[ Page 11619 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Members' Conflict of Interest Act (Bill 66). Committee stage.

(Hon. Mr. Dirks) –– 11619

Mr. Lovick

Mr. Perry

Mr. Sihota

Hon. Mrs. Gran

Mr. Serwa

Mr. Kempf

Mr. Reid

Hon. Mr. Strachan

Mr. Mercier

Ms. Marzari

Hon. Mr. Richmond

Mr. Clark

Mr. Harcourt

Mr. Bruce

Third reading

Supply Act, 1990-91 (Bill 80). Hon. Mr. Richmond

Introduction and first reading –– 11637

Second reading –– 11637

Committee stage –– 11637

Third reading

Royal assent to bills –– 11638

The House met at 9:32 a.m.

Prayers.

Orders of the Day

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Committee on Bill 66, Mr. Speaker.

MEMBERS' CONFLICT OF INTEREST ACT

The House in committee on Bill 66; Mr. Pelton in the chair.

HON. MR. DIRKS: I listened very carefully last night to what was said in this House during the debate on second reading of this legislation. This legislation, I will repeat, is good legislation. In light of the speeches that were made last night, it isn't the intent of this government to gag anyone, certainly not in this House. Therefore, Mr. Chairman, we have proposed some amendments to the bill, which are being circulated now.

On section 1.

MR. LOVICK: You can understand that we're struggling a little, given that the list of amendments has only just now arrived on this side of the House. Therefore I really don't have a great deal to say about section 1. I'm sure that will not cause us any difficulties.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Chair will not cause you any problem on this either, hon. member.

MR. PERRY: I also confess to some pressure in that we saw the bill only yesterday. I'd like the minister to amplify for the Legislature, and for the future benefit of the commissioner, what the words "private interest" mean. I'm not sure that there is a universally accepted definition of "private interest." The definition provided on page 2 of the bill in section 1 shows what private interest does not include. To my surprise, for example, it shows that private interest, according to this definition, does not include the remuneration and benefits of a Member of the Legislative Assembly.

I've always thought it would be preferable for the remuneration and benefits of a Member of the Legislative Assembly to be determined by someone other then the members — someone who has a more objective assessment of what is fair, be it a senior judge or an independent employee of the Legislative Assembly. I'm not really clear what private interest does mean.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, I am sorry to interrupt you — and we don't want to get off on the wrong foot this morning — but it would seem to me that the points you are raising are beyond the scope of this bill. You're talking about remuneration, which is beyond the scope of this particular bill.

MR. PERRY: I'm just pointing out that this definition shows what private interest does not include, and I wonder if the minister could give more ample definition to clarify what private interest does mean.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I'm sure that that question is in order, hon. member.

HON. MR. DIRKS: That really is a standard definition found in other similar legislation — i.e. Ontario.

MR. SIHOTA: I think a lot in this bill turns on the definition of "private interest." I'm not going to make a long speech about this, but I'm just going to put on the record what I think should be the case, and how I think it should be defined.

I think private interest is too narrow in scope. That will become evident as we go through the various sections. It would be far wiser for the government to eliminate the word "private" and have the word "interest, " and then define "interest" to include both indirect pecuniary interest and indirect pecuniary liability, and also define at the time the matter of subsidiary corporations so that interest is deemed and seen to be interpreted in its broadest fashion so that any interest, direct or indirect, would be captured by this legislation.

HON. MR. DIRKS: I believe we would end up tying the poor commissioner into knots, so that he really couldn't look at the very serious aspects of each individual case — look at it on its merits.

MR. SIHOTA: As I said, I don't want to get into a protracted debate with the minister. But it seems to me that if you're going to hire a commissioner to do the job, then if the job is made a little bit more difficult than it otherwise might be, there's nothing wrong with that. Secondly and more importantly, it seems to me that the concern ought not to be about the difficulties the commissioner may have, but rather, protecting the public interest and ensuring that members do not benefit directly or indirectly from their activities. It seems to me that ought to be the driving force behind the legislation, as opposed to concerns the commissioner may have.

MR. PERRY: Maybe I'm simple-minded, Mr. Chair, but could the minister explain the legislative rationale behind the definition of a spouse being limited to a person married to a member or living with a member as husband or wife for a continuous period of not less than two years? What is magical about two years in terms of the purpose of the bill?

A second question. Given the limitations of the provincial Human Rights Act and recent decisions of the courts and the universities, would "spouse" cover couples of the same sex?

[ Page 11620 ]

HON. MR. DIRKS: This is the common definition of a spouse found in all our legislation. You can find it in the School Act.

Section 1 approved.

On section 2.

MR. SIHOTA: Conflict of interest is again defined as an opportunity to further a member's private interest. That is narrow in scope, given the definition we've just discussed, and again, it ought to be broader in scope so that it doesn't deal with just, as the section says, the member's private Interest. "Member" is defined as a Member of the Legislative Assembly or the executive council or both. It should be dealing with a member and immediate relatives, particularly a spouse's and children's direct and indirect interests. That's the way it should be done. For the purposes of the point I'm trying to make here, conflict of interest is defined narrowly as opposed to broadly. The government would have been better advised to define it more broadly.

Section 2 approved.

On section 3.

MR. SIHOTA: This is a clause that demonstrates one of the loopholes found in the legislation. Let me put it to you this way. This would allow a situation involving a release of agricultural land — as we saw in British Columbia already — from the agricultural land reserve designated for golf course purposes. So long as the member himself does not own the property in question, others can benefit from the increase in value of taking the land out of the ALR and making it a golf course, because under this section one can go to a family member — it doesn't even have to be family; they can go to another — and give them insider information which would not seek to further the member's private interest but may affect the private interests of those who are close to the member. If I can capture it in one word, I think it's a rather savage clause.

HON. MR. DIRKS: I believe there are provisions under the Criminal Code that would apply in that instance.

MR. SIHOTA: The member should understand that to use that argument — which if he uses again, I might as well put on the record now — is significantly tangential. To say that influence-peddling ought to be covered by the Criminal Code and not by this bill says that this government is not prepared to deal with the matter on its own.

[9:45]

Given the definitions of the Criminal Code with respect to what constitutes a criminal offence of influence-peddling and what may constitute a civil wrong under this legislation, they are two different things. We're talking about apples and oranges, different definitions, different standards of proof. We're talking about different ways in which one can work around the Code and still not be captured by this provision.

I don't want to give the hon. member a long lecture on influence-peddling, but let me give you another example. In 1987 in this House I raised the example of the Minister of Tourism (Hon. Mr. Michael). His situation was not captured by the influence-peddling provisions of the Criminal Code, but he used his influence as a cabinet minister to get Mr. Tadema, I believe it was, to try to buy some property in the Shuswap. He was using his influence as a minister on an unrelated matter to get him to acquire property.

That is not covered by this section. He would be free from the provisions of the Code, as he was found to be in that case, and free in this case from the provisions of the government's conflict of interest — and consequently would fall through the gaps between the two legislations.

HON. MR. DIRKS: I would hate to argue with some learned friend opposite who is trained in the legal profession, but I understand that it is not constitutional for us to deal with matters that are covered by the Criminal Code.

MR. SIHOTA: I'll deal with that issue up front now, again to avoid debate on it later on, because the same argument will come up in other areas.

Everyone understands the constitutional arrangements that exist. There a number of provincial pieces of legislation that intrude upon the criminal jurisdiction. Surely the government, out of an abundance of caution, would be better advised to have broad legislation. Then those accused would be able to go before the courts and make the argument that maybe this legislation is unconstitutional and leave the courts to make that determination — as opposed to this government narrowly defining the scope of its legislation so as to provide no argument with respect to the constitutionality of it in terms of whether it's within the Code and then giving the accused that out.

Section 3 approved.

On section 4.

MR. SIHOTA: The points I just made with respect to sections 2 and 3 apply to section 4. Section 4 actually deals more directly with the influence situation, so we were just a little bit ahead when we dealt with it through 3. Insider information and influence are very similar concepts.

