for improper purposes is not dealt with, nor is the issue of gifts and rewards.

There are two important debates in regard to conflict-of-interest law: one is that which centres around the notion of criminal activity; the other is that which centres around the more delicate, the more difficult to describe and circumscribe, grey area of conflict of interest, where it can be demonstrated in an honest debate, but not necessarily demonstrated to the satisfaction of the fine point of laws as currently written, that clearly a conflict of interest took place. I'll be referring at some length, of course, to the well-known events in Chilliwack, where a certain developer was made chairman of the committee to rewrite the zoning bylaws, and where, lo and behold, certain of his own property interests beneficially appreciated. This is, of course, the subject of a current RCMP investigation. I should now inform the minister, while he queries his staff, that I in fact have met with the RCMP inspector, Mr. Dane, and we have turned over to him long ago our own investigations and research on the file. To the extent that we ourselves have been able to assist the RCMP in this investigation of potentially criminal activity, we have done so. I met with the inspector, in the presence of a witness, and notes were taken. The material was turned over entirely to the inspector. and I hope it is of some help.

Once again we have to examine the possibility that the criminal law is not always adequate for the protection of the public interest against those in positions of conflict of interest where you cannot clearly demonstrate mens rea, guilty intent, and where you cannot clearly demonstrate a breach of the Criminal Code, over which this House has no authority. As the Chairman knows, the Criminal Code is written in Ottawa, not in Victoria. Therefore, if the Criminal Code is inadequate, it is necessary for a responsible government to determine the extent to which, if any, provincial statutes might beneficially be rewritten in order to cover those grey areas between the currently weak and inept provincial law, which has been on the books weakly and ineptly for many years, and the heavy hand of the criminal law, which may not always be able to prove criminal intent, even though clearly a conflict of interest took place by any honourable standard and measure.

The centre of all of this debate, of course, has to be found within the BNA Act. I'll refer to it just briefly, in order that the minister shall be persuaded of his authority to act in these matters, although for the last three years he has apparently not been persuaded of the necessity to act, judging by the UBCM and by his own statement.

Criminal corruption and other criminal offences related to conflict of interest and improper behaviour are within federal jurisdiction by virtue of its criminal law powers under the BNA Act. However, a too narrow and literal interpretation of that creates the following five problems in regard to the correct administration of municipal law in British Columbia.

1) Municipal officials and employees are not always subject to Criminal Code offences by, against or involving public officials. That much is self-evident.

2) Control over unethical or improper behaviour now rests largely with the federal government due to its criminal law powers and its assumption of jurisdiction in the area and due to the ineffectiveness and inadequacy of provincial legislation.

3) The criminal laws are much harder to enforce, since the standards of proof are higher and, generally, criminal intent must be shown. I'll return to that in a moment.

4) Clearly, while the province can legislate disclosure requirements — and the New Democrat administration was the first to do so in 1974 — there is some doubt as to how far the province may go in its enactment of quasi criminal legislation to control the behaviour of public officials.

5) The Criminal Code prohibits "corrupt behaviour," not improper behaviour, and the Code offers no guidance as to proper conduct.

On a number of occasions I have sent material to the inspector of municipalities in regard to allegations that have come to my attention concerning conflict of interest. On every occasion I have been pleased with the speed and the reply. I have not ever, however, been satisfied that the inspector of municipalities has the tools in law in order to deal with all of the clear but, in law, grey areas — pardon the paradox — of conflict of interest.

My colleague from Maillardville-Coquitlam (Mr. Levi) will shortly be demonstrating the total failure of this law in regard to certain allegations concerning the adventures of a few people in Langley. This has somewhat recently come to public attention; more of it will come to public attention now.

[ Page 3412 ]

As I mentioned before, I too will be dealing with certain allegations made in Chilliwack. I will be dealing with the handling of the case at the Central Okanagan regional district, and I will be making inquiries about a couple of other cases that have recently been brought to the minister's attention. One is in Castlegar — the minister may want to consult his notes now — and a few others that will come up in the days ahead.

I want to open the whole debate, however, by telling the minister that one of the deepest concerns of the official opposition, in regard to his portfolio, is his wilful neglect in the field of conflict-of-interest law. One of the deepest concerns we have in the official opposition is the fact that there may be a few people who believe that they can prosper as developers by getting elected to local councils. I want to put on notice on behalf of the official opposition that we will not tolerate for a moment the possibility that even one crooked developer will think that he or she can advance his or her cause one iota by getting elected to local government in British Columbia and, ignoring conflict of interest, proceed to act in any way beneficial to themselves.

This is an area which we have been studying for three years. This is an area which the official opposition has been concerned about in a detailed and research-based way for the last three years, and this year we're making our case as well as we can. For the last two years we've been doing homework, asking questions, meeting with police officials and meeting with people in local government who are as desperately concerned as we are that the proverbial few rotten apples not be allowed to contaminate the whole barrel. For three years the official opposition has been waiting for a statement about conflict-of-interest legislation from this government, and for three years we've been waiting in vain.

I do note that on March 19 of this year — working from memory — the minister said that he too was now concerned about the issue and hoped that something or another may come forward in the way of a statute or an amendment. I also note that in the same press statement the Attorney-General was quoted as saying, perhaps incorrectly, that he didn't share the concern and he thought present law was adequate. I hope he was misquoted. If not, he shall be quoted to his shame, and embarrassment repeatedly during the next provincial campaign. No responsible Attorney-General should be satisfied with the sorry and pathetic state of conflict-of-interest law in this province. No minister of Municipal Affairs should be either.

If it were tough, then the few sleazy characters who think that they can advance their own cause by sitting on bylaw committees, promoting themselves and their friends for public office and writing law which they know will benefit their short-term or long-term interest, would not even think for a moment that they could get away with it. The problem is that apparently some still do think they can. Apparently a few yet believe they can get away with this trash, and one of the reasons they believe it is because this government has been wilfully and neglectfully silent during its whole administration.

As municipal affairs critic for almost five years now, I cannot remember one significant statement ever coming from that government concerning this problem — not a single one in all this time. Is it because everything is squeaky clean, because no mayor of Surrey was ever prosecuted, or because none of the other stuff that's occurred and will shortly occur in the courts has ever occurred at all? Of course not. These things have happened because a climate, once again under Social Credit, has been established in this province that encourages a few people whose personal, financial and developmental interests are greater than the public interest to think they can get ahead. Sure enough, in a few communities it appears they've succeeded. The public documentation for that is, to say the least, nearly overwhelming in at least two or three spectacular instances.

The problem is that if the current law is inadequate, then the only other law available is criminal law. As our research office clearly demonstrates in these papers and others, which I will be quoting from at some length, the burden of proof in the field of criminal law is vastly different, and the precedent in criminal law is not terribly helpful. The Criminal Code of Canada itself is very difficult to apply in cases of obvious conflict of interest where you cannot necessarily prove conspiracy or guilty mind and criminal intent, but where you know from a clear reading of the law before and after — and you can determine who bought property at what time and for what purpose and who in the long run benefited from those acquisitions — that conflict of interest should in fact be demonstrable. If it cannot be demonstrated by law that is 30 and 40 years old, maybe that's not the fault of the intent; maybe that's the fault of the law, which should be significantly rewritten in order to take into account the modern, sophisticated and clever ways by which some people seek to advance their personal interest through local government.

The matter of the recent criminal proceedings is a matter of public record. Surely no one will deny that those criminal proceedings, to the extent that they reflected criminal behaviour, were welcome and necessary things. I will not comment on those currently under appeal; that's not appropriate. But I will observe — and the official opposition is pleased to do so with one voice — that where it has been possible to demonstrate patent criminal intent, it would appear the police have done a good job; and I congratulate them for it. I have no criticism of that. I am concerned about the area of conflict of interest where you cannot necessarily meet the tests of the Criminal Code, but you could, if you were tough about it, meet the tests of a provincial conflict-of-interest code which would satisfy the requirements, on the part of people who are concerned about local government, that there not be a single rotten apple spoiling those barrels, because the integrity of those barrels is desperately important.

Someday someone will write a history of the way in which the Fraser Valley was exploited by developers, and the way in which compliant persons in public office allowed the exploitation of the human and agricultural resources of that vast valley for the most selfish and short-sighted purposes.

There is another area of conflict of interest as well, and we'll be getting to that in a few moments. Meanwhile, I see the red light's on and I'll take my place for a moment.

MR. LEVI: I thought we would hear something from the minister on the county system. He was very vocal about that some little while ago. He's nodding his head. That's to get your glasses down to the end of your nose, though, isn't it, or is that an answer?

Well, if he's going to talk about that, I'm going to sit down and let my colleague continue.

MR. BARBER: If it were within the rules, the opposition

[ Page 3413 ]

would be pleased to put forward, for the minister's consideration, a model conflict-of-interest law. In fact, we have it largely prepared, and I hope that by the end of 14 days' debate on municipal affairs we will be able to perhaps table it in the House. I realize that at the moment under our system it's not possible.

MR. BRUMMET: Can you make it for that long?

MR. BARBER: You bet. When you examine the record of this minister, it's easy.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. For all members' edification, committee debates really debate the administrative actions of the minister and do not allow for talk of legislation, current or past. I'm sure the hon. member is aware of that.

MR. BARBER: That's right. That's why I'm talking specifically about the failure of the minister to act on the recommendations of the UBCM, dated November 24, 1977. It's on the basis of those recommendations that all this debate is fully in order, as I know the Chair acknowledges. So I can't put forward a model conflict-of-interest law, although we would like to. I can't refer at too great length to the law elsewhere, although we are permitted to do that within certain limits, in order to further require of the minister his attention to these matters. I'll do that in a moment.

There are three basic choices this government may make in regard to conflict-of-interest law. The first is to continue with the choice they have already made, which is to do nothing. Quite why they find it reasonable to do nothing, as they have done for five years — as they have done for the three years since the UBCM recommendation went to them — I don't know. It may or may not be because of the traditional involvement of Social Credit members in development of and speculation on land in British Columbia. That may or may not have anything to do with it. But clearly the first choice for Social Credit is to do what they've done for the last three years, which is nothing. Make no statements, issue no guidelines, make no appearances on the subject at UBCM, consult with no one on the issue, and until recently not even the RCMP, although they did have that seminar with the commercial crime division of the RCMP — and that's a good thing; it was three years late, but it did occur and it's better than nothing. Or they could consider two other steps.

The first, of course, is to persuade the national administration — if they're still talking to them these days — that it s necessary to rewrite those sections of the Criminal Code I referred to earlier: sections 108 through 114, and 383, in order, as I said before, to help deal with the more modern, sophisticated and clever of those who would seek to take personal advantage by becoming involved with local government, and the awesome ability local government has to reward landowners by rezoning their property. It's a canard — but let me repeat it anyway — that clearly the great gift that local government can make to local developers is to, with the stroke of a pen, double, triple or quadruple the value of their land.

Strangely, the same developers who always insist on that privilege seem not to accept the counter-argument, which is the right of local government to downzone their property without penalty. Any time local government wants to upzone any developer's land, that's always permissible, especially if he makes a big, quick profit that he did not earn. However, should local government have the nerve and gall to downzone property, then of course the same developer is the first to scream blue murder. Why? Well, of course, because selfishness rules and not logic. Why? Because his self-interest tells him that upzoning is fine but downzoning is never permitted. Why? Because sometimes local government has not had the guts, nor has the Municipal Act given them the fortitude they should have, to take on the developers who attempt to take them to court for the allegedly heinous crime of downzoning. If upzoning is good enough for developers, downzoning should be good enough as well. If they don't like downzoning, they should be prepared to abandon the benefits of upzoning.

Where does conflict of interest come into it? Sometimes directly there. When a developer or his pals have some say in local office, the ability to rezone — which is to say to upzone the theoretical value of land — is, to say the least, no small charm; conflict of interest is often difficult to measure in those cases. Now if, say, we had a mayor of a municipality who knew that a landowner was going broke and who commissioned a secret study by the land branch of that municipality into the value of that land and then turned around and got one of his relatives to buy the land subsequently on the basis of secret information to which no one else was privy, then you might wonder whether or not a conflict of interest had occurred, and you might even be able to prove it in a court of law, at least under the Criminal Code. However, the far more difficult proposition at hand is the one which this government has refused to address; that includes four basic features.