I call this the Sinclair Stevens clause. It would not deal with the matter of Sinclair and Mrs. Stevens discussing the matter over breakfast and then — as was the case in that situation — her benefiting from a decision.

Section 4 approved.

[ Page 11621 ]

On section 5.

MR. SIHOTA: I was surprised the minister didn't have any response to number 4.

With respect to number 5, this is a clause that I would call the Surrey–White Rock–Cloverdale clause. I want the minister to explain the purpose behind this clause before I get into further debate on it. Why put in a section here that says the act does not prohibit the activities in which members normally engage on behalf of constituents?

First I would like an explanation from the minister, then I'll give him an example. Could the minister explain the purposes behind the injection of this clause into the bill?

HON. MR. DIRKS: That's the ongoing duties of a member to his constituents. I really don't understand the problem there.

MR. SIHOTA: You have your staff there. Perhaps your staff can explain to you the purpose behind this clause. Do you know what the purpose behind this clause is, Mr. Minister? I'll repeat the question, because I see that Mr. Watt is talking to the minister, Mr. Chairman. If he doesn't answer it, then I want to make a further comment with respect to the section.

HON. MR. DIRKS: It's simply to resolve any idea that members in this House cannot carry out their duties as MLA to their constituents, but whether there is a breach of that certainly would be determined by the commission. This is similar to the legislation in place in Ontario and the proposed legislation in Alberta.

MR. SIHOTA: Let me give the government some examples of situations that have happened in the past. I gave my speech last night in terms of the scandal-ravaged government, and I don't want to do that. But I can give you examples of three situations that have come up over the last four years, which come to mind immediately and raise questions as to why you have this clause.

The first one is the matter of the Premier's assistance to Mr. Toigo. Remember the famous line from the Premier at the time: "Well, look, you know, all I was trying to do was help out a constituent. Any British Columbian can pick up the phone and talk to me about any matter, and I'd help them out." But that case involved improper interference on the part of the Premier with respect to the Expo lands, and it raised all sorts of questions. One obvious one was how Mr. Toigo knew that he could get to Hong Kong to meet Li Ka-shing before it became public that Li Ka-shing had bid on the property. Does that provide the Premier, in the event of a conflict of interest, with a defence under section 5 — saying he was acting on behalf of constituents?

The second, very simple example was the case involving Sonny-Unger. I believe it was a trucking company that was raised very early by either my colleague for Prince Rupert (Mr. Miller) or by the second member for Vancouver East (Mr. Clark). Again the defence in that case was: "Well, I was only trying to help my constituents."

Similarly with the lottery situation that Mr. Marson reported upon, which the minister obviously — because he was in receipt of that report — is very familiar with. This section provides a defence: "Well, look, all I was trying to do was help out the Semiahmoo society." To heck with whether or not White Rock wanted the stuff tendered, to heck with whether or not — in the case of conflict of interest, of course — there were any benefits accruing. I'm not saying that there were in that case, because that evidence hasn't been dealt with except for what we know the former Attorney-General to have said on tape. What I'm saying is that that would then afford the member a defence: saying that he was acting on behalf of constituents.

It's unnecessary to say in a piece of legislation that a member has to act on behalf of his constituents. Of course, all members do. But if a member stands to benefit from acting on behalf of his constituents — financially, for example — why provide him with a defence? Why provide the commissioner or the courts, who may have to interpret this, with a section that says.... Why was it that the Legislature put this section in here? They put it in here, obviously, for some reason and obviously to provide some type of defence to the person who is accused of a conflict of interest. That defence is: "It may have been wrong, it may be in violation of sections –– 2, 3 and 4; but heck, I was engaging in a matter which I would normally engage in on behalf of my constituents."

It raises a superfluous issue. It raises an issue which is now mandated by law, an issue which can quite easily be interpreted as a defence. It's not necessary to have this section in the act. In fact, I would suggest that it provides a shield for a violation of the act. I don't think that ought to be the purpose of conflict-of-interest legislation.

HON. MR. DIRKS: I listened as the member opposite, as is his wont, drew out a whole line of what he thinks are very serious allegations and breaches of etiquette and what not. I don't understand why he's opposed to this, because basically this legislation would allow that an independent body would determine whether those bounds were broken in serving his constituents. It's good legislation. It's standard in the Ontario situation. Here you would have an independent person that would be able to look at a situation and say whether the member had gone too far in trying to serve his constituents.

HON. MRS. GRAN: I have to just enter into this debate briefly, from the point of view of an MLA from the Fraser Valley. I want to use the Land Commission as an example. In Langley, 85 percent of the land is in the ALR. I'm sure all of the members in this House can imagine what the pressure is like on the owners of that land and on the municipality to provide more land for housing.

[ Page 11622 ]

It's also a fact that almost three-quarters of the people who live in my constituency vote Social Credit. The chances of one of those landowners holding a Social Credit membership card is very strong. When they come in for assistance to go through the system, I don't ask what their politics are — whether they're NDP or Social Credit. But it's gotten to the point now where I think a lot of members are very nervous even helping someone go through the system. That's just one example. I think we have to be very careful when we sort of slide accusations out that if you help someone go through a process that's set up by government.... Whether you agree with it or not, if the appeal process is there, then I think we have a duty as MLAs to help them go through that process, whether we believe that the land should be released or not. So I think this clause is very important for us.

You can look, hon. member... That's something that we might remember in this House today, hon. members. The member for Esquimalt–Port Renfrew is assuming that there is no longer any such thing as honourable members. I want to remind that member that there are a great number of honourable members on both sides of this House. Don't shake your hand at me like my opinion doesn't matter. Is it because I'm Social Credit or because I'm a woman that my opinion doesn't matter to you?

MR. SERWA: I too am very pleased to enter into this committee debate on section 5. I note the hon. member for Esquimalt–Port Renfrew and his comments, and his reference to an earlier section as a "savage clause," and I would ask that he make no more play on words in a serious debate.

I think that the hon. member for Esquimalt–Port Renfrew is probably enunciating the world as he sees it — and what a miserable, bleak world that is! I've often heard the comment: "You see the world as you are." I believe in the inherent goodness in people; I believe in honesty, integrity and honour. That member apparently does not believe that those qualifications are given freely to all people. I'm disappointed in his display. The cynicism and distrust of all people that he exhibits diminishes not only the hon. members of this House but also the good and noble intent of all people.

I'm concerned about his comments with respect to this particular section. If the hon. member looks at his own constituency and the number of times he has spoken in this House on matters that are important to his constituents.... He spoke recently of the shipbuilding industry, which is important....

MR. CLARK: Point of order, Mr. Chairman. At some point we have to object to the sanctimonious drivel from the member from the Okanagan. I would ask you to call him to order, please.

MR. CHAIRMAN: It's really a matter of relevancy, hon. member. If we're going to get through this bill this morning, we must be relevant; we must deal with the clauses as they're brought before us.

MR. SERWA: I'm mindful of the comments and the direction that the second member for Vancouver East (Mr. Clark).... He follows very closely in the footsteps of the first member for Vancouver East (Mr. Williams).

I just wanted to point out, while we're debating this section, that the comments the member from Esquimalt has made with respect to the shipyards, and the numerous occasions on which he has talked about matters concerning ICBC and the substantial amount of his work in that direction — I'm given to understand.... I would suggest that this clause ensures that he can continue to stand in defence of his constituents, as is his responsibility, Mr. Chairman. I am confident that the intent of this clause is to not preclude our ability to stand in defence of our constituents, and to remove it from suspicion.

[10:00]

MR. CHAIRMAN: The member's relevancy is perfect.

MR. KEMPF: I had no intention whatsoever of getting up, but I think the debate that's gone on in the last ten or 15 minutes is indicative of the depth to which debate has sunk in this chamber. It's the sort of thing I was trying to explain when speaking on the Carmanah Pacific Park Act a short time ago in this chamber. We forget, Mr. Chairman, on both sides of this House, what we are really here for.

I've got to say this and have it recorded once again in the journals of this House. As duly elected representatives, we forget what we're here for and who sent us here. In my humble estimation, we're here only for the betterment of our constituents. We're here to speak on behalf of our constituents. We're not here for ourselves. We're not here for the lawyers or the judges of this province or this country. We're here for our constituents. If it weren't for the level to which debate sinks in this House, we wouldn't have to have this bill here at all, Mr. Chairman.

If in my daily duties as a member of this Legislative Assembly I can't speak or do the things that are necessary for my constituents, I might just as well not be here. We all forget who sends us here. We talk pretty lightly about our constituents when we get into this chamber. We don't take our duties here seriously enough. What would we have done were it not for our duties to our constituents? Would we have the lawyers of this world do all the representing of people? Why then do we have this Legislature? We don't take what we're here for seriously enough.

Because this is the last session of this parliament and within weeks, if not days, we'll be going into a general election in British Columbia, I think there are a whole lot of us in this chamber who had better start realizing why we are here. If they're not serious about that, I say to them, whichever side of this floor they sit on: resign and get out of it. We're here for our constituents. We're here for clause 5. Anyone who would speak against this clause in this bill would not take seriously why we were sent by our constituents to this chamber.

[ Page 11623 ]

MR. PERRY: I just want to make a point for the journals of the Legislative Assembly while we are talking about the interests of constituents. This House had been scheduled to adjourn yesterday. We've just been served with another apparently ridiculous amendment to this bill at the last minute. Talk about serving the interests of our constituents and the public! This is making a farce of democracy.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The hon. member is talking about a section in the bill we haven't even arrived at yet. We're dealing with section 5, hon. member. Does the member wish to continue on section 5?

The member for Suffey–White Rock–Cloverdale.

MR. REID: I rise on section 5, for the first time in ten months, because the member for Esquimalt–Port Renfrew called this the Surrey–White Rock–Cloverdale amendment. He referred to two particular issues on which constituents of mine came to me, and one of them he called the Sonny-Unger affair. I take pride in serving my constituents and particularly on the two issues which he talks about.

The first one he refers to — which I'll elaborate on — was a construction firm that was driven to the wall, almost to bankruptcy, because of the unfair treatment of people within the bureaucracy of the Highways ministry. It may seem ironic, but after I made a presentation on behalf of my constituent to the ministry as an elected MLA, his problems seemed to diminish and finally went away. He was able to complete his contract in the same manner as every other contractor that was working on the Deas Island freeway. It wasn't for any other reason except that he was a non-union contractor. But that didn't preclude him from being a constituent of mine having the concern of being abused by the system and not getting fair treatment and a fair hearing on behalf of his contract and his employees. I challenge the media up there today to visit Mr. Ike Unger in South Surrey. I challenge you on that side to visit Ike Unger from South Surrey and ask him what happened after his MLA became involved in serving his constituents.

AN HON. MEMBER: They don't want the facts.

MR. REID: Do you want the facts? Go to him, instead of standing in your place over there and making criticisms of a member serving his constituents. I didn't serve him because he was a Social Crediter, but that would be your charge. That would be your challenge. I served him because he was in trouble. He was losing everything he owned, because he was advancing a contract and he wasn't being treated fairly. That's what you don't care about. If the fellow isn't a different colour, somehow or other you don't have any concern for him.

You sit down in your place, Mr. Member, because I've had enough of you for ten months going out there and calling what I've been doing for my constituents a scandal. You should be ashamed of yourself. My sister is going to turn over in her grave, thanks to you, you turkey. I'm telling you, I've had enough. Because you don't want the truth. And you would not proceed any further, Mr. Member from Esquimalt–Port Renfrew. I wanted my day, and you wouldn't proceed. You know why? Because you don't want the truth. I was dealing with constituents of mine, a special needs group which for ten months....

MR. CLARK: Your campaign manager? Is he a special needs group?

MR. REID: He's a constituent of mine. He's not a special needs group. I'm talking about the mentally handicapped, my friend. That project was to service the mentally handicapped, and my constituent, who happens to be a businessman, was dealing with this program like anybody else. You show me for one second where there was favouritism. You can't, and that's why you withdrew, my friend. That's why that unhonourable member withdrew. He wouldn't proceed. You know why? The story couldn't be written by those fellows behind the rail up there. They know it's not true, but you know what? They don't want the truth. I'm prepared to stand anywhere in this land — in here or out of here — and defend my constituents, and serve my constituents in the manner in which I have in the past.

I hold my head up on this last day, and I appreciate this bill coming in, and I appreciate this section. You see, my friends, once this comes in, every constituent.... And he should be without this bill, but we need the bill so members like that over there can't, for ten months, destroy people.

Look, I'm elected. I'm prepared to accept whatever you want to do to me. But I can tell you, my friends, if you don't know what this has done to the mentally handicapped in South Surrey, to the program....

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, oh!

MR. REID: No, never mind. My daughter is one of them. Go "aw, aw!" If you want to know what this has done, it has destroyed maybe a dozen families. If you're happy about that, that's great. But I can tell you one thing: I was elected to fight on behalf of all of my constituents, whether they carried an NDP card or not. If you want to talk to some of the NDPers — there are very few — who are left out my way, you ask them if they weren't serviced in the same manner as everybody else in my constituency in my term of office. You will find that I treated them all the same, whether they had a Social Credit card, an NDP card, a Conservative card, a Liberal card or Reform. It didn't matter to me, because I have a job to do. I came here and was elected by all to represent all.

When you determine who they are in your own sleazy way, and I call that sleazy member over...

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, you'll have to withdraw that comment, please. I'm not going to allow this.

[ Page 11624 ]

MR. REID: Okay, I'm sorry. I withdraw that comment, and I'll call him that wacko member over there.

MR. CHAIRMAN: No, withdraw that too. I am not going to allow this debate to get to this level. Proceed, but the language must be parliamentary.

MR. REID: Last night on numerous occasions I was called a wacko member on this side of the House, and all of a sudden because it's a brand-new day, and a member wants to stand in his place and call other people by the same terminology, the Chair rules it out of order.

I accept your ruling, Mr. Chairman. I withdraw, but I'll say it outside the House. I don't have any problem with that. That's why there's a difference between you and me, sir. I'm an honourable member. I'm prepared to say that outside the House, and anything that I say in here I'm prepared to say outside the House.

In summing up, Mr. Chairman, it's been a long ten months for me. I relish this conflict-of-interest bill, because I can tell you that throughout this province many, many people are looking for the sunshine to come through and for the truth to finally surface. To my colleagues up there, I hope, finally, for once and for all, the truth will surface. Because you see, there is nothing out there. You have nothing out there, except you have destroyed enough people to make your day — so congratulations.

MR. SIHOTA: I've listened very carefully to the speeches made by all of the Social Credit members who have spoken on this matter. It has been said by others that this is a government that can't distinguish between right and wrong. Let me deal with right and wrong as they relate to this section. I think it can be done fairly quickly. It is right, of course, to act on behalf of a constituent. For those like the first member for Langley (Hon. Mrs. Gran), who spoke on this, there's nothing wrong with working to help a constituent. Quite frankly, as I listen to the debate, I am beginning to be persuaded that many people over there don't understand what a conflict of interest is.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SIHOTA: Just hang on for a moment. A conflict of interest only arises and becomes a conflict of interest and a wrong when you provide...

MR. MERCIER: When you say it is.

MR. SIHOTA: Just hang on; if you'd just listen.

... assistance, influence or information to another party, be it a constituent or not, for your own benefit — where you benefit. If you're not benefiting, if there's no financial benefit, if there is no pecuniary benefit, if there is no benefit as defined in the section or in earlier sections — and I've said that the definition of "benefit" and "interest" is nominally defined — then there is no conflict. It only becomes a wrong if you benefit. Therefore nothing hinders your ability to protect the interests of your constituents or to work on behalf of your constituents. There's nothing wrong with that.