First of all, is disclosure itself an adequate mechanism? Is it enough to simply trust people to tell the truth on their disclosure forms and to stand up at council meetings and say: "By the way, colleagues, I or my friend or my relative have this interest in this property, which will be affected by this bylaw, and therefore I remove myself from the debate"? Well, clearly it is not. Were it so, then the recent cases before criminal courts in British Columbia would never have come to pass, because disclosure would have prevented them in the first place. The logic clearly follows: if disclosure were an adequate prevention, we would have none of these cases before the criminal courts. So, clearly, disclosure is not, although it's the first step.

Secondly, we now have to examine the cases at hand of allegations, a few of which have also made their way into the courts recently. Employees in local government have taken improper advantage — or are alleged, depending on which case we're discussing and which is under appeal — to have taken improper advantage of the position of privileged knowledge they would appear to have had by virtue of their employ within a municipality. So the second examination that must be made is whether or not the current carte blanche that municipalities have in regard to disclosure by employees is adequate. I think that clearly it's not. I would refer you to Surrey, which on or about May 13 of this year for the first time approved a conflict-of-interest policy for municipal employees, which reads in part: "…prohibiting employees from engaging in any business activities within the municipality which might conflict with the municipality or with the exercise of an objective judgment by the employee in the performance of his duties for the municipality. " The new bylaw provides exceptions for employees if they receive written permission from their superiors. That loophole is

[ Page 3414 ]

really much too large and, in my own opinion, shouldn't be in there at all. Nonetheless, one municipality which has been plagued with these conflicts for a long time, or at least with the allegations of them — and again, I don't want to comment on a case that may or not be appealed — has chosen to exercise its option to require of certain employees that they disclose their interests. I would argue once again, though, that admirable as the intention may be, the execution will be found weak and inadequate. But that's the second aspect; the first was disclosure by the elected officials themselves and the second is by employees.

Thirdly, the government could — and I argue again that they should — implore Ottawa to rewrite the Criminal Code and those sections which I indicated, to allow for a more differentiated, for a more subtle and for a more delicate reading of conflict of interest to take place. When you have federal court judges reading into the record their own concern that the law restrains them from being just because it requires them instead to be literal, and the judge appears to suggest that he knows something was wrong here, but because of the narrow and clearly out-of-date technical requirements of the law justice cannot be done, then that judge just might be worth listening to.

It may well be that when police officers themselves say to you in private — as some of us have heard in private — that they know that something has gone wrong, that privileged information has been used and abused. When they know full well that someone in local government has exploited his position but they can't prove it criminally and the next best step is to prove it under a provincial conflict-of-interest statute, which in B.C.'s case does not exist and which, within the Municipal Act, is clearly lame, inadequate and frail.... When that police officer leaves your office shaking his head, saying, "You'd bloody well better not blame me for this, because we've looked into it and the law isn't good enough to allow us to do what we know we should do," then you think maybe it's possible that police officer has got a case. Maybe when the law officers themselves are telling us that the law is inadequate to do what we want to have done, the judges and the law officers and other disinterested and objective persons just might be telling us something that we should be listening to.

So, clearly, the third possible remedy lies within the field of persuading the national government to amend the Criminal Code to allow more subtle, more supple and more adequately differentiated distinctions to be applied in regard to conflict of interest. The current law is simply a crude, heavy hand that is difficult to prove and difficult to apply; clearly it is not adequate.

The fourth area is the area in which this administration could, if it wished, take the initiative. That is in regard to amending the Public Officials and Employees Disclosure Act and the Municipal Act, and perhaps even bringing in an overall conflict-of-interest statute. According to our research the most ancient of them we can find is the one which has traditionally been in place regarding employees of the Ministry of Mines. According to our research, for years it has been an offence on the statute book of this province for an employee in the Ministry of Mines to own shares in mines. Years ago it was wisely recognized that persons in that position are, at least theoretically, temptable. So years ago the original conflict-of-interest law — as far as we can trace it back — came into what we now call the Ministry of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources. As far as we can find out, that law has not changed in all these many years. We cannot find any significant rewrite of that law anywhere. But rather, for years and years it's simply been the traditional one in which they're not allowed to hold shares. Clearly, in that portfolio, that law is not adequate either.

It may well be that there are other cases. One thinks, for instance, of certain unfortunate incidents surrounding the office of the now Minister of Industry and Small Business Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips) three and four years ago, when employees in his office were found to have purchased shares in a pipeline company, where, sure enough, the provincial government was making key decisions in the disposition of it, and where they lost their jobs and their reputations as a result. Once again, there was no comprehensive conflict-of-interest law which attached itself to all provincial interests.

There are arguments pro and con on such a broad statute, but the four options that I've described are those which can be minimally entertained by this government — recognizing that disclosure by itself is not adequate for elected officials, nor for employed persons; recognizing the limitations of the Criminal Code and the fact that conflict of interest does not necessarily constitute a criminally intended matter but is most certainly an abuse of the public trust; and recognizing, finally, the possibility that there is within the provincial ambit ample opportunity, to write statutes comprehensive and narrow, without and within the field of local government in this province.

I want to say it for the third time: this opposition is today putting the government on notice that we will no longer tolerate the silence, inaction and neglect of this administration in the field of conflict-of-interest law. Seventeen investigations running simultaneously is an insult to the law and the people of British Columbia. If the law were adequate there wouldn't be anywhere near so many investigations going on. Clearly some people have persuaded themselves that it's worth the risk and they can get away with it. Those 17 investigations are, I am informed, only those now being conducted by police authorities; they do not necessarily include those being conducted within the ministry, or, as it so happens, by the media. The media is currently working on at least two more new ones that I know of, and there may be others in the works. But those are the ones that I've been informed about, because some of us receive the same brown envelopes as the media do. We ourselves, through our own research officers, are continuing to examine those. So there may well be 19, or even more.

It is the duty of this administration not only to set the law, but also to set the standards. The way in which an administration sets the moral tone of government is really crucial here. If you have an administration that turns its back on allegations and proofs of conflicts of interest, you have to wonder what kind of moral tone is being established in B.C. When you have an administration which sits for three years on serious and reputable recommendations made by the Union of British Columbia Municipalities, you have to ask what sort of moral tone is being set here in this province. When you have an administration that has never made one statement that we can find any record of — and, to the very best of my knowledge, none in this Legislature at any time in five years — on the subject of conflict of interest, then you have to wonder about the kind of moral tone that's going to be established in B.C.

This government and that minister have been wilfully

[ Page 3415 ]

neglectful in the whole field. It's not as if there are no reports they could study. It's not as if they have to commission original evidence. It's not as if they have to go any further than the provincial library to read the Salmon report, for instance.

I wonder if the minister, after consulting with the Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. Smith), has even read the Salmon report. Do you know what it is? No, apparently not. The minister does not know what the Salmon report is. I'll give you a hint. It was written in the United Kingdom and it concerns conflict of interest. With that second hint, can the minister tell us whether or not he's read the Salmon report on conflict of interest in local government in the United Kingdom? No, he's not read it.

HON. MR. HEWITT: What's your argument?

MR. BARBER: The argument is that the minister is grossly and wilfully uninformed about the problems of application of conflict-of-interest law and about the necessity to describe and differentiate new and more appropriate conflict-of-interest law to deal with crooks in the 1980s rather than crooks in the 1930s. That is where the problem is. Now that you know it, will you persuade your colleague to bring it up?

Interjection.

MR. BARBER: Well, what we don't know, we take the trouble to learn, unlike some opposite.

The Salmon report said that it was constituted

"to enquire into standards of conduct in central and local government and other public bodies in the United Kingdom in relation to the problem of conflict of interest and the risk of corruption involving favourable treatment from a public body and to make recommendations to the further safeguards which may be required to ensure the highest standard of probity in public life."

The Salmon report, which the minister should know about and be concerned about and which should be one of the basic documents considered when examining conflict-of-interest law in the British parliamentary system, expressed no concern about the integrity and sense of public duty of the bureaucracy as a whole but did conclude that a significant minority did not measure up to acceptable standards. This was particularly true in the municipal sector, where most police inquiries into public conduct were taking place. Most serious crime had centred around municipal contracts and development control. Doesn't that sound familiar, Mr. Chairman?

The commission wrote:

"Conditions created by Parliament in the field of planning law and in urban housing development have put greater strain than has generally been realized upon our system of locally elected councils whose members may enter public life with little preparation and may find themselves handling matters on a financial scale quite beyond their experience in private life."

The commission itself made a number of important recommendations which I propose to read into the record for the minister's consideration. Why? I am reading it now because apparently the minister hasn't read it for himself. He didn't care enough to find out about this precedent, read the report and become informed about the issue. This Legislature frequently examines British precedent because, of course, our entire system is premised upon it. We have frequently referred to British precedent in this area because they have done a darned good job of attempting to police themselves. I think it is important that the Legislature know what worked elsewhere and what might have a chance of working here.

The Salmon commission felt it was essential to find more effective ways of bringing corruption to light by strengthening investigatory powers and the machinery available for receiving complaints and acting upon them. However, they were not recommending ''any measures that would tend to weaken the effect of management of public bodies at the operational level." Essentially the commission recommended that laws disqualifying contenders for municipal office for certain contractual conflicts of interest be relaxed and that requirements for oral and written disclosure of private or conflicting interests be strengthened. This is what they concluded in section 45 of their recommendations:

"The main safeguard is for a public servant to declare his private interests whenever they have a bearing on his official duties. The normal result of such a declaration is disqualification from taking part in the particular piece of business in question. There is also a more general need to ensure that a public servant will avoid any situation in which it might reasonably be supposed that conflicts of interest are particularly likely to arise; thus the need for annual written disclosure."

This is very similar to the UBCM position, which the government has ignored for three years.

The Salmon report was willing to leave conflict of interest with the common law — breach of trust — the criminal corruption statutes, the local government statutes — with some minor amendments — and the official' s own judgment, aided by an administrative code of conduct and legislative disclosure requirements. Appendix 4 sets out the relevant recommendations of the Salmon report and the Redcliffe-Maud committee, which looked into the same matter at an earlier date, as well as the statutory provision controlling conflict of interest in the local government sector then in effect and a proposed code of conduct.

Essentially what they did — which may or may not be adequate for our purposes but which is surely worth debate — was to enunciate a code of conduct in a public and declarative way which would be applied to every person elected and appointed who, in the field of local government — and in other governments too, but those are the only ones I am referring to at the moment — might have a beneficial interest at stake and would thus and thereby be prohibited from taking advantage of that beneficial position.

They did not themselves propose in any fashion to re-examine the common law insofar as it pertained to breach of trust. However, we in Canada don't have that liberty because, of course, that bulk of common law does not exist in common law form in this country. It exists, rather, in written form in the Criminal Code. So that particular aspect of their recommendation, unfortunately, is inapplicable here. Rather, it has been pre-empted by the Criminal Code itself, which deals in a number of ways with breaches of trust, be it fiduciary trust or other aspects of trust which are of concern here. What we need, however, is an examination of every aspect of the recommendation of the Salmon report which may pertain to the extent to which we retain British common

[ Page 3416 ]

law here. And if they have made sensible recommendations — there are a number of them — where British common law still applies as Canadian common law, then we should know about them, those recommendations should be made clear and public here in our context, and we should be prepared to act upon them. However, I suspect that what we will find, certainly what our research so far appears to indicate, is that because of the pre-emption in written law of current common law in Britain, we don't have the liberty of simply adjusting it by court decision and regulation. We don't have that liberty. In fact, it's more codified in the Canadian system.

[Mr. Davidson in the chair.]

The commission said that municipal and other public employees should be subject only to administrative rules and staff codes of conduct. I'm paraphrasing. They concluded that officers of public sector bodies should not be required by law to file disclosure statements. Now that's really a paradox, because here they are, in a very tough report, telling us that disclosure is not required. Well, I wouldn't want the minister to read that too literally. The reason the Salmon report argues for that is because they make far tougher and more compensating gestures in another field of law and in the codification of law than our disclosures ever imagined. So what, basically, they are saying is that, as far as I can read it, disclosure law is by itself not adequate and in some cases not even necessary, because we have at hand the rigorous application of this other law and this other code of conduct. That's how the commission read it.

However, they did make some procedural recommendations designed to open the government's system for closer scrutiny. Let me quote from a few of them, because they are, I think, material and germane here in British Columbia, and could well be applied.

"(22) Public bodies should ensure that they have adequate machinery to take delivery of any complaint that may be received from a member of the public.

"(24) Legislation should be introduced to require the minutes of a local authority's committee meetings to be open to public inspection in the same way as the minutes of the authority itself.

"(25) The relevant government departments should urgently consider the need to give local authorities fresh advice on the selection of contractors and consultants.

"(31) Legislation should be introduced to enable the ombudsman to transmit information to the police."

Some of those are really very daring recommendations. Many of them derive from the unfortunate British experience with demonstrable, but not necessarily provable, conflict of interest. We have the same unfortunate circumstance in British Columbia.

In a little while I'll be referring to the American approach, and will be examining in some detail the precedent established at the national and state levels in the U.S. Council of State Governments reports on the subject. I don't know if the minister is familiar with that report, either. Let me ask him now. Have you read the U.S. Council of State Governments report on the subject of conflict-of-interest law?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: I've got enough to do in B.C., let alone get too concerned about Britain and the U.S.

MR. BARBER: If you were more concerned about what others have done elsewhere, you would be better able to handle the same problem here, Mr. Minister. And by the way, they write their reports in English, so you needn't worry about them being translated from cornflakes boxes, if that's your phobia about reading foreign material.

If this minister were better informed about precedent elsewhere, he would be more able to deal with problems here. But typical of Social Credit, as it has always operated in British Columbia — the party of the know-nothings and the funny-money disciples — they have always preferred to believe that they could ignore all precedent, reports and experience elsewhere, and just proceed in their own lame way here in this province as if nothing else counted and no one else had anything to offer.

The U.S. Council of State Governments reports had a great deal to say on the matter, which I will shortly be debating. But the minister should be aware that we do not propose to let this subject go by quickly or lightly. We have a great deal of precedent to refer to. We have a number of proposals to make, and we have, unfortunately, in the last two and three years a series of genuinely scandalous decisions made by a few people in local office, benefiting themselves, that should never have been permitted in the first place, nor, indeed, if the law were adequate would we even find they were the proper subject of debate today.

It's precisely because the law is inadequate that these offences have been so numerous and continual. It is precisely because the minister has been so neglectful that we will, I expect, proceed for some days yet before the minister stands up and accepts the latest proposal of the official opposition, so many of which have previously been accepted and acted upon, to establish a committee on conflict of interest which would include the police, the UBCM, and members of this Legislature, and would call as witnesses persons in local government, persons who have been convicted of these offences and are now repentant, and, as documents, evidence from other jurisdictions where they appear to have dealt with this problem much more ably than we have.

Meanwhile my colleague from Maillardville-Coquitlam (Mr. Levi) will now proceed to document for you one of the latest cases of patent conflict of interest, which went unattended by the minister for some time, and which has now, unfortunately, received a lot of public press, and which will, of course, further impair the confidence in local government that people in British Columbia have — thanks to the neglect of this administration.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: I have just a few very brief comments, Mr. Chairman. First, I think the member must be aware that laws don't solve all the problems. Certainly, while we as a body can make all the laws in the world, there will still be problems. As a matter of fact, we probably have more laws now than we've ever had, and we've also got more problems than we've ever had. So to assume initially that if you create a law it somehow resolves all problems — and that's the assumption in the way it was presented — is, I would suggest, totally wrong.

The whole area of conflict of interest is undoubtedly very difficult. As the member mentioned, Britain is many centuries older than we are in Canada, and they have not yet found the solution to the problem — in order to bring about legislation which will perhaps prevent people from acquiring prop-

[ Page 3417 ]

erty or doing things which may not be totally in keeping with their office. We've had inquiries from other countries — Africa, Europe, Asia — where they too are having similar problems. It's not an easy problem.

The member also knows full well that the New Democratic Party was in office for three years and all they could do was bring about a reporting procedure. They too had the opportunity of coming forth with some legislation with respect to conflict of interest. They did not. As a matter of fact, we have gone a whole lot further than what was done during their particular term of office. I would like to outline some of the things we've done. Let me reiterate once more: it's a very, very difficult area.

Where do you draw the line? The member made mention of a situation in Castlegar. Yes, certainly there's a charge there that perhaps some council member was on a committee that decided that a water line be extended to a property — not only that property but a property among other properties — in which that particular member of council had an interest. Granted, it could be a conflict. The matter is being investigated.

We are very fortunate in British Columbia. We have a great many people involved in local government, people who stand for office year after year, who serve these communities extremely well. Perhaps some of these people are also those very same people who are busy people in the community — the doers, the movers, the shakers, those who have been reasonably successful in their own fields. They're not all people who have no assets at all. There may be those with no assets; there's nothing wrong with that; certainly we need a mix of people. But the fact that a person happens to have acquired a piece of property — or possibly that property was left to him by his elders — should not disqualify him from office, nor should he be eliminated from every decision that could somehow impact on every one of those. It's very broad. This is where the difficulty comes in.

The first member for Victoria (Mr. Barber) knows full well that his own New Democratic Party, at a recent convention in Penticton, came out very strongly in support of members running for municipal office under the New Democratic Party ticket. It's one of the goals of the New Democratic Party that people run for municipal councils or regional districts — in that village, in that town and in that city — under the New Democratic Party ticket. The assumption must be that, somehow, when you run under the New Democratic Party ticket you are then faithful to the New Democratic Party philosophy, and possibly that makes you a better alderman. I can only guess that that's the assumption.

Similarly, I suppose it's assumed that that person will be faithful to the wishes of the New Democratic Party provincially, and that therefore there's some alliance, some connection between the provincial New Democratic Party and those members who might be elected to that village council. Does that then, hon. member, also suggest that if you have a council in the city of Nanaimo, which is largely composed of New Democratic Party members…?

MR. BARBER: Tell Frank Ney that.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: If you follow through on getting New Democratic Party members elected, does that council abstain from voting on anything proposed by Ramada Inn because Ramada Inn has a connection with the New Democratic Party? Incidentally, Ramada Inn is a large multinational conglomerate that builds hotels, and there's a connection between Ramada Inn and the New Democratic Party in Nanaimo. Do all those council members then not only abstain from voting on anything to do with Ramada Inn, but are they also forced to vote against Holiday Inn? Or are they forced to vote against Travelodge, because it could be competition for Ramada Inn? The success of Ramada Inn could, in the formula devised with respect to rent, depend on the lack of competition. So the better they do, the better the New Democratic Party in Nanaimo, does.

You can take this area of conflict of interest a long way. Certainly we could devise legislation. But I warn the member that it's not easy, particularly if political parties become involved in municipal politics, as the New Democratic Party is proposing. Then you really open up a whole new field.

If I were someone proposing to develop a Travelodge in Nanaimo and I was appearing before an NDP council and that NDP council had a connection with the New Democratic Party in Nanaimo, which had a contract with Ramada which said that we get a piece of the volume along with so much per month, I, as that Travelodge, would feel terribly uncomfortable. So I appreciate that this whole conflict-of-interest problem is a difficult problem. The first member for Victoria, having attended that NDP convention in Penticton, should be more aware than anyone that it's fraught with problems. It's very difficult.

Realizing that, however, we've moved a long way. We recently…. I agree, we received a report from the UBCM.

But you know, hon. members, granted there may be 17 investigations by the RCMP with respect to people who may have been involved in something criminal at the local level, it must be remembered that the RCMP can deal with 100 charges and there may only be a couple that are legitimate. So just because there are 17 investigations doesn't necessarily immediately mean that there are 17 crooks on various councils throughout British Columbia.

Let's assume that there were 17 crooks out there someplace. I think we ought to certainly do whatever we can to bring them out and make them answerable and eliminate them from municipal councils. By and large, fortunately, in the absence of some all-encompassing legislation, the electorate has done a pretty fair job, because there are over 1,000 people involved in local government. When you have that many people involved in local government, regardless of how many laws there are, you'll always have a problem. That comes back to the earlier point that the law itself won't cure the problem. But the electorate, fortunately, has a pretty good handle on this, and our people in all of those communities throughout the province generally keep a fairly close eye on those that they elect to municipal office. That's perhaps one of the advantages of municipal office — it is a government close to the people. Perhaps the people are better able to judge those who are elected to municipal office then they are those who are elected to provincial or federal office.

I am very pleased with and actually very proud of all of those.... Of course, I and most of my colleagues on this side of the House have been involved in local politics at some point in time. It's not for this I say it, but I'm generally very proud of those people who are dedicated to local government and serve our province well in their own local communities.

As I started to say, the UBCM did a report some two or three years ago. It was referred to my predecessor, and following my appointment to this office I was requested to

[ Page 3418 ]

advise the UBCM as to what would be done with this report from them. I have had more meetings with UBCM, I guess, than any minister has had during the course of only one year as Minister of Municipal Affairs. I keep a very close liaison with the UBCM, because I feel that is the one body that can present a voice for all those municipal councils that are out there throughout the province. I feel it's certainly a part of my job to keep a regular contact with UBCM. I do, and I must.

Certainly I advised the UBCM very early on that we had taken their report and referred it to the Municipal Act Review Committee, and they were generally pleased. As a matter of fact, the UBCM executive was pleased with that particular move.

The Municipal Act review committee is made up of Mr. Whelen, who's in charge of research; Mr. Lidstone, research, who also drafted a memo with respect to this particular report done by UBCM; Galt Wilson, who's counsel to the committee, and he's delivered results of research to the municipal law section; and Stu Fleming, who's a municipal manager with the city of Kelowna, and he has done some work with respect to conflict-of-interest provisions affecting municipal officers. All of these committee members have participated in the various UBCM seminars, particularly the one on conflict of interest.

So we're certainly moving in the right direction. But I want to assure, or perhaps warn, the hon. first member for Victoria (Mr. Barber), that no law that I could present to the House today would perhaps satisfy him, because I think he would say it's not enough. If I took it back, redrafted it ten times and came back to you again, you would perhaps again say: "It's not enough." We could have a law which would obviously be too much. We could say: "Look, we want British Columbians to participate in local government providing they have nothing, they mustn't ever have anything, they mustn't ever be involved in anything except whatever job they have there and their function on council. "

I think we're very fortunate in a wonderful, democratic, progressive province to have people of all walks of life who are willing to become involved in local government. I'm grateful to all of those people. I would encourage them to continue coming forth and giving of their time and their varied expertise to ensure British Columbians the best decision-making possible at the local level.

MR. LEVI: We've just heard from the Hodding Carter of the Social Credit government — the master of gobbledegook and onopedadontia. He just stood up, waved his arms, said something and.... As my father used to say, he speaks but he says nothing. He hasn't said anything at all, and he was up there for ten minutes.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: You weren't listening.

MR. LEVI: Oh, I was listening all right. I was listening so much I almost fell asleep.

He may be right about one thing: laws don't cure everything. What we're suggesting here is that first of all you look at the problem of conflict of interest. The member may recall that when he was the mayor of Surrey there was an inquiry in Surrey. It was an inquiry that was conducted by Mr. Donald White. The purpose of the inquiry, which was set up by order-in-council, was to look at land transactions and rezoning in the municipality of Surrey. I'm not going to go into what took place, but I want to bring the minister's attention to the recommendations that Mr. White felt it was necessary to make after he'd finished. What he did, in fact, was to make a number of suggestions. He wasn't saying: "Go to the provincial government and get a bill." He was saying the municipality of Surrey could, and should, do a certain number of things.

One of the things he said was:

"In view of all the foregoing I'd like to make the following recommendations. Members of council are in need of some guidance in being able to recognize potential conflict-of-interest situations. Therefore I would suggest some form of codified rules, no matter how briefly stated, should be published for the benefit of municipal councils, setting out some fundamental principles."

He's talking about rules; he's not talking about laws. He's talking about councils trying to devise some of their own rules and check with the department.

He goes on:

"I would recommend that any public official who is a director of a company carrying on business within a municipality whose business will in any way touch upon land dealings or any other business in which the municipality is involved should resign his directorship and take no active part in the management of the company."

Then he goes on to make some recommendations about the planners:

"I would recommend that the planners should not be subject to requests for confidential information from any or all members of council."

Bear in mind, Mr. Chairman, that what he's saying is: set out a code of behaviour. This is the recommendation that came out of the White report.