If you begin to get your hand in the cookie jar as a result of the help you provide, then you're caught in the trap of conflict of interest. I don't think people understand....

Interjections.

MR. SIHOTA: Members say they want an example of the cookie jar. I'd be happy to provide you with an example.

AN HON. MEMBER: That's been proven.

MR. SIHOTA: I'll quote from the Deputy Attorney-General, Mr. Hughes, from a report that he issued on December 11, 1987, so that members understand.

[10:15]

MR. MERCIER: Who ruled on it?

MR. SIHOTA: This was ruled on by the Deputy Attorney-General. It says:

"On July 14, 1987, the economic development committee of cabinet received a delegation from Powder Mountain Resorts Ltd." The Minister of Tourism (Hon. Mr. Michael) "was present as a member of that cabinet committee. It was ultimately to be the responsibility of that committee to recommend to cabinet which, if any, amongst competing applicants should receive development rights to Crown lands owned by Powder Mountain. Included in the Powder Mountain Resorts Ltd. delegation was Roger Tadema, a minor shareholder of the company...."

"Following the conclusion of the meeting" — then it names the current member for Shuswap-Revelstoke (Hon. Mr. Michael) —"approached Mr. Tadema and asked for his business card to enable him to make future contact with Mr. Tadema. Whether the reason for the request was amplified at that time is not clear, but approximately two weeks later a telephone call" from the current Minister of Tourism "to Tadema made the reason quite clear." The Minister of Tourism "held an ownership interest in recreational lots on the Shuswap and wanted to know if those with whom Tadema had contact in the world of investment and finance might be interested in purchasing some of the lots."

I think the rest of the story is well known.

MR. MERCIER: The bottom line is: where's the personal gain?

Interjections.

MR. SIHOTA: I'm sorry if you don't see where the.... An attempt to influence is not a crime....

Listen to page 4 of that report, if you want to know where the breach is. Just be quiet for a moment and listen.

"Based on the facts of each of the foregoing instances," — which I've just quoted to you from the

[ Page 11625 ]

report — "I have no hesitation in saying that" — then it mentions the conduct of the Minister of Tourism — "constituted a breach of number 1 and number 2 of the guidelines for cabinet ministers as announced on January 15, 1987, by the Premier. The relevant portion of each reads: 'the minister shall ensure that their ability to exercise their duties and responsibilities objectively does not appear to be affected by financial interests of their own; secondly, a minister shall not be involved in day-to-day activities of a business where such activity is likely to conflict with their public duties.'"

"With respect to guideline number 1 the minister violated, and with respect to number 2 he violated."

I've read it to you very, very carefully in terms of what was wrong in that case, and I heard the member for Burnaby-Edmonds (Mr. Mercier), when I read it in the first place, not being able to appreciate it.

You just don't understand what conflict of interest is. Nothing wrong to help out a constituent — just don't do it for your own gain. It doesn't matter if they've got a Social Credit membership, an NDP membership or a Liberal membership. None of us, no matter which side we're on, gives blood tests to constituents to determine whether they belong to a particular political party. We all provide them with assistance. When you provide that assistance, there's nothing wrong with that. It becomes a wrong when you benefit from it.

As I said at the outset, the benefit is not getting a vote. There has to be a benefit as defined by the act —"interest" in this legislation and "benefit" in other legislation like our conflict-of-interest bill.

As I said at the outset, members opposite seem to have difficulty being able to distinguish between right and wrong. Right is to help out your constituents; wrong is to benefit from that assistance.

MR. MERCIER: On a point of order. I resent the implications that were just made by the member when he said, members seem to be unable to distinguish right from wrong, and I would ask that he withdraw that comment.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, that is not an unparliamentary comment.

MR. MERCIER: Mr. Chairman, in the context of the comments that the member was making, the implication was clear, and I would ask that he withdraw those.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Is the member for Esquimalt–Port Renfrew prepared to withdraw?

MR. SIHOTA: I thought it was a very fair comment, Mr. Chairman. You commented on it, and I think it was appropriate, quite frankly.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Was the member imputing wrongful motives to anybody in the House?

MR. SIHOTA: In no way whatsoever. I was making a comment. In fact, it was the opposite; I was trying to explain that people don't seem to understand what amounts to a conflict of interest.

MR. MERCIER: We're talking about a bill on conflict of interest. The member implied that there are other members of this House who, in this context, cannot distinguish right from wrong — and I resent that. If he implied that I am in that category, I would ask that he withdraw.

MR. CHAIRMAN: When the member was asked by the Chair whether he was impugning the motives of anybody else in the House, he said no. I appreciate the point the member is making. This is the kind of bill which brings matters like this forward one right after the other, I guess.

I would like to say at this point, while I have the attention of everyone in the House, that it seems to me that section 5.... The debate has been excellent on section 5, and it has been well covered. I would suggest that we could perhaps move along to another section.

MR. SIHOTA: Let me just conclude by making this point: it is correct and right to work on behalf of constituents; it's wrong to benefit from it financially, or as defined in the act.

Let me also say, finally, that I think this has been a very useful debate around section 5, because it has helped to demonstrate the extent to which some people in here don't seem to understand what a conflict of interest is. I think we are probably all better off, because I would hope that people now understand the difference between what is allowed and what ought not to be allowed.

Section 5 approved unanimously on a division.

Section 6 approved.

On section 7.

MR. SIHOTA: With respect to section 7, the only comment I want to make.... There are two of them. First of all, I'm not convinced that 12 months is an appropriate time. I would argue for two years. But that's neither here nor there. It's certainly well within the right of the government to decide they're going to put that time-period down instead of the 12 months.

I'm just wondering if the minister could clarify for me the intention behind 7(2).

HON. MR. DIRKS: Well, that simply allows former members to be appointed to boards and commissions and that type of thing, where their expertise would be of value.

MR. SIHOTA: Well, yesterday during debate I called this the Nielsen clause, or I guess you can call it the Heinrich clause. It just allows that to happen. I don't want to get into a lengthy debate as to whether or not that should happen. I think that the examples I've cited give an indication of what the purpose of

[ Page 11626 ]

the section was. I just wanted to make sure that my reading on it was correct, and obviously it is.

[10:30]

Section 7 approved.

On section 8.

MR. SIHOTA: With respect to section 8, there are a couple of things I wanted to raise, so I'll just go through them in order. Section 8(2) says that "a person who becomes a member of the Executive Council shall comply with subsection (1) within 60 days of being appointed." I'm not too sure why the government chose to put that provision in, as it relates to the time-period.

HON. MR. DIRKS: This is simply to allow the member, when he is appointed to the executive council, to get his house in order and his finances in place so he can actually meet the guidelines.

MR. SIHOTA: Fair enough; that's what I thought. I just compared it to what we had done in our bill, and I'm not sure that 60 days is necessary. It could be a shorter period. But again, as I said earlier on....

Interjections.

MR. SIHOTA: Don't make those kinds of.... I think some of us made arrangements for our affairs In a particular fashion before we even got elected.

The other question I have relates to section....

MR. WILLIAMS: Maybe we should begin now.

MR. SIHOTA: Yes, and I've already started now for the next time here.

I'm wondering what section 8(5) is designed to cover. What kind of fact pattern is that section designed to cover?

HON. MR. DIRKS: I don't want to prolong the debate, but some of us don't have in-house lawyers, so we have to wait on the legal profession to help us. On the section that you're talking about, that basically allows a minister to carry on regular financial transactions that he would on a personal basis, such as RRSPs, bank accounts and this type of thing.

MR. SIHOTA: I've got no problem with RRSPs and that kind of thing. I'm not too sure that you'd have to have this section to cover that. As I read the section, I'm not convinced in my own mind that that's what the section speaks to.

Let me give you two examples of situations that have come to public attention in the last few years, to point out whether or not this would provide a defence. There is the case that I mentioned yesterday of the member for Comox (Hon. S. Hagen) and the fact that he was accused of being in a conflict of interest by virtue of the fact that the university had entered into a contract for the provision of cement. In that case, his defence was that he thought he had his lawyers, on a routine basis, deal with the situation, and that was an error on their part. The tabling of those kinds of documents and filing the company's records may well be routine personal financial matters; yet they were captured by the conflict-of-interest allegations at the time.

Another example is the Premier and his handling of the lease of the building in Kamloops to B.C. Hydro, which is another case that we saw. Again, he argued that he only had peripheral involvement in that. I don't know about 8(5), but as I read 8(5), it may well allow him to do exactly what he did with respect to Kamloops, when he himself admitted that really that should not have been the case, and he sought to remedy it by pulling the property off the market, at least with respect to government contracts.

It would seem to me that a reading of 8(5) would capture those kinds of situations. The minister does have his staff there, and I just wanted assurance from the staff that it does not capture either of those two situations.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Just before the Chair solicits an answer to the question, I believe there is a point that should be raised. The member for Esquimalt–Port Renfrew will understand it very well. The Chair understands what he's doing in illustrating the various points he's making, but there is a rule that says allegations against a member of the House cannot be made unless on a substantive motion to the House. I think we are skating kind of close to that situation.

MR. SIHOTA: Mr. Chairman, I thank you for that. We're in a tough situation, because I can talk in general terms but it doesn't capture the situation. I am mindful of what you're saying, and I've been trying to stay on the correct side of that line. I'm raising examples that we know to be factually correct. I accept your advice.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much. It would be better if we could say these things without using any names at all. That would resolve the problem completely. The government House Leader.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Well, I'm not; I'm just a minister right now.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Sorry, I forgot which hat you were wearing.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I wasn't going to enter into this debate, because I've been to the dentist this morning, but there are a couple of things I wanted to point out.

First of all, just to give some examples on section 8 with respect to 60 days, probably the best example would be our second member for Saanich and the Islands (Mr. Huberts), who, as you all know, had a very successful veterinary business. He didn't wind that down when he was in the back bench, but he could have been appointed to cabinet immediately upon election and would need at least 60 days to

[ Page 11627 ]

wind down a business like that. That's the type of example we're looking at here. I'm sure the members would consider that.

Secondly, in terms of the member for Comox (Hon. S. Hagen) and section 8(5), in no way in law would you see a cement business as being a personal financial interest. That is clearly a business, so the member is misreading that section. In law, a personal financial interest would not include a business.

MR. MERCIER: Without prolonging debate, I also want to comment that in a business, a legal or other type of professional practice, it would be reasonable to take up to 60 days to make the necessary transitional arrangements.

In addition, I wanted to mention a couple of the subsections. Referring to the making of regulations by the commissioner, I hope that when the regulations are put together, under 8(4)(b) there's a definition of "arms length" which is compatible with some other statutes — the Income Tax Act, or other bodies of law. Under 8(4)(c), in the case of a trustee not consulting with the member, I hope that provisions can be made through the commissioner to allow for emergency situations where some disastrous event takes place in a person's business that's in trust. I realize that that can be handled through regulations Also, under 8(4)(d), there should be some reference made in due course to what constitutes "material change, " because it has different meanings in different venues. I just ask the minister to comment whether there's an opportunity in the commissioner's deliberations to deal with those types of things.

HON. MR. DIRKS: I would like to get back to subsection (5) and simply state that the key words there are "routine personal," I think. Basically that's the beauty of this legislation: the commissioner will determine whether it is indeed routine and personal, in light of all these subsections that go before.

MS. MARZARI: One of the difficulties I have with this bill is section 8(l)(c), which reads: "A member of the Executive Council shall not...hold an office or directorship other than in a social club, religious organization or political party...." It's a concern of mine, Mr. Chair, that "social club" be treated in a way which is consistent with the rest of this document on the rest of conflict of interest. It would seem to me that from a constituent's point of view, in this day and age when many social clubs are in fact being funded by provincial government — and I point to golf courses coming under the GO grants and tourism grants of the lotteries branch — social clubs should be included in the list of things which should be disclosed by members of the executive council or of this House.

I do believe that it's important for members of this House to appear to be completely honest and open, particularly when it comes to sitting on boards of directors or holding office in social clubs that may be beneficiaries of public dollars in one way or another. In my case, and in many cases, I think, around this House, people have divested themselves not just of their businesses but also of directorships and offices of voluntary social agencies and other associations, so that they would hold themselves at arm's length from funding apparatus. I, for example, removed myself from the board of LEAF when I took on a political role.

When we come to social clubs, I think a constituent might find it more important to understand which clubs an MLA might have directorships in than to know, for example, what stocks and bonds that MLA might hold. The question here is not of personal pecuniary interest or a possibility of personal financial gain, but of us as members of this House not sitting on boards or directorships of social clubs — such as golf clubs — or making that clear in our disclosure statement.

I would ask the minister what his thoughts are on that matter. Would it not seem appropriate to include social clubs in the list of disclosures?

HON. MR. DIRKS: This is not the disclosure section. In looking at this, I would say that rather than having a blanket restriction on members as to which clubs they should or should not belong to, the legislation does allow that where members think a membership in a social club is a conflict, they can bring this to the commissioner's attention. He can investigate it and see whether there is a conflict with them holding a directorship or being a member of a social club. This legislation allows that to happen.

MR. PERRY: Another quick question on that same point. I wonder if the minister can clarify, for the benefit of the record and the commissioner, how this section would relate to honorary directorships, for example, in wide-ranging organizations like Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War. That's one where I've been a former executive member. I personally chose to step down at the time I was elected, and I think the organization welcomed that. But there might arise a circumstance where a member is an honorary director in an organization like that. Would that be in contravention of the act or would that be at the discretion of the commissioner? Can he clarify that issue?

HON. MR. DIRKS: I wouldn't want to speculate on what may or may not be a conflict of interest. That certainly will be the duties and responsibilities of the commissioner. If a member thinks that a membership in such an organization, or any organization, is a conflict, that's up to the commissioner.

Section 8 approved.

On section 9.

HON. MR. DIRKS: I move that we delete the proposed subsection (2) of section 9.

On the amendment.

[ Page 11628 ]

MR. MERCIER: I'm just rising to speak in support of the amendment, because it's largely an administrative matter — how one member of the executive council covers for the other when there's an absence. I think that it serves the public well to conclude the section with 9 and subsection (1), which clearly says that a member of executive council has to withdraw and not in any way deal with any issue where there might be a conflict.

MR. SIHOTA: I see what the member from Burnaby-Edmonds says, but I'm surprised that you want to take out 9(2); it's a very standard clause — they are using the Ontario legislation. I'm trying to remember now why they put in 9(2) in that legislation.

[10:45]

Okay, that's right. Section 9(l) deals, as I read it, with a meeting. And the proposed 9(2) dealt with a decision. Section 9(l) deals with a procedure that occurs during the course of a meeting, which I think is appropriate. Section 9(2) says: look, while you're sitting in your cabinet office, and you’re going to be making a decision that relates to something that you may benefit from, rather than having to call a meeting and get everybody together, you should be able to go at that point to the person who's supposed to be your replacement in the executive council and say, "Look, I think you'd better make this decision. I don't want anybody to be able to make an accusation." So I think that was the distinction. I'm just wondering if I've got that right. I see staff talking to him, and if he's got a further explanation for it....

HON. MR. DIRKS: The reason for the withdrawal of section 2 is basically that it's a redundant clause. With this, all cabinet ministers have alternates in place, and therefore it happens automatically.

MR. SIHOTA: No, you're right. You pass an order-in-council where you say that if one member is absent, then the other one will step in. Sure, you don't need that redundancy, but what you've got here in 9(2).... Let me put it on the record: "A member of the Executive Council who has reasonable grounds to believe that he or she has a conflict of interest in a matter requiring the member's decision...." So it doesn't deal with when the member of cabinet is absent. It doesn't deal with situations when they are at a meeting or at a cabinet meeting. It deals with the situation where they in their office have to make a decision that may affect an interest that they have. They have to take affirmatively in law a step that says: "Look, I shouldn't be making this decision. I'll bring somebody else in."