He goes on to say:

"Rather, the planner should only be required to disclose the information to the manager, who in turn would pass the information on to the individual member of council making the request. All inquiries from council for the confidential information should be channelled through the manager who in turn consults the necessary heads of department."

These are fairly lengthy suggestions in respect to the planner. It's the fourth recommendation in respect to the planning department.

Under the fifth recommendation he says:

" A formal written contract of employment should be entered into between the municipality and any employee who, by the nature of his or her work, is to have access to the confidential information. There should be three specific terms inter alia set out in the contract of employment."

Just to remind the minister again, these were recommendations that were made as a result of an inquiry that was conducted in the municipality of Surrey. His recommendations were that this is the way you should handle the thing from here on in and then it might avoid some of the problems.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: What was the date of the report?

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

MR. LEVI: The order-in-council was on May 10, 1973. It was when the previous administration was there.

[ Page 3419 ]

As a result of the inquiry.... I'm not dealing now with what was material to the inquiry, but rather what came out of the inquiry by the commissioner making recommendations about what, in fact, some of the municipalities should do. He specifically talks about employees. Again, what is he doing? He's making suggestions about how people can avoid the suggestion of conflict of interest. He says:

"A formal written contract of employment should be entered into between the municipality and any employee who, by the nature of his or her work, is to have access to confidential information. There should be three specific terms inter alia set out in the contract of employment: (a) the employee covenants to refrain from disclosing any confidential information; (b) the employee covenants to return copies of any confidential documents which may be in his or her possession upon terminating employments; and (c) the employee covenants and agrees not to enter into any business involving land transactions or rezoning applications, neither directly or indirectly, within the municipality for period of two years."

Altogether, Mr. Chairman, he makes some 12 recommendations about a code of behaviour for people involved in city councils. For the interest of the minister, the report was actually completed and delivered on January 28, 1974.

Now there are some indications of a commissioner who presumably has some expertise in these areas and made some recommendations. Perhaps the minister will tell us whether he's aware of whether any of these recommendations were followed. Again, we're not talking about creating laws. If it is possible to do it that way at the local level, fine. But if it doesn't happen on the local level and you get, as my colleague has pointed out, some 17 different inquiries, then you can't just rely on local municipalities doing it; you've got to have some kind of legislation. In creating some legislation, you obviously remove some legislation — the legislation that doesn't work.

What I want to return to now, Mr. Chairman, is the matter of the inquiry that took place in Langley in 1979. I want to read a letter that was sent by Mr. R.W. Long, the inspector of municipalities, to Mr. Lloyd Parish in Langley, in which he writes:

"Dear Mr. Parish,

"The ministry has completed its examination of the matters you raised regarding the city of Langley. I have concluded that a formal inquiry under the provisions of section 728 of the Municipal Act is not required and would serve no useful purpose. Our examination disclosed no infraction of the Municipal Act. However, I have made a number of suggestions to the council for their consideration regarding their procedures relating to land transactions.

Sincerely,
R. W. Long."

Now, Mr. Chairman, the Langley city problem — yes, I think we should refer to it as a problem — was first raised by Mr. Parish in June 1978. The reason I'm raising this with the minister is because I've had meetings with Mr. Parish and some of his people — I'll talk about their names later on — in which they expressed major concern about some problems in the municipality vis-à-vis the mayor.... I'm not now identifying the mayor as such, but the council and the company that was set up, the Langley City Development Corporation. On June 15, 1978, he wrote a letter to the former Minister of Municipal Affairs, and he said:

"Re: City of Langley

"I believe the city council — Mayor Duckworth and most of the alderpersons — are spending the taxpayers' dollars in a questionable manner. The average tax increase or ripoff is between 35 and 50 percent. When questioned on this severe increase, they lay the blame squarely on the provincial government. I don't believe that this is true; I believe it's mostly a result of wild spending and questionable land purchases.

"Unfortunately most voters are blinded by the city's propaganda and would likely hold the provincial government accountable come next provincial election; this would be disastrous for our province.

"I would like to submit a few examples for your reaction:

"(a) Purchase of barren property, $169,000, listed by Doug Mooney, salesman and part-owner of McBride Agencies Ltd., husband of alderperson Iris Mooney, for close to a record high price of $10 a square foot. (Copies enclosed.) "

He went to a great deal of trouble in that one; he documented it and he sent the information along.

"(b) Purchase of half an acre of swamp next to the Nicomekl floodplain on one side and on the other side next to the 30-acre city sewer lagoon property for $50,000 — $2 a square foot. Purpose, in the mayor's words — 'domination of the area.'"

In sending that he also enclosed a series of news clippings.

"(c) Purchase of Srigley property — questionable purchase as to method. The purchase was paid for and registered January 24, 1978, in the land registry office. Over two months later a bylaw is first introduced and passed approving the spending of the money that was already spent. What would happen if approval wasn't granted for some reason? (Langley registry property and council minutes enclosed.)"

That's the third item, He gave a great deal of information.

"(d) Enclosed is a map of the city-owned properties purchased 'with bleeding taxpayers' money.' This 16.6 percent removal causes an immediate 20 percent increase to the balance of the taxpayers plus the principal and interest when required to complete these purchases."

He goes on to say:

"Along with the wild spending the city is unable to share costs of work with the municipality of Langley, causing a very expensive duplication of service. The city is continuously wasting time and taxpayers' pay bickering and squabbling with the municipality on all or any development coming to the area.

"This city is unfortunately run or controlled by a few greedy little merchants who are concerned only with themselves and their holdings or whatever, at an expense to the taxpayer. If houses around the residential area begin to depreciate and fall apart, the city council does not tax the merchants to improve or rebuild the residential area. Consequently residential and other taxpayers pay the cost to redevelop or revitalize dying commercial core. I believe this situation is very serious and warrants further investigation. Your response in these matters would be greatly appreciated.

"Lloyd Parish."

[ Page 3420 ]

Presumably as a result of this and other information there was an inquiry made. The result is characterized in Mr. Long's letter. The minister may not be aware of this. He certainly wasn't aware of it in 1978 and 1979. In 1980, if you look in the newspapers.... The Langley Advance, which is a local newspaper, covers most of these. I frankly don't know the political persuasion of the newspaper. I can assure the minister it is not pro-NDP. That newspaper has covered at great length some of the situations that have been going on. As a matter of fact, in the June 4, 1980, edition of the Langley Advance there is a big headline: "Victoria Officials Pore Over Land Deals." After I read this I think there should arise a number of questions. Bear in mind that we dealt with Mr. Long's report, which he completed and wrote to Mr. Parish in July, so that report is at least a year old. On Wednesday, June 4, 1980, the Langley Advance dealt at some length.... I want to read to you, Mr. Chairman, some of the remarks that have been made.

"Officials from the provincial Consumer and Corporate Affairs department were sifting through files of Langley city hall on Tuesday morning at the start of their inquiry into the land transactions of both the city and its private development company, Langley City Development Corporation."

This is June 1980, a year before there had been an inquiry. The inspector for the municipality reported that everything was okay except for one or two suggestions he had made. We should also bear in mind that besides the Corporate and Consumer Affairs people going through files, the RCMP commercial crime squad had been out there asking a series of questions. The newspaper goes on:

"Prompting the investigation is a revelation in the Vancouver Sun that the real estate consultant, Ray Olma, hired by the city for a number of transactions, did not have a real estate licence at the time of his involvement with the city. Whether either party has violated the Real Estate Act was the subject of the department's investigation."

That is a question we can ask the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs.

"Olma, according to the newspaper report, maintains he was hired as a consultant for a fee and not as a real estate salesman on commission and thus didn't need a licence. The administrator, Dave Christensen, said he did not know Olma's licence had expired. He said: 'To the best of my knowledge and belief I was not aware of his status.' Further he argued that whether Olma had a real estate licence or not is irrelevant. He was not acting as a real estate agent. "

They then go on in the newspaper to catalogue a number of purchases that were made. What interests me in terms of the article in the newspaper and the letter written by Mr. Parish.... He had written a letter to the then Minister of Municipal Affairs. He had written to the local MLA, who is the member for Langley (Hon. Mr. McClelland). He also wrote an open letter to the mayor and council of the city of Langley. Everything was done very openly and it was done over a great period of time. As a matter of fact, on June 10 he wrote another letter to the editor of the Langley Advance. He said the following:

"We citizens, taxpayers and business people of the city of Langley agree with the concerns expressed in your editorial in the June 4 issue of the Langley Advance regarding land dealings of the Langley city council. Enclosed is a copy of a telegram sent today to the Hon. William N. Vander Zalm, Minister of Municipal Affairs, which speaks for itself." The telegram, which presumably the minister remembers, says:

WE CITIZENS, TAXPAYERS AND BUSINESS PEOPLE OF THE CITY OF LANGLEY WISH TO EXPRESS OUR IN DIGNATION OVER THE ALLEGED CONDUCT OF THE MAYOR-IN-COUNCIL OF THE CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF LANGLEY IN LAND DEALINGS, AS REPORTED RECENTLY IN VARIOUS PUBLIC MEDIA. FURTHER, WE URGE YOU TO CALL UPON THE INSPECTOR OF MUNICIPALITIES TO HOLD AN IMMEDIATE PUBLIC INQUIRY UNDER SECTION 28 OF THE MUNICIPAL ACT INTO ITS CONDUCT. OUR ITEMS OF CONCERN ARE THE POSSIBILITY OF 1) CONFLICT OF INTEREST, 2)SECRECY OF LAND TRANSACTIONS, 3) BREACH OF PROVINCIAL STATUTE, 4) INEQUITY OF OPPORTUNITY IN LAND DEVELOPMENT. THANK YOU.

JOHN B. JEFFERY
AGNES B. HERLIHY
HERBERT CULHAM
JOHN SALSNEK
LLOYD T. PARISH
JAMES P. GRANT
FRED COX
W. PESME
BETTY COX
K. PESME
J. LINDGREN
E . LINDGREN
C.M. JEFFERY

There are a dozen people who have gone on record publicly making a number of accusations. A couple of them have been making the same accusations for over a year — in fact, almost two years. An inquiry was conducted. The inspector of municipalities said:

"I have concluded that a formal inquiry under the provisions of section 28 is not required and would not serve a useful purpose. However, I have made a number of suggestions to the council for their consideration in regard to the procedures relating to land transactions."

Here we are, a year later, with 12 people — most of them business people — in Langley making a public declaration about their concerns, and one of them is secrecy of land transactions. For a year before, Mr. Long has said that he was going to make some recommendations to the city council.

Mr. Minister, you have a situation out there, which from the public point of view has been known for two years. In 1979 the inspector — your deputy minister — went in and came out and said what he said, and a year later it's up again. But on top of that, you've got Consumer and Corporate Affairs and the RCMP crime squad looking at it.

Now I know that at this stage of the game to have a public inquiry is very difficult. After all, the RCMP have been inquiring into this matter, to my knowledge, for almost a year. They've spent a great deal of time and effort, so I suppose at this particular time to say let's stop everything and have a public inquiry would be a complete waste of the public money and of the RCMP's time, and it may very well be that they are putting together sufficient evidence to lay charges.

But there's a very specific problem with the way these things carry on. It's amazing that in some of the cases which have been successfully concluded to prosecution and conviction, they have their antecedents several years before. It always starts with rumours, allegations, letters by people, and there is something missing in terms of what kind of

[ Page 3421 ]

action should be taken at the time when the rumours first start to happen, They start in small communities. The minister knows this in his tenure as mayor of the municipality of Surrey. This was a constant problem, always being dealt with. The government has an obligation to find a better mechanism of dealing with these things so that they don't continue to go on and they don't fester. In some cases, where the rumour started several years ago, people are now going to jail.

This is one of the problems, it's true, with the whole matter of commercial crime and white-collar crime. It takes a great deal of effort to put together a successful prosecution. There's no question of that. We just have to look at the kind of idiocy that we go through constantly with the Combines Investigation Act, where we'll spend $2 million chasing some sugar company, successfully convict them, and fine them $400,000, then they go to the supreme court and the whole case gets quashed. So there has got to be a better mechanism. A better mechanism really relates not to the question of beefing up the investigatory services, but rather making it possible to deter people from doing the kind of thing that is going on. That can only be done by having a code of behaviour in which people fully understand the consequences of being involved in a conflict-of-interest situation.