Let me give another example. It reminds me of what the Chair had to say. We had a situation before in this House with a Minister of Environment and some shares that were held. He made some decisions that could have had the effect of either increasing or decreasing the value of the shares in a mining company. I think 9(2) sought to deal with that kind of situation. When he himself in his office was prepared to make a decision that would have an adverse or preferential effect on those shares, he should have at that time asked somebody else on the executive council to make that determination. That's what 9(2) tries to deal with. So it's got nothing to do with absence; it's got everything to do with decisions. Section 9(1) has got everything to do with meetings. All you're saying in 9(1) is that if you're in a meeting where you may benefit— get out of the room. In 9(2) you're saying that if you're in your office and in your room making a decision that you may be able to benefit from, then you'd better call somebody else in to make that decision and not yourself.

I think you're remiss in that regard, and I would hope that unless the minister has a better explanation, perhaps the government, at least out of an abundance of caution, would withdraw the amendment and just let the section stay. If it's redundant, it probably can't hurt, but if I'm right and it's gone, then there's a loophole. My suggestion is, quite frankly, that you not proceed with the amendment.

MR. MERCIER: If you follow that logic, then you'd have to say that if you're in a telephone booth somewhere, you'd have to have another provision, and if you're out of town, you'd have to have another provision. The point is that the whole act governs the acts of the member of the executive council, and the whole act is set up to show that there's no conflict as an individual acting in his capacity at all times. The only purpose in having the section in about the meetings is that specifically, for instance in municipal councils, you cannot be at a meeting, and following the same logic, that specifically has to be followed through with. If you get into trying to list every conceivable circumstance that a member in cabinet would need to be covered for, then the point of the act is missing. It's up to the responsibility of the individual member of the executive council to know that in all other circumstances they must not act in a manner that would be in conflict.

HON. MR. DIRKS: I concur with the previous member's statement. Basically you can't take section 9 separate from the rest of the act. Certainly sections 2 and 4 would cover the concerns that the member opposite was referring to.

MR. SIHOTA: I don't want to deal with sections 2 and 4, because we've already dealt with them. Look, I heard what the member for Burnaby-Edmonds had to say. He seems to get hung up on the point of the venue — you know, if you're in your office versus if you're in a meeting or on the phone, whatever the case may be. That's not the point. The point is that you're making a decision. That's the operative word in section 9(2).

Don't you think that it's appropriate to have codified in law a procedure to protect a cabinet minister who has to make a particular decision so that he or she can say, as the minister: "The law says that I have to leave, and I left; the law says I have to bring somebody else in to make that decision, so I did"?

[ Page 11629 ]

Your amendment, with all respect to the member for Burnaby-Edmonds, leaves open that situation. Deal with it. If you want to shake your head, go ahead and shake it. I made my point. I'm telling you, just look at why everybody else has got it in their legislation. No one else says its redundant, because they understand that the operative provision there is decision. Anyhow, I've made my case.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Just a brief one. I can understand where the member's coming from. I really do. We looked at this very closely. I truly think it's redundant, but more than that, it puts the onus on a member of the executive council to designate someone else to make a decision for him or her. I don't think that's right. If you go back to 9(l)(b), just one line above this, it covers it all, as it does when a member of the executive council is on holiday. On the odd occasion when I feel I don't want to participate in a discussion because there might be perceived conflict, I just leave the room. Section 9(l)(b): "...withdraw from the meeting without voting or participating in the consideration of the matter." I don't point at another member and say: "Make the decision for me." I don't want to have to do that. I just absent myself, and the decision is made without me being there. I would rather do that than, as 9(2) says, request another member to perform my duties. I don't even want to be tainted with saying: "I'm in conflict here, so you make the decision for me." I think it's better if you just simply leave the room and the decision is made. That's all. That's why we recommended pulling out section 9(2).

MR. SIHOTA: You're right with respect to 9(1)(b). The operative word there is "meeting." That, of course, assumes that there are other people in the room. The operative word in 9(2) is "decision" and is meant to deal with a situation when you're in your office. You can't just walk out of your office, okay? Anyway, I've made my point, and there you have it. I'm not going to spend all day on this one.

Amendment approved.

On section 9 as amended.

MR. SIHOTA: I say this only for the protection of the minister involved. I think you should have had 9(1)(c) in there that asks the clerk or the secretary or whoever it is that is at that meeting to make note of the fact that the minister took that step. That just provides an extra measure of protection to the minister that really should be there. I'll tell you what the problem is: you're faced with an accusation that you were at a meeting and you say that you were in conflict. You say you left, but surely from your point of view you'd like to have that recorded. Other jurisdictions make that mandatory. Otherwise you get into matters approved, and you get into having to violate cabinet confidentiality and so on. Now that may routinely be done, but it seems to me if you require that affirmatively in law, then you're better off. So I think notification should be in there, and I think you should have put in an amendment to that effect.

Section 9 as amended approved.

On section 10.

MR. SIHOTA: Just a couple of comments with respect to section 10. We had some debate on this yesterday, so I don't think it's really necessary for us to get back into it today. You know, it's on the motion of the Premier, and on the recommendation of two thirds of the members present.

Maybe I should put on the record the comment that I made to myself on January 14, 1987, in a memo that I did to myself on notes re conflict-of-interest guidelines. In there I debate in my own mind, as I was dictating, whether or not people should have the commissioner approach or whether we should have the approach of going to the courts. I'll just put my note on the record: "We should decide as a party whether we wish to have the whole matter reviewed by a commissioner or by the courts." I go on to suggest that we should go the courts. Then I wrote to myself: "I anticipate that Socreds will introduce the commissioner." It just happened to be that that's exactly the way it works. That was back in 1987 when I thought you'd actually come through with the legislation.

In any event, I think you're better off to have gone to the model that other jurisdictions have embraced with respect to the courts. I said that yesterday; I don't need to elaborate on that further.

Secondly, I think it should have been an unanimous recommendation — I said that yesterday; I don't think I need to say that more — as we do for the ombudsman. It should be on a motion of the House as opposed to the motion of the Premier.

Those are some general comments with respect to views on section 10. I know my colleague for Vancouver East wants to make a comment with respect to 10(6).

MR. CLARK: This section deals with the appointment of the commissioner, and it has certain caveats in there — like it needs two-thirds of the Members of the Legislative Assembly. My colleague for Esquimalt–Port Renfrew has raised concerns about "on the motion of the Premier," which I agree with.

I want to draw the minister's attention to section 10(6). It deals with vacancies that arise. It says: "Where (a) the commissioner is removed or suspended or the office of the commissioner becomes vacant when the Legislature is sitting but no recommendation under this Act is made by the Legislative Assembly before the end of that session...." Then the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council can make an appointment. But section 10(6)(b) says: "Where...the commissioner is suspended or the office of the commissioner is or becomes vacant when the Legislature is not sitting...." The only time the office of the commissioner is vacant when the Legislature is not

[ Page 11630 ]

sitting is as soon as this House rises, if this bill is proclaimed. I want the minister to confirm that section 10(6)(b) is designed specifically to deal with the immediate appointment of the commissioner by the government or the L-G-in-C after the House rises this time.

HON. MR. DIRKS: As I understand it, it can be that it would cover what you're saying. What he would have to do, though, is be confirmed by this House after the House resumes sitting.

MR. CLARK: Well, I think that heightens the concern of many of the members on this side. If the government were serious about conflict-of-interest legislation, even legislation that we disagree with — as this one — they would have brought it in earlier, and we would have had a committee, or in this case, the Premier would have nominated someone and we would have had it through the House.