You know, the conflict-of-interest question came into this House under the present government in one of the throne speeches. They said they were going to bring in — I think in 1977 — conflict-of-interest legislation. Well, they haven't done so. We're probably going to have less chance of getting it now, because the minister tells us we've got too much law anyway. So if we've got too much law, let's lie back and hope everybody will not do anything wrong.

But that's not the question. The question is: what kind of mechanisms can you put in place to deter people from this? We don't want to set up large bureaucracies, but there has to be some procedure.

I would remind the minister that the White report, in 1973, made 12 very good recommendations that the minister could take, if he reads them tonight, and say to the municipalities: "As a start, let's put these recommendations in. Let's follow these. We won't bring in an act." Do it and see what happens. He has made some good suggestions. It might reinforce my case if the minister gets up and tells me that after reading the report, because he was the mayor at the time.... Did they implement those recommendations? That's a good start towards avoiding the problems of conflict of interest.

I know you can't legislate common sense. We know that, but something has to be done, particularly in the question of the problems that have been raised in Langley. There are problems. Some responsible citizens there keep ringing the bell and saying to the minister, the previous minister, the Premier — they also wrote to him — and to the member of the Legislature (Hon. Mr. McClelland): "There's something wrong out here." They're obviously not satisfied with the report of the inspector of municipalities.

I think that it would clear the air a great deal if the minister would be prepared to release the report of the inspector of municipalities — when he did the report last year. I don't want him to get up and tell me that somehow he is not allowed to do that. I think that it would clear the air to a great extent if that report was made public. After all, a number of accusations were made by a number of citizens. Some of them, if they are plainly not true, are clearly grounds for libel. There is slander too, because a great deal of discussion goes on about them. That hasn't happened. What did the report say? What did he investigate and what did he find? Or was it the case that he decided not to really do an in-depth investigation because the RCMP were already in there?

I think that to clear the air out in Langley, it would be contributing to a good public service if you released that report. There's nothing to stop you legislatively from doing it. After all, we have a report.... The difference is that you appoint him under the section of the act as inspector of municipalities. Previously there was an appointment of a commissioner under an order-in-council. Basically they are inquiries into operations in the municipalities. One was released, as is required. There's no reason why the report of the inspector of municipalities can't be released. Let the people of Langley know what's going on. There's nothing wrong with that.

If all of the charges were not substantial enough....

Was that the question? The point was raised earlier that they are not easy cases to lead towards some.... Is it a question of recommending prosecution or recommending some changes? What did the inspector of municipalities actually find? Why can't the minister release the report? Let's have an open discussion about what took place. That would contribute a great deal to a lessening of some of the continuing problems which appear all the time in the papers in Langley. The other thing is that what we can learn from that experience in Langley will help us with other municipalities. It's not just in the Langley area that we have these kinds of problems.

From time to time when you have the debates on local councils you are fortunate enough to get somebody who is prepared to play the very serious role and the gadfly role in order to bring these out. There is such an individual on the Langley council, Alderman Searle. He is very much a lonely voice but nevertheless has attempted to raise these things. The problem is that if he raises them publicly he doesn't have the privilege we have in here. If he does it at council he is on his own — into the court if necessary, if somebody charges him with libel or slander. He has made a number of statements. People have written a number of letters. The minister has received letters, the latest one a telegram on June 10. What has he done about it?

Is he prepared to release the 1979 report by the inspector of the municipalities on the Langley situation? Has he answered the people in Langley in respect to their renewed concerns? Remember, they were very categorical in their telegram. Their items of concern are the possibilities of: (1) conflict of interest; (2) secrecy of land transactions; (3) breach of provincial statute; (4) inequity of opportunity in land development. If these are the matters that were inquired into by the inspector of municipalities in 1979, then it would be in the interests of those people out there to have the report released so that we can find out what it was that the inspector of municipalities found in looking into these matters. That puts the matter at rest.

The matter is not going to be at rest if people simply don't know what it was that he looked into, who it was that he saw and also the specific recommendations that he made in terms of land transactions. That's a continuing saga, Mr. Chairman. I don't know if we can get the minister to understand this.

Am I running out of time?

[ Page 3422 ]

MR. CHAIRMAN: The three-minute light is on, hon. member.

Interjection.

MR. LEVI: I thought you were going to reply to my questions, Rafe, but you didn't.

In closing, let me say this, Mr. Chairman: the minister cannot avoid the questions that have been posed by my colleague from Victoria, at least in terms of looking at the question of conflict of interest. A good start would be to convince your leader that you activate the municipal affairs committee of the House and then take a look at it. It's not a bad place to start to take a look at that, so you can make some decisions and have some hearings in terms of how you're going about it. The other thing is that I would recommend to the minister that he look at the White report and tell us whether he's prepared, after looking at the recommendations, to make those same recommendations to municipal councils. Did he in fact…? This isn't within his purview, mind you. But those are the questions that I've asked the minister and I would hope that we can get a reply.

MR. BARBER: I indicated at the outset of this debate that the official opposition, for today and some time in the future, will be leading as its principal argument the failure of this government to take seriously the problem of conflict-of-interest law and its application. We indicated at the outset that we have a number of case studies that we want to present to the Legislature that indicate apparent conflict of interest and a seeming inability, or perhaps even unwillingness, on the part of the province to take such conflicts seriously and to heart and to be prepared to prosecute them — and I use the word in its liberal sense — in a tough-minded and decisive way.

My colleague has just recounted the fact that it would appear that the recent exposé of strange dealings at Langley city council — which is not to be confused with Langley municipal council, as I'm sure the minister will say — have been known to this government for well over a year. But for whatever reasons, the government chose not to act on those now apparently well-grounded and well-substantiated fears and concerns.

There are other municipalities where the government knows that such accusations, which finally became real fact and ended up with a couple of people going to jail, were also in the rumour mill for some months in advance. You see, one of the problems with people who attempt to get away with this sort of stuff is that, by the very nature of their deceit, inevitably some people have to find out about it — people who register land transactions, people who make commissions they didn't deserve, profits that are obtained that were not earned. By all of those signs and signals, eventually people find out about these swindles and eventually it comes home.

The problem is that in the case of a few of them....

My colleague referred to one, the report on which was originally commissioned in 1973. I think the report actually came down in January 1974, if I recall it properly. The problem with that is that it is possible to let these things go by and build up to a point of no return. It's possible, in fact, to observe that when this kind of behaviour could be nipped in the bud by a tough-minded administration, knowing, say, a year ago what we know today — as has apparently been the case in Langley city — then it never would have reached the possible end we now have in that particular instance of once again the RCMP commercial crime squad investigating and receiving information which may or may not lead to charges. If the proper action had been taken, the proper warnings issued, the proper statement made and the proper remedies applied a year ago, it may well be that today there would be no such debate on the clearly improper behaviour of certain people in that municipality. But a year ago that didn't happen.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Will you repeat that?

MR. BARBER: If necessary, sure. Here goes. The allegedly improper behaviour now described....

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Allegedly?

MR. BARBER: Allegedly. It may well come to pass. Do you want to take a bet on it? I've looked at that material and I've seen some of the stuff the RCMP have. It's pretty darn serious stuff. You may not think it's serious, and by Social Credit standards it may be typical; but by our standards it's very serious and should never be considered typical. By our standards that kind of behaviour is unacceptable in every regard. It is simply, patently unacceptable.

If nothing else, the dealings — which will be reported shortly — made with the gentleman who had certain improvements made to his property, that no other property owner enjoyed, when he was himself nearly bankrupt and needed to be bailed out, are now a matter of public record — is the minister familiar with the matter? — and surely call into question the judgment, if not the propriety, of those who made the decision in favour of that particular developer. Surely that series of decisions could never be viewed by anyone as typical or proper. Fortunately those kinds of favours are rarely done in B.C. Fortunately that rarely occurs, but in this case it demonstrably did occur. The problems with the fellow who had no proper real estate licence and ended up with a commission, and who was involved in other properties and transactions at the same time, are also — or should also be — known to the minister. Would he consider that that's typical and proper behaviour for someone in the real estate industry? You'd hope not, even though the fellow defends it by saying: "Well, I had a contract. It really wasn't a commission; therefore I wasn't in breach of the Real Estate Act. " Well, come on. What kind of an excuse is that?

It's precisely because there has never been any statement of the standards that must be adhered to by persons privy to information at the local level which could serve to advantage them that we see so many of these problems coming forward subsequently. As usual the official opposition is putting forward a number of positive remedies. We have, as usual, drawn your attention to precedent elsewhere in order that we can learn from the seemingly more successful experience elsewhere.

Let me refer now to the second body of precedent which the minister should know about. The U.S. approach to control of conflict of interest has been much more legalistic and much more frequently written than the Canadian has been, at least to date. Most American states have some kind of con-

[ Page 3423 ]

flict-of-interest or financial disclosure legislation, as does the federal government. State laws are well summarized in a U.S. Council of State Governments report on the subject. Many of these state statutes also regulate campaign financing and lobbying. Most state legislation covers cabinet officers, top administrative employees, employees performing adjudicative and regulatory functions, those spending significant amounts of public money and those formulating administrative policy — which is to describe those people who have within their own purview significant discretionary power. Some statutes apply to local government officials, either requiring compliance or leaving it up to those governments to adopt the guidelines or rules they choose by bylaw.

Recent U.S. ethics legislation — says the report of the U.S. Council of State Governments — seeks to elevate the standards of the public service in at least four ways. I draw these to the minister's attention, because it would appear that in the United States of America they have been prepared to accept and explore some of the following remedies in order to deal with conflict of interest at a local and state level. These four features of recent American law include: 1) specifying acts which are prohibited to public officials, candidates and employees; 2) enunciating codes of ethics; 3) requiring certain procedures to prevent action involving conflicts, or at least to attain a more objective review of the situation; 4) compelling public disclosure of the financial interests of elected officials, candidates and certain employees and members of their immediate families.

This particular report describes a code of ethics. The report says:

"Codes of ethics describe the circumstances under which conflicts of interest are likely to occur and prescribe the appropriate behaviour of public officials. They are designed to add both clarity and certainty to the law. They usually prohibit acquisition of conflicting interests, conflicting employment, receipt of gifts and adverse uses of confidential information. The codes also regulate assisting or representing others in transactions with a state and doing business with, or having an interest in, firms regulated by the state."

That surely can apply to local government as well as to state government, and in fact it specifically does.

It's frequently the case in the United States that there is no particular pattern as to the setting of these codes in a statute. Some of them appear in statute law, some in regulations, some only in statements promulgated by a given state authority. They are assumed to have the weight of law, and are only given the requirements of law if such should be needed in the courts. The California Fair Political Practices Commission, for example, reviews the codes of other agencies, city councils and local governments, and provides local governments with technical assistance in preparing conflict-of-interest codes upon request. The American report I quoted said: "The elaborate procedure for adoption, amendment and approval of codes seems to ensure elements of disinterestedness not provided by some of the other laws authorizing state agencies to adopt codes of ethics."

The administration and enforcement of conflict-of-interest laws and administrative codes has been given a most important place in state legislatures. Once again I draw to the minister's mind the possibility that we have something to learn from our American cousins, who have determined that not in every case can it be left to the local authority to set these rules for themselves. Rather the U.S. report states that failure to provide an independent enforcement agency is a major weakness of some statutes.

In a moment I'll be making a proposal for the significant upgrading of the office of the inspector of municipalities to deal with this. But I'll get to the American precedent first before making yet another positive proposal to help this government remedy these problems. I quote from the report:

"Leaving enforcement to officials chosen in partisan elections may mean less than vigorous enforcement. The Attorney-General may lack funds and staff to monitor disclosure statements and sleeping dogs may be left to lie under a gentleman's agreement. On the other hand it could mean lopsided enforcement against political opponents. An independent administrative agency enhances visibility, and this accomplishes one of the purposes of the law."

Agencies to administer the laws may be independent boards or commissions with powers ranging from the purely advisory to the adjudicative. Members may be politicians, public servants or representatives from various concerned groups or the public.

Most ethics commissions in the U.S. may initiate as well as receive complaints from citizens and government officials. Advisory opinions are an important administrative device. These are, or sometimes are not, made public by the American authorities.

To the extent that one can conduct a quick survey of American law in this field, that is the survey we have been able to do. What it demonstrates is that American legislators have not been prepared to simply accept the good will and unguaranteed assurances of others that conflict of interest will be avoided simply by good intentions. It is clear that that is not not the case. It is clear that that has not happened and the several horror stories in local government in various American states have more than justified the steps taken by those state legislators to prevent them ever occurring again.

In British Columbia we have an inspector of municipalities. His name is found in the Municipal Act and he is currently also the deputy minister of Municipal Affairs. I believe that has always been the case. I am not able to find any instance, in our research, that indicates there has ever actually been a physical separation of the two persons. They have always been one and the same person.

I wonder if the government might accept a proposal from us that there be named a separate inspector of municipalities and that she or he be charged with the duty and provided with the staff necessary to examine in apparently far greater detail, with all the weight of the office behind it, each of these accusations of conflict of interest as they have recently come and will shortly come again to the attention of the government.

We argue that it is possible that a separate and independent inspector of municipalities could help do the following things:

1) investigate specific complaints received by the government;

2) initiate investigations on his own accord because of information received or obtained privately and not necessarily laid as a public complaint by some public person or agency;

3) help write a uniform code of ethics to be adopted by every municipality and regional district in the province;

4) help advise the government in the writing of a model

[ Page 3424 ]

conflict-of-interest law or statute which would apply to every provincial agency, as well as to those local agencies that act consequent on provincial legislation;

5) an independent full-time inspector of municipalities could help in the necessary training and guiding and information functions which are required in order to properly inform newly elected persons to local office as to what their obligations are in law.

The minister, two hours ago, made mention of the fact that they are now setting up a kind of training institute for local government. The minister was not here as minister then, but in 1976 this opposition made the very same proposal; it was turned down by your predecessor, who said it wasn't necessary. Lo and behold, five years later it turns out to be necessary. It was in fact necessary then and it is now and I'm glad you're doing it now. Unfortunately, it is five years late. I hope that we don't have to come back in a year or two and hear the minister finally agree with us that an independent full-time inspector of municipalities has now been agreed to be necessary and will be established. How much more evidence does the government need than the evidence that has been presented so far and will be presented in the next several hours and days? How many more complaints that citizens have must go effectively unanswered until a year later? Finally it's gotten to the point where it is clearly criminal and the RCMP lay charges. Why does it always have to end up in the courts before your government takes it seriously? Why do the RCMP always have to be called before you are willing to deal with the problems? Is there not some intermediate step — not requiring the vast resources of the police and not necessitating going to court — which could be employed to nip these problems in the bud? We argue that a full-time, independent, aggressive inspector of municipalities could help do those five things that I've outlined, and especially could do this sixth thing.

Such a full-time inspector of municipalities could signal to every person interested in personal profit through local government that that day is over and that any accusation of a serious nature will be fully examined and any attempt to twist or distort or bend an authentic code of public ethics will not be permitted for a moment. It may well be that an inspector of municipalities, full-time and independent, with staff and with a mandate, could help achieve, simply by existing, the necessary atmosphere and moral tone that has to be established in order to prevent the great majority of those who would attempt to use their public office for personal profit. It may well be that that signal alone, that gesture, that demonstration, the creation of that instrument as a symbol by itself, would do more than any statute law ever could. I happen to agree that no perfect law can ever be found, nor ever perfectly applied. But of course we have to have some laws for some prohibitive purposes and it is quite clear that the current law regarding conflict of interest is grossly, completely, demonstrably inadequate.

I have a number of questions for the minister. I wonder if the minister could tell us what happens, step by step, when a serious complaint is made in regard to conflict of interest. I wonder if he could tell us, for instance, what happened to the Langley complaint, step by step. What staff members, if any, were assigned to investigate? What field trips were made? What documents were called for or seized? What evidence was taken and sworn by way of affidavit? Could the minister outline for us, step by literal step, what actually happened to the first complaint made about alleged wrongdoing at Langley city council, and the allegedly strange and inexplicable land deals, bylaws, fees and commissions? Could the minister tell us whether or not he is satisfied that his inspector of municipalities — who is, to say the least, only part-time — has the adequate time, staff resources and instrument of law at his command to make the inquiries that are necessary?

On previous occasions, as I've mentioned before, I have turned over information to the inspector of municipalities. A few times it's been possible to deal with the matter really quite lightly and quite quickly. Let me give you an illustration. I think I know, in this instance, how it worked. I recall receiving a copy of some minutes of a village municipality. The minutes made it clear that the municipality in question — Mr. Long will well remember this one; we had something of a laugh over it, it was so ridiculous — proposed to sell a lot. Sure enough, the village council passed the necessary statement of intent and bylaw in order to allow the disposition of the lot; but, strangely, that decision was never made public. No bylaw was ever printed in the papers; no public hearing was ever held; no tender was ever offered; no advertisement for the lot was ever published; no auction for the land was ever held. Rather, the land was simply sold to the owner of the dry goods store, who owned the lot next door and wanted to expand his store. The problem was, of course, that the owner of the dry goods store was also the mayor, who voted on his own bylaw and did not require that the land go to auction or to tender or be sold publicly. In effect, the mayor and his council simply sold the land to the mayor; this occurred three years ago.

Well, that was absolutely absurd. The inspector of municipalities did the right thing. I'm working from memory now, but I gather he went back to the mayor and said: "Look, this is totally unacceptable. You may not simply sell municipal land to yourself without going public, without other bidders. Indeed, you might be well advised not to sell it to yourself at all." My recollection is — the deputy will correct him; I don't have my file at hand — that the council was ordered to take back the land, and the mayor did not acquire it for his dry goods shop. That's fine. That was a happy disposition of a very unfortunate incident.

Sometimes, though, conflict of interest is nowhere near as obvious as that. Sometimes the conflict of interest is far more detailed and far more elaborate. I refer, of course, to the case of Chilliwack. which is still under investigation by the RCMP. Chilliwack was also the subject of a major investigation by the Vancouver Sun, which to its credit took the matter somewhat more seriously than the government seemed to have done, and published a major examination of it.

I'd like to ask if the minister could also disclose for us, step by step, what decisions were taken and what action was undertaken by his ministry, as it gradually became clear that the RCMP had good reason to investigate certain allegations regarding land dealings, bylaws and expropriations, conflicts between the amount appraised by the municipal appraiser for a given piece of land and the amount actually paid by the municipality — some considerable difference — and the allegation of the filing of a false statement at the land registry office overvaluing a particular land package by $48,000. There are further charges that a very senior official in that municipality notified an interested person on the day the municipality posted notice that it was selling a piece of public land, which was involved in a particularly controversial dispute, without that notice ever having been published — or so the allegation goes.

Again, I don't want to preempt recommendations that the RCMP may or may not be making. I would remind the

[ Page 3425 ]

minister that we on our side of the House have already met with the RCMP in regard to these very serious charges, and have provided to them all the information we have. I don't want the minister to think that I'm releasing this today for the first time without having previously given it to the police. In fact, we gave it to the police as soon as we felt able to do so, as soon as we had concluded our own examination of the matter. What I want to know is what the government did. In the cases of Langley and Chilliwack, what did the government actually do as soon as it came into receipt of the same brown envelopes we received on our side of the floor? I want to know what steps they took, what information and documents they obtained or seized, what affidavits they had sworn, what investigation, generally, they conducted, step by step, point by point, into the Langley and Chilliwack allegations.

We would as well, Mr. Chairman, ordinarily ask the government to make the same statement in regard to the allegations and now the convictions at Surrey. However, because that matter may currently be under appeal, we will not do that. But I simply make mention of the fact that we're concerned about that also, because we wonder whether or not the government did what it could have done within the law in order to prevent what finally occurred in criminal court, regarding behaviour at Surrey, from occurring in the first place. I'm persuaded that had that been nipped in the bud, this might not have occurred. But it is not appropriate at this stage to ask the same set of questions about Surrey that we ask now about Langley and Chilliwack.

I realize that from time to time there are simple and easy ways to overcome conflict of interest. We also know that increasingly modern, sophisticated, clever and bright people, with the advice of those who shouldn't be doing this kind of stuff, point out how disclosures can be amended in order that one's wife owns the property, say, instead of oneself, and how people can be appointed to sit on bylaw committees where they clearly should not have been in the first place. I think particularly of Chilliwack; in the case of that particular alderman, he owned so many properties and was involved in so many deals and had so much personal interest at stake that one might reasonably ask whether or not he should have been entrusted with any of those overhauled bylaw-rewriting powers.

However, that's not the particular issue at hand, although it is certainly being investigated. The question we raise at this point is: could the minister advise us point by point what was done by his ministry when he first received the allegations concerning land dealings and bylaws, and all those other matters that needn't be reiterated, at Langley and Chilliwack? I suspect that the minister's answer may well demonstrate the need for our recommendation.

There is not adequate staff for the inspector of municipalities. There is not an adequate resource at his command to carry out the investigations that should be carried out. There is not the adequate armament and instrument of law to allow him to move as rapidly and ably as no doubt he would like, and as most certainly the UBCM would like, judging by their recommendations, and as most clearly the opposition would like. That's important. Step by step, what took place?

I have a few other questions. I want to talk about Canadian precedent for a moment, and Canadian law. We've already looked at the British and American precedent. Looking at our own we find, unfortunately, far less material to go with. In Canada, responses to conflict of interest vary from virtually no response in some jurisdictions to fairly detailed responses which might be placed somewhere in the continuum between the British and the U.S. approaches.

If he wishes, I will table for the minister a list of relevant legislation in Canada.

In 1973, when this matter was raised by the national administration, the Hon. Allan MacEachen recommended that "legislative provisions pertaining to conflicts of interest of Members of Parliament, with the exception of bribery, be contained in a new act entitled the Independence of Parliament Act." He further recommended that "all relevant legislation, standing orders, regulations and guidelines pertaining to conflict of interest be set forth in a handbook to be distributed to members at the beginning of a new parliament."

In fact, at the national level, we find Bill C-62, the Independence of Parliament Act, applicable to MPs and senators, was introduced in 1977, although it was never passed.

The then and now again Prime Minister has been apparently planning to introduce more stringent conflict-of-interest guidelines for cabinet ministers later in the year.

By Privy Council order 4065 in 1973, the federal government did issue "Guidelines to be Observed by Public Servants Concerning Conflict-of-Interest Situations." Indeed, the Treasury Board circular no. 183 of the same year also published "Standards of Conduct for Public Service Employees." In addition, conflict-of-interest legislation is found in numerous statutes including the Senate and House of Commons Act, the Statistics Act, and various statutes heading up departments, agencies and Crown corporations, etc.

The Parliament of Canada has attempted to enunciate, for its own members, in a very tough-minded way and for its own public servants, in a very clear and declarative way, certain standards that must be met. One could surely argue, Mr. Chairman, that if it is possible to codify these things in a national administration it should surely be at least as easy to do it for a provincial statute and for a local statute as well. Given the far greater complexity of national law and national policy and the application of it, if it's possible to obtain standards and to codify them in a tough way for national elected persons and their employees, then surely it's also possible to explore doing the same thing here in British Columbia.

The provinces of Ontario, Quebec and Newfoundland have also taken some notable legislative steps toward controlling conflict of interest, apart from disclosure requirements. One of the most important was passed in 1973 by the province of Newfoundland. It is called simply the Conflict of Interest Act. and it covers members of the Legislative Assembly and certain provincial employees, and requires disclosure and sets out some prohibitions.

The Ontario Public Service Act regulations cover conflict-of-interest situations.

In 1974 Quebec published a "Regulation Respecting Ethics and Discipline in the Civil Service" — and this was published by order-in-council — which includes guidelines on the use of government property for personal gain, the acceptance of gifts or favours and the use of confidential information for personal profit.

In 1972 Ontario enacted the Municipal Conflict of Interest Act. In 1972 Ontario apparently realized that it was necessary in that largest of Canadian provinces for the pro-

[ Page 3426 ]

vincial administration to enact a special statute which would help describe and overcome and, in some measure, prevent the conflicts of interest that had been well documented in that province, as they have been here.

Quebec itself has a separate statute for local government called the Municipal Bribery and Corruption Act.

In fact, we can observe that in virtually every Canadian province each provincial jurisdiction regulates conflict of interest to varying degrees through its Municipal Act. British Columbia is one province whose restrictions are, to say the least, minimal.