The integrity of the commissioner is of critical importance in this question. The approval or the agreement of both parties would be critical to the commissioner. That's how we choose the auditor-general and the ombudsman. The member for Esquimalt–Port Renfrew (Mr. Sihota) has made the point that we would prefer any commissioner to be appointed in the same manner. This doesn't do that, but I acknowledge that there is some caveat to it by the two-thirds majority. But after the House rises, the cabinet, the L-G-in-C, can appoint the commissioner without any reference to the House or to members of this side. And frankly, it takes you potentially through the next election.

[11:00]

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Not necessarily.

MR. CLARK: The government House Leader says not necessarily. Well, that's correct. However, it is likely that it gives the government that option. As I said, members on this side.... I've raised the matter that this bill is flawed. The bill is designed to try and put a face on the government for an election, to try and bury the scandals and say: "We're clean. We've got conflict-of-interest legislation." And this bill, under this section, is critical to achieving the government's political goal, because now the cabinet can appoint the acting commissioner. I think if they were serious about this, section 10(6)(b) would not be required, that we could have done it.... Even now, we could have had a Committee of the Whole House review it.

The auditor-general's search committee sat when the House was not sitting, to review applicants and go through shortlists. But none of that's in this bill. The government expects to run a campaign saying that they've cleaned up their act, that they've got a commissioner. Yet they haven't chosen to appoint that commissioner in any shape or form in a non-partisan way or a way that would add to the integrity of the commissioner. Rather it will be strictly political, strictly by the governing party, strictly on the cabinet's position.

We've talked — and I could talk at some length — about candidates who might fill the bill for the government. The member for Surrey–White Rock–Cloverdale (Mr. Reid) is looking for a job; he could fill this role. The second member for Delta (Mr. Davidson) could be the commissioner. There are all kinds of people who could fill the bill if the government chose to pursue it. So that gives us great concern, Mr. Chairman. I think this section highlights the real intent of the government, which is not to bring in tough conflict-of-interest guidelines and a non-partisan officer of the House appointed by both sides. Rather it's strictly political, strictly crass and strictly to take them through the next election and try to put a veneer of authenticity on this legislation.

MR. HARCOURT: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to ask the government House Leader if we can deal with the matter of the possible appointment after the proroguing of this House and before the next Legislature sits. If we can agree as we did with the appointment of the auditor-general.... I think the process worked extremely well. If we could get agreement to establish a legislative committee that would go through a process similar to the appointment of the auditor-general, then the matter could be referred back to the Legislature for approval.

I put that forward, Mr. Chairman, to deal with some of those concerns. Could the government House Leader give an assurance of that or take it back to his caucus? Then he could approach our House Leader to confirm that proposal.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the Leader of the Opposition's comments. We were sitting here discussing it while the second member for Vancouver East was talking. I can assure the Leader of the Opposition of a couple of things.

First, this 6(b) was not put in there for the intent that the second member for Vancouver East alluded to, although I can see how it is easy to construe it that way. Were I over there, I would probably do the same thing. It was put there so that you could get the process in place. There would be a lot of work to do. Or if you were between sessions and ill health overtook the commissioner and he or she had to resign, you could put someone else in place.

There is no clandestine intent or hidden agenda here, so I would give the Leader of the Opposition this undertaking: we, as the executive council of this government, will not appoint an acting commissioner without discussing it with you. I haven't discussed this with the Premier, but I'm sure if he were here, he would say the same thing: before any acting commissioner is appointed, we would have your concurrence. If that is satisfactory to you, I will give you that undertaking.

MR. MERCIER: Mr. Chairman, following along the government House Leader's comments, I found it a little surprising that the second member for Vancou-

[ Page 11631 ]

ver East said this was an unusual section, because he was on the selection committee for the auditor-general. It took us almost a year to go through the process of selection. If you read carefully, 10(7)(c) provides that the acting commissioner term expires immediately after the expiry of 20 sitting days— whichever the case may be and whichever occurs first. So if you know the process of selection in these cases, then you know the administrative details have to be attended to. You're always talking about an election. I think you're really making a mountain out of a molehill on that particular section.

MR. SERWA: Mr. Chairman, I didn't note the reaction of the hon. Leader of the Opposition to the initiative proposed by the government House Leader. If it were possible, I would appreciate a response on that — a formal response to be recorded in Hansard.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I'm sure we would be aware if it wasn't positive, hon. member.

MR. HARCOURT: They recorded my nod, and as the Chairman said, they would have heard from me if I disagreed.

Sections 10 and 11 approved.

On section 12.

MR. SIHOTA: We could actually spend a day debating this section, but I won't do that. I'm just going to quickly put on the record the following comment. Could the minister explain... ? As I read this section, you say at the outset that every member within 60 days of being elected and thereafter annually must file a report. It would seem to me that you would want some form of continuing disclosure, which to some extent may be captured by 12(4), but not entirely. As I said yesterday in the House, the concept of continuing disclosure is an important one to ensure that people do not dispose of assets in between that one-year period and benefit and not have that benefit recorded.

It's not an easy thing to draft. I know when I drafted ours, we spent a fair amount of time working on that aspect. I would have preferred that the government incorporate the concept of continuing disclosure in this section.

Section 12 approved.

On section 13.

MR. PERRY: Very briefly, just for clarification. I have trouble with the logic of why the Financial Disclosure Act requires a disclosure of property, which we all make semi-annually; it includes recreational property, and yet this section doesn't. The apparent purpose of this section is to provide the public with this information through the commissioner's statement of public disclosure. I wonder if the minister could explain why that statement would not include the same information that's already in the Financial Disclosure Act statement to make it more convenient for the public.

Second, what is the rationale for the exclusion of some personal property? For example, property used for transportation might include an airplane of considerable value or an extremely valuable yacht. There are some potential conflicts of interest that accrue with both of those; namely, the need to berth the airplane or the yacht. I wonder if there is some logic to (1)(a) and (b).

HON. MR. DIRKS: Mr. Chairman, I would say that those are standard exclusions. That is public disclosure that we're talking about here. Certainly the commissioner would know about your personal property. Really, when it comes right down to it, I think the member should have the right to enjoy the sanctity of his home in peace and quiet without people interfering with it. That's all I can say, except that it is standard procedure in other legislation.

MR. SIHOTA: Yesterday when I was speaking to this, I said to the minister that the press may not be able to get information. The minister was shaking his head, and I was saying that was the case, and you were saying it wasn't. I just want to deal with this situation, because I don't think I said it with sufficient clarity and precision yesterday. During second reading debate I felt that I was handicapped in that I was prevented from trying to deal with specific wording in specific sections. The argument I made yesterday was that this act could be interpreted in a fashion that would not allow the public in general, or the press in particular, to get access to the disclosure statements.

Mr. Chairman, I'm going to have to have your indulgence for a minute, because I'm going to have to talk a little bit about section 15 as I make my point.

Section 13(3)(a) says: "The commissioner shall, as soon as is practicable, file the public disclosure statement with the Clerk of the Legislative Assembly who shall make the statement available for inspection without charge and during normal business hours." There are two ways to read that. But the most important question is: available to whom?

Section 15(1) says that only "a member who has reasonable and probable grounds to believe that another member is in contravention of this Act" can lay a complaint. Given that only a member can lay a complaint, one could argue that the only people who are entitled to make the inspection are members — as opposed to the public at large. I see the member shaking his head, and I'm giving one construction that one could argue with legitimacy. I'm not trying to be far-fetched here.

All I'm saying to the minister is this. I know it's your view that anybody in the world can come in and take a look at the disclosure statements. I agree with that, and that's the way it should be. Just for the sake of making it absolutely clear, why don't we agree to put in an amendment here that says: "...make the statement available to any person for inspection"?

[ Page 11632 ]

Just inject the words "to any person," and that would resolve that possible construction.

I'll move the motion, but I want to hear from the minister first. I don't know what the rules are here. In an abundance of caution, Mr. Minister, I think it would be better if we did that.