I see my time is up, and I will simply restate that at this stage I hope the minister might answer the questions about the steps specifically taken upon the receipt of information and allegations concerning various dealings in Langley and Chilliwack.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Mr. Chairman, as I mentioned earlier to the first member for Victoria, there is a great deal of learning to be done with respect to conflict-of-interest legislation. Again, the provinces have agreed that it should be an item for the agenda at the ministers' conference next month; as a matter of fact, Ontario and Quebec have both requested that it be an item on the agenda. So, while the member mentioned that some of these provinces appear to have all of the solutions, they themselves feel that perhaps they don't.

Also, as I said earlier, and I repeat again, the actions of others very often invite the problems. Certainly, when the first member for Victoria says that there is a document in the U.S. which would indicate that, particularly with partisan politics, the decision is sometimes made to let sleeping dogs lie — that action against one is not taken, or it's taken against an opponent instead — this is precisely why I mentioned earlier and why I say again: often the actions of others invite problems.

The New Democratic Party, I suggest to you, Mr. Member, when they decided in convention that they would become involved in municipal politics, certainly invited that same problem that you outlined, which the American report made reference to. I think it's worth noting that, hon. member, so that not only you but all sides may be aware that there could be tremendous conflicts developing on account of this.

Similarly so, hon. member, I think it should be noted that when a political party decides that they're going to participate in a particular enterprise, such as is the case in the city of Nanaimo, there again is the potential for conflict. If that political party ever had to deal with other people in a similar enterprise and there were a contract saying that certain profits could accrue to them if they were to favour the party they were already in business with, then, once more, there is the potential for conflict. So I agree totally with you when you say that partisan politics at the local level, as was indicated in the American report, invites potential problems, and I'm very pleased that you made reference to this. I think it's important.

You also referred several times to the brown-envelope approach, to the fact that you as a member or your party receive many brown envelopes, and that therefore you feel there should be all sorts of inquiries. I think that several times — and I once had to interject, unfortunately, to correct you — you've simply left the impression that those city council members in Langley or Chilliwack were in fact involved in criminal activity. I interjected to say: "Is that so? Repeat it."

And you said: "Allegedly." So I think that's important. You can't simply label a council on the basis of some envelope given you. The police must certainly investigate anything that's referred to them which may appear to be of a criminal nature, and they naturally do so religiously. It's certainly known that the Ministry of Municipal Affairs — and the inspector particularly — gets an especially heavy workload at about municipal election time — November. Just ahead of that we suddenly start getting an awful lot of referrals and requests for investigations or inquiries. The act, of course, is fairly specific with respect to why an inquiry or what inquiry. I don't think you have in mind that every time there's an envelope received by you or anyone we should suddenly rush off and have an inquiry such as is referred to in the Municipal Act.

The new section 745 in the act says:

"Whenever the inspector believes it expedient to make an inquiry into or concerning a matter connected with a municipality or the conduct of a part of its business, or whenever a complaint is made to him about a matter of municipal business, actual or projected, he may, with the approval of the Lieutenant Governor-in-Council, by himself, or by a deputy or other person authorized by him, hold an inquiry which shall be open to the public."

Then it goes on as to how he calls witnesses and what.... It's fairly comprehensive, and not something that one might do simply on the basis of an envelope which makes certain allegations without there being some fact for them. So the inspector makes an investigation and determines if there is a need for an inquiry. This was done in the case of Langley. He and his staff did make a very thorough investigation.

But getting back once more to what I said earlier, sometimes the actions of others invite trouble. Back in 1973 or 1974, the government of that day changed the Municipal Act and inserted a section, I would like you to note, which reads: "Subject to an express limitation in this act a municipality has full power to engage in any commercial, industrial or business undertaking and to incorporate a company for that purpose or to acquire shares in a corporation engaged in those undertakings. "

I would suggest, hon. members, that when you did this you might have thought then that you were possibly running the risk of potential conflicts with councils on appointing members to these land development companies and making decisions which were in conflict with them as members of council in favouring their particular projects — maybe that was your intent then — or making decisions which were prejudicial against a private developer in that same community. I think you might have known. Possibly it was intended; I'm not sure. These are the sorts of things that unfortunately get us into troubles. I caution you against those things I've mentioned. It's that change in legislation which you allowed for.

The member for Maillardville-Coquitlam (Mr. Levi) went on about the White report which was commissioned by the then government in 1973. It was never acted upon in 1973, 1974 or 1975 by the then government. You invited the problem. I'm pleased to have the opportunity to respond now to these concerns that are being expressed with respect to conflict of interest, because they are my concerns too. I think possibly since those charges and concerns are now coming from the New Democratic Party it is well to reflect — I would suggest to you hon. members on the New Democratic side —

[ Page 3427 ]

on your own policies, changes and record as to what was or was not done to help the situation.

I've already answered the White report charges of 1973. Certainly recommendations were made and nothing was done. Those recommendations are now also a part of all that has been referred to the Municipal Act review committee, so finally there is some action. I agree; it has been a while in coming.

I believe I have also answered all the matters that were raised by the hon. first member for Victoria (Mr. Barber). I have given him the process with respect to investigations and inquiries.

MR. BARBER: Mr. Chairman, I'm sorry I had to leave the House for a moment.

AN HON. MEMBER: Hah!

MR. BARBER: How many times have other members done it? Come on.

I wonder if the minister could tell us — or tell me because I wasn't here to hear it — whether or not he would be prepared to consider a proposal to establish a full-time independent inspector of municipalities. He could help do those five things that I outlined. As the result of doing all those, he would thereby symbolize a significant new attitude toward conflict of interest on the part of people in local government. Again, I am sorry I wasn't here to hear it myself, but if the minister is prepared to give that commitment today then I would be pleased to go on and report on other Canadian precedent where it would appear that provincial administrations have, somewhat more successfully than our own, been able to assist local government to name and codify its own standards and been able to enforce, where it was necessary, those standards as well on a province-wide basis. Meanwhile, I wonder if the minister could tell us whether or not he is prepared to consider our proposal for a full-time and independent inspector of municipalities.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: I am sorry I did not answer that particular question from the hon. member. Firstly, I don't think that a bureaucrat should be judging a person guilty or not guilty. I think that properly is a matter for the courts, wherever possible. I would resist any change which would further make it a requirement that someone within the bureaucracy be placed in the position of being judge and jury, regardless of whether it is for a municipal politician, any other politician or just anyone within a municipality regardless of their function. I don't believe that properly is a matter for the inspector. I would not be in support of creating an office for the inspector and all the bureaucracy it entails. I think we have sufficient people in government now without adding larger numbers to them. The answer, I suppose, is no.

MR. BARBER: If the answer is no then the remedy has to be found somewhere else. If you're not prepared to establish a tough-minded watchdog called an inspector of municipalities, who does not judge on guilt — courts do that — but who rather judges on conduct — administrative tribunals often do that — then there are other remedies you have to consider.

I would point out, though, that this side of the House is not simply debating criminal conflict of interest. There are lesser degrees of conflict of interest which are just as important to the public but which may not necessarily meet the tests of criminal law and which, in any case, as criminal law are well beyond the jurisdiction of this province.

The minister noted that other provincial jurisdictions have requested that the subject be placed on federal-provincial agenda. I understand that the reason they propose to debate this matter in the Canadian context is because they too have adopted the position that the Criminal Code, as currently written, provides for inadequate criminal law. In any case, as well as amending the currently inadequate Criminal Code, which is not descriptive enough, of all of the aspects of conflict of interest that are current now in the 1980s, they've also recognized their own responsibility to get on with the job within the authority they currently have under the BNA Act as it’s currently written.

I want to return for a moment to what other provinces have done, because if the minister will not accept our proposal to strengthen the hand of the inspector of municipalities, then he must surely allow municipalities to strengthen their own hands and require municipalities to be more concerned about the issue through a rewrite of the Municipal Act.

Let me reiterate. In 1972 the province of Ontario wrote and enacted a Municipal Conflict of Interest Act, which very specifically and very clearly details what is simply not acceptable practice, short of clearly criminal practice, on the part of persons in local government. Eight years ago the province of Ontario realized in a subtle and differentiated way the fact that conflict of interest need not be criminal in order to be real and it need not have to meet the tests of criminal evidence in order to be pursued. There are other steps that you can take in order to deal with the problem and you don't simply have to resort to the courts again and again.

As I mentioned before, Quebec also has a Municipal Bribery and Corruption Act. Almost only in B.C. do we find a line of defence against conflict of interest as thin and inadequate as we most certainly find when we examine B.C. law.

One of the model Canadian acts defining and helping overcome conflict of interest is the City of Winnipeg Act. Through this particular charter the government of Manitoba determined some time ago just how far it could go in the American way of things by being precise and detailed about conflict and how far it should maintain in the British way of things by assuming a common tradition of common good and a common interest. Canadian law is often an amalgam of the two — the American abiding interest in writing everything down and testing everything in the courts later on, and the British willingness to consider instead the benefits and the advantages o the common law.

In Canada it may well be that we can find a happy medium between the two imports of civil policy. One of them is found in the City of Winnipeg Act and another is found in 1977 in this House. It is private members' bill 214, introduced by Gordon Gibson. who was the then leader of the B.C. Liberal Party. Mr. Gibson's private member's bill was intituled Public Officials and Employees Conflict of Interest Act. This bill was attempting in a rational way to deal with, among other things, conflict of interest at the municipal level. Mr. Gibson's bill dealt with gifts, the use of confidential information, promises of future employment, conflicting economic interests, private financial gain, post-employment restrictions and disclosure requirements. Gordon Gibson, to his credit, articulated in a very intelligent and rational way

[ Page 3428 ]

many aspects of conflict of interest, not just the traditional ancient and narrow ones — that you have to be proven to have gone out and bought land where a highway is going and it has to be proven against you that you knew in advance where the highway was going before you were found guilty of conflict of interest. Maybe a few brazen operators operated on that basis at one time but today it is much more subtle. Today the attempts to exploit public knowledge are generally a lot more sneaky. Mr. Gibson defined economic interests as those including those held by the spouse, by dependent children and by business entities controlled by the public official or employee. He exempted blind trusts from the definition of economic interest and he would have employed stiff penalties for failure to comply with the bill. Public bodies could enact or adopt additional guidelines, as provided by this bill. Unfortunately, from our own position, the bill did not set up an enforcement agency.

The government here seems to be adopting an all-or-nothing position. They refuse to grant additional powers to the inspector of municipalities and I think will, at least in a private moment, admit that the current law is inadequate. At the same time they prefer to place their greatest reliance on the Criminal Code as being the only court of sanction against conflict of interest. Thereby they omit to deal entirely with the middle ground. Instead we see only the extremes come into play — the extreme of do-nothingness, which has a disabled inspector of municipalities not given the resources he should have to deal with the problem; and the extreme of criminal prosecution at the other end, where often it is simply impossible to prove breach of trust, conspiracy or malfeasance on the part of an elected person. By the very nature of the crime it is almost impossible to prove it.

It took, as the Chair well knows, literally hundreds of thousands of yards of wiretap evidence before finally one developer and one mayor were recently convicted. It was extremely difficult in that circumstance to prove conspiracy, yet the conspiracy argument was in some measure at the heart of the Crown's case. It's very difficult, all the more then, surely, Mr. Chairman, to prove a conspiracy which takes place entirely in one's own imagination and allows oneself to use information wrongfully gained to advance one's own purpose. If you didn't in fact conspire with anyone else — you simply wrote the bylaw your way — how can you prove conspiracy with someone else to advance you? Well, you can't. Although it is clear to any honest person that someone sat on a bylaw committee and passed something which sure enough provided significant financial advantage, you cannot prove conspiracy because they didn't need to conspire with a developer; they were the developer. They didn't need to conspire with an alderman; they were the alderman. They were both. Because you can't prove conspiracy — you are one and the same, developer and alderman both — how then do you find enough basis to go to a criminal court and ask a judge and jury to find this person guilty? You can't. Conflict of interest is more subtle than that. Conflict of interest is less precise than that. Conflict of interest must be determined in the middle ground that we've been trying to enunciate in this debate.

Occasionally you can find grounds for a successful prosecution in a criminal court. But that's not very often. Occasionally a slap on the wrist from the inspector of municipalities will clean up the situation and head off a Surrey from occurring, or a Langley, or a Chilliwack. Occasionally that's enough. Occasionally a White report is enough. But it was clear that it wasn't in that instance, and in Surrey the problem continued apace and got worse and worse, and finally criminal charges were laid and the mayor went to jail.

Clearly the half-steps taken earlier were not adequate. Just as clearly, the criminal law is not always adequate either. What we are arguing in favour of is the possibility of codifying the middle ground — all of those grey, subtle and difficult areas of conflict of interest that exist, that cannot be disputed in their existence, and that are an offence to every honest person in local government and to every honest elector in British Columbia. Surely there's some case to be made for that.

I want to talk about the UBCM position for a moment. I want to conduct an analysis of some of the material they've put forward. As I said before, I think it has a lot of excellent material in it, but it omits a few things which the official opposition would have considered and debated, and which we may well be raising at the UBCM in September of this year, when we ourselves appear and make representations to them.

The UBCM asserts in its paper that ethics legislation will probably not cure the problem, since such a code could not be made to apply "to the diverse range of responsibilities, functions, duties and decisions that have to be made daily by local governments." There is an opposing view, which holds that certain ethical standards can and should be made to apply to all those who hold public power. Because in fact, as the UBCM itself points out somewhat contradictorily, people in local government would themselves welcome clear guidance, a clear code and a clear statement.

Certain principles which are not now being followed by a "significant minority" who hold local government positions can be set out in black and white. For example, it could be argued that no public official or employee should take part in a discussion on a matter in which he or she has a substantial pecuniary or other interest. Surely the word "interest" can be defined to some extent in advance, as can the word "substantial." But it's been, among other things, the key lack of definition of this phrase which has held back the courts time and again from taking action which they would like to take but cannot because the definition is so clearly inadequate.

Procedures to be followed in such a conflict-of-interest situation can also be set out, and UBCM set out such procedures in its own recommendations. The UBCM position paper also has doubts about the "strict and onerous burdens" which codes of ethics place on well-qualified, honest politicians, adding that such burdens may deter them from serving in local government. There is an opposing view, and it is this: the burdens imposed by codes are simply not onerous, period, and in any event they are already being complied with by all honest public servants and all honest persons who simply by the dictates of their own conscience exempt themselves from debates where they do not belong. It's our judgment that most officials and employees would be pleased to see the rules in at least some guideline form. Those who have a hard time conforming to the code of ethics might very well not belong in public office in the first place.

I remember, in 1974, although I was not a member of our government, hearing the outraged reaction by a few developers who are also speculators, who are also aldermen, when the disclosure legislation was passed by our government. I remember hearing from those people that it would be the death knell of their democratic right to participate in local

[ Page 3429 ]

government. Imagine the shame of it. Imagine, they said, having to disclose their property interests in a municipality. Oh, they were horrified. They thought it was terribly undemocratic; they thought it was tyrannical. I remember that some members of the opposition as well attacked it.

Now six years later no rational person would argue against disclosure. Six years later no rational person would say that there was something wrong in requiring a mayor or an alderman to disclose their financial and property interests in the municipality. Why? Because there have been too many abuses in the past. Why not? Because there appeared to be no better remedy at the time. Was it enough? No, of course not. But it was a darned hard step to be won. It was achieved by our Minister of Municipal Affairs, Mr. Lorimer, and by our Attorney-General, Mr. Macdonald, over incredible opposition from hysterical and irrational people who would have had you believe, if you could take them seriously, that the public had no right to know what a public official owned. Well, that's just nonsense. Fortunately, the argument of our administration won the day, and the irrational and hysterical opponents to it lost, as usual. That was a good thing. However, it is clear that it was not good enough.

It is now clear that public disclosure was not adequate. It is now perfectly clear from Surrey, Langley, Chilliwack, maybe Castlegar, and maybe all the others of the 17 investigations now going on that it was not adequate to the purpose. That being the case, we have to ask the government what else they propose to do. What other steps do they propose to take? Of course, among others, they are going to look at UBCM; and we as well continue to do so.

The UBCM proposal states that legislative amendments "should be directed to guiding a public official or employee in his actions rather than defining individual matters in which he would be breaching a public trust." There are two contrary arguments here. First, mere guidelines are not going to stop or allow for the punishment of those officials and employees who are intent on using public office for their benefit.

Second, defining and prohibiting certain situations which constitute a breach of trust are the only fair and effective ways of controlling conflict of interest. You cannot hold someone to unclear, uncertain or non-existent standards. It is obviously unfair to do so. But at the moment the standards are unclear, inapplicable, impossible to measure and impossible to follow. Kernihan makes an important argument — I will table some of his material if you like — in favour of written guidelines as referred to above. UBCM recommendations set out procedures to be followed when a conflict-of-interest situation arises. These are good but they do not go far enough, in our opinion. In particular, local councillors should not be permitted to vote on matters in which they have a substantial interest which they are required to declare under the disclosure act. Improper use of privileged information should also be prohibited and penalized.

The Saskatchewan Law Reform Commission has a report on conflict of interest. This is another body of precedent which the minister may well want to examine. The Saskatchewan commission points out the need for specific statements of what constitutes real or apparent conflict of interest and a related need for more specific agencies for investigating complaints of conflict of interest and assessing penalties. The Saskatchewan report also goes on to argue — and conclude, in fact, in one major instance — that to some extent specific rules should be established locally in order to specifically match local requirements.

What has happened in Saskatchewan, at least as the Law Reform Commission recommended it, was the establishment of a two-tier approach to conflict of interest. What they argued was that there are some local situations which require tailor-made garments that help them in that particular local instance to deal with conflict of interest. Saskatchewan also argued that there are some provincial standards that must be adhered to across the entire jurisdiction. Those standards must be codified in provincial law and they must be administered by an independent agency.

We'll be getting back to this topic tomorrow, but I would like to offer a few additional arguments in general favour of drawing your attention toward conflict of interest. One of the reasons why neighbourhood groups in B.C. have flourished so much in the last few years, at least in the great urban communities, is because they have put up a very tough fight against developers and speculators who would undermine the family and the neighbourly orientation of that area.

One of the reasons they've put up such a good and convincing fight is that they have been paradoxically aided by developer aldermen who end up personifying on council all of the backward and thoughtless approaches that can be taken to local development and zoning issues. It's been a happy event for a lot of people I know involved in neighbourhood interests in greater Vancouver and greater Victoria that they have been able, from time to time, to point by name to certain persons in local government and say: "Look, our case is not theory. Our case is actively practised and pursued by the following individuals." They are speculators, developers, and entrepreneurs, and they are on local council clearly feathering their own nests.

From time to time those people get defeated, and that's good. From time to time those people are turfed out by the electors, and that's necessary. But it's also clear that sometimes the electors don't have within their command the sufficient remedy of law to do the job that the minister says — at least for the purpose of this debate, if on no other occasion — he believes.

For instance, one thinks again of Surrey. What information could the electors of Surrey have had at their command prior to the last municipal election in order to make a decision about a given individual? What independent agency, perhaps indeed an inspector of municipalities, should have been involved in publishing the reports, the inquiries, and the documents to allow the electors of Surrey to be much better informed about who was proposing to run for public office? If there is no independent agency that can publish these documents, and if the minister continues to refuse to publish the Langley studies, and presumably will continue to refuse to publish the Chilliwack studies, then is it any wonder that people active in civic reform groups should be skeptical about this government's seriousness and its serious intent in dealing will conflict of interest? It is any wonder that those people in neighbourhood groups are, to say the least, profoundly dubious about the willingness of some of those people in local government to deal with conflict of interest in a tough and powerful way?

Well, I don't doubt why they should be skeptical at all. There is no law they can turn to for relief. There is no independent enforcement agency they can rum to for remedy, short of the criminal courts themselves, which may well not be adequate at all. There appears no place you can go, except to the inspector of municipalities if you happen to know about him and if the inspector of municipalities has

[ Page 3430 ]

time to do the job and is able to be as thorough as no doubt he would like to be.

One of the reasons why we lead this debate today, and tomorrow and the next day, is that we are sick and tired of having people come to us in the opposition and insist that the government do something to clean up conflict of interest. Surely it would be preferable to have an adequate law enforcement agency short of the courts to point out where conflict of interest lies and how it might be remedied. Surely it would be preferable to have a code of standards and an ethical statement of behaviour which must be honoured by elected and appointed persons locally and provincially. Surely it would be preferable to do and have all those things, but we can't do any of them because we don't have any of them. All we have is a Criminal Code which is not helpful in many regards. All we have is a Public Officials and Employees Disclosure Act, which was bitterly fought by many Socreds and local governments and which is now being honoured at last. All we have is the Municipal Act, which the minister himself freely confesses needs complete rewriting. What we do not have is leadership from the minister, a statement of serious intent from the minister, the committal of public funds by the minister and a code of ethics made clear and open and preferably enforceable by this government.

I wonder whether or not the minister would be prepared to enunciate and enact a code of ethics as a statement made by his own office to be adhered to by local government. If it is possible that the Criminal Code cannot possibly apply the sanctions necessary and if it's impossible as well that the role of the current inspector of municipalities' office is inadequate for the purpose, then maybe the voluntary approach is worth some effort. Maybe simply a voluntary statement, voluntarily adhered to by people in local government, could be of some assistance. The one they've prepared, given to the minister of November 23, 1977, has by no means been enacted. The minister's reply as to what's happened to that over the last three years is totally unacceptable; it's a pattern of sloth and indolence and unwillingness to treat the issue seriously. We could understand if it took three months to debate the matter; we would certainly understand if it took, say, three months to come up with a code of ethics; but to take three years and to come up with nothing is totally unacceptable to the opposition.

The principal theme of today's debate has been on the wilful neglect of this minister to deal with the problem of conflict of interest. The principal proposals we've made today have been to study the British and American and Canadian precedent. They've been proposals to study in depth the UBCM suggestions; they have been proposals to examine in detail the possibility....

HON. MR. CURTIS: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, the member has referred to "wilful neglect," and I, as a member of this House, find that offensive.

MR. CHAIRMAN: If the Hon. member has imputed any motives that are unparliamentary to an hon. member, will the hon. member withdraw, as is the custom of the House?

MR. BARBER: Well, of course. But if the minister would have been here three hours ago, he would have heard me say the same thing then.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The member withdraws.

MR. BARBER: Yes.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I also advise the hon. member of the three-minute warning light.

Interjections.

MR. BARBER: We understand why the Socreds are uncomfortable with conflict-of-interest debates. We know full well why you're defensive and we know full well why you've been neglecting the entire field for these five years of your administration.

Interjection.

MR. BARBER: Yes, but we'll have more to say tomorrow. Meanwhile I move the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Davidson in the chair.

The committee, having reported resolutions, was granted leave to sit again.

Division ordered to be recorded in the Journals of the House.

MR. BARNES: Mr. Speaker, I'd, like to ask leave that we move to resolution No. 20 standing in my name on the order paper — to do with the Ku Klux Klan.

Leave not granted.

MR. BARNES: Mr. Speaker, if there are any noes, I feel that we should have a division. When a matter is as important as this, surely they don't need to hide in secrecy like the KKK are doing. That's why I am standing now — because we are dealing with a secret organization. It looks as though those members haven't the courage of their own convictions to stand up and express themselves.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, earlier today the same dispute arose and we had to identify someone who said no. I did not hear a "no." Would you put the question again, Mr. Speaker?

Interjections.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. members, order, please. An hon. member has requested that the question be put again. The Chair sees nothing wrong with a clear repeat. Shall leave be granted?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: No.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I hear several noes again, hon. member.

Hon. Mr. Curtis tabled answers to questions standing in his name on the order paper.

[ Page 3431 ]

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. members, earlier today the Chair made a ruling with respect to the attire of members while in the chamber. I refer hon. members to the comments to be found at page 80 of the fifth edition of Beauchesne, namely that Speakers have enforced conservative contemporary standards in the House. I have examined the Journals of this House and can find no record of a ruling or statement by Mr. Speaker, although I believe a statement was made. I have also examined the Journals of the House and determined that no other ruling has been made, although a statement was made in 1977, wherein the Speaker of the day pointed out that the advent of air conditioning in the chamber had made it possible to keep the temperature at a reasonable level. Standing order 9 clearly imposes a duty on the Speaker to preserve order and decorum, and unless the House should decline to relieve the Speaker of that obligation the comments in Beauchesne will continue to apply.

Hon. Mr. Williams moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 6:01 p.m.