HON. MR. DIRKS: Basically the language there now is not restrictive. It is open to the public. It doesn't restrict anybody from coming and taking a look and consulting with the staff. The present disclosure situation is that any member of the public can come and see the disclosure statements that are filed there now. Keeping with what we have, we're simply increasing the public's access to it, because now they will be able to walk out of there with a copy of the statement on payment of a reasonable copying charge. Actually we're expanding what is in place there now. This isn't restrictive at all; it is open to the public.

MR. SIHOTA: Given that interpretation, I'm sure the minister will have no problem agreeing with the amendment that I propose.

I'll move an amendment, Mr. Speaker. I move that after the word "available" we insert the words "to any person" in section 13(3)(a).

On the amendment.

HON. MR. DIRKS: Mr. Chairman, just to clarify this. We're talking about public disclosure. We're saying in section 13(3): "the public disclosure statement." I really don't think there would be any judge in the land who would say that subsections (a) and (b) do not also apply to the public at large. Any amendment really is redundant. I haven't any disagreement with what you are trying to achieve. All I'm saying is that it's already there.

[11:15]

MR. SIHOTA: I agree. That is one construction. I thought about that when I did it. I looked at it carefully the second and third time, and that's when it occurred to me that it can still.... When you look at the combination of 15 and 3 — "public to whom and available to whom" — it's available only to the person who can make the charge, which is the member.

Given the minister's point of view on it — and I don't think it makes any difference if he's right, but it makes a lot of difference if I'm right — why don't we just agree to accept the amendment. The amendment is, with respect to section 13(3)(a), that after the word "available" we insert the words "to any person." That will address the situation. A simple matter.

Amendment approved.

Section 13 as amended approved.

On section 14.

MR. SIHOTA: A quick question. In 14(5), there is no appeal process for a member who alleges. It certainly deals with a member who is accused, but there is no appeal process. I don't want to make a big issue of it, but I thought there should have been. There you go.

HON. MR. DIRKS: Just for clarification, there is that little statement afterward in 14(5), right at the end where it says "were accurate and complete." Obviously, if additional information were to come forward, I'm sure that allows for a reopening of the initial conflict charges.

Section 14 approved.

On section 15.

HON. MR. DIRKS: I move the amendment.

On the amendment.

MR. HARCOURT: Section 15(2) has been eliminated. What we see happening here is that the government realized they had been caught in a very serious restriction of the right of freedom of speech. The opposition wanted to preserve that freedom of speech. We made it very clear that it's fundamental to a democracy.

Our problem with the government trying to put that in and trying to sneak it through in the last days of the Legislature, and getting caught, is that it shows to the citizens of British Columbia a very unfortunate and alarming characteristic of this government in really not understanding our parliamentary system, the rule of law and the accountability of public funds. They are part and parcel of this section, and it is finally being withdrawn — section 15(2).

This is what is alarming to most British Columbians, whether it is the misdirection of lottery funds that we saw the comptroller-general having to come in and investigate, the lack of accountability, the overwhelming discretion, or, of course, the matter still before us of the member for Surrey–White Rock–Cloverdale (Mr. Reid). That was followed — and preceded by — serious matters involving the obstruction of justice, in which we had a minister resign in 1988, alleging that the Premier had interfered with his independence in the administration of justice. The rule of law is very important in our system of justice, so that people feel that they're being dealt with in a fair and impartial way, and that no matter who you are — whether you're a Premier or a citizen who works in this province — you're treated fairly and equally.

We have, of course, the present matter, where an Attorney-General had to resign because of not carrying out his oath of office in the Legislature.

This is the fundamental area that I am concerned about in section 15: the attempt to restrict freedom of speech and the lack of understanding of our parliamentary democracy. I want to put on the record for our citizens why that freedom of speech is important

[ Page 11633 ]

and why it has been around for a long time, even under less free circumstances than we enjoy in this country of ours right now. It is a privilege that was hard won for elected assemblies. It was won over many centuries, many centuries ago. It's been recognized as a fundamental privilege of each member and of the House as a whole. I refer to Erskine May, one of the outstanding parliamentary authorities, on page 77, who says: "Freedom of speech is a privilege essential to every free council or legislature."

Mr. Chairman, I am sure you, the members of the House and the Clerk are aware of how this privilege was established many centuries ago. I'll just give two cases involving the British Parliament, from which our tradition has sprung, that show how important the privilege is.

The first was in the 1380s; it's called Haxey's case. It was in the twentieth parliament of Richard II. It was a case in which this ancient privilege was first violated and was afterwards signally confirmed. Haxey was a member who had displeased the King by offering a bill for reducing the excessive charge of the royal household, and he was condemned by Parliament as a traitor. But along came good King Henry IV. On his accession, he actually petitioned Parliament to reverse the judgment as being "against the law and custom which had been before in Parliament." The judgment was reversed and annulled.

Another case that section 15(2) offended.... I've got another part of the section that I want to deal with too, section 15(4). Another case, just to point out the importance and the age of this honourable tradition, was in 1455. It was called Thomas Young's case. The aforesaid member was put in the Tower for remarks made in Parliament, but was subsequently released by Henry VI, who judged that the member had exercised his privilege of freedom of speech.

And, of course, in 1621 we have the House of Commons proclamation which reads as follows: "... that every member hath freedom from all impeachment, imprisonment or molestation, other than by censure of the House itself, for or concerning any bill, speaking, reasoning or declaring of any matters or matters touching the Parliament or Parliament business."

The obvious effect of the actions and rulings of those that have gone before is that the privilege of freedom of speech is for both individual members and the House itself. It's an ancient privilege. It is one that no one, even the House itself in its own statute, can restrict.

The issue is: how does Bill 66, section 15, offend this privilege? Well, Mr. Chairman, it offends in both those two sections in a very fundamental way. The offending words were found in section 15(2) — which has been removed now — which read: "A member is not entitled to raise in the Assembly any matter respecting the contravention of this Act or of section 25 of the Constitution Act." Mr. Chairman, this is nothing but a blanket attempt — it was, before it was caught — to extinguish the privilege of freedom of speech. It sought to suppress all questions in debate related to the conduct of members with regard to conflict of interest. It was a flagrant violation of the privileges of members of the assembly. Rightly, members of this side of the House said that we were not going to put up with that; we weren't going to agree with that. We think, quite frankly, that it would have faced very serious challenge under the constitution if it had gone to the courts.

The other problem that we have with section 15(4) is that a similar gag is applied in the guise of extending the sub judice rule. Section 15(4) says: "Where a matter has been referred to the commissioner under subsection (1), neither the Legislative Assembly nor a committee of it shall conduct an inquiry into the matter nor shall any member raise the matter in the Assembly or in a committee." Not only had the Social Credit government introduced a measure of overkill— because section 15(2) already prohibited a member from raising the matter of a contravention of the act — but, having gotten caught and removing section 15(2), we still have the twisting of the sub judice convention to fit the government's needs. That need is to protect their errant members from the proper scrutiny of their colleagues here in the Legislature.

Perhaps it's worth recalling the sub judice convention, as it's laid out by authorities on parliamentary procedure and tradition. Again I refer you to Erskine May, page 343. I quote: "Matters awaiting or under adjudication in a criminal court or court martial and matters set down for a trial or otherwise brought before a civil court may not be referred to in any question or debate."

I quote also from Beauchesne, section 335: "Members are expected to refrain from discussing matters that are before the courts or tribunals which are courts of record." Mr. Chairman, an inquiry by the commissioner is not a tribunal; nor is it a criminal or a civil court of record.

As I am sure you are aware, Mr. Chairman, Speakers in Canadian assemblies have traditionally exercised a fair degree of latitude with regard to their application of the sub judice convention. Indeed, it has often been the complaint of opposition caucuses in their scrutiny of government activity that the convention has proven a refuge for government caucuses whose members find themselves in hot water. But one would have to twist the intent of the convention very far to arrive at this section that the government has written.

Politically, the subsection is part and parcel of the whole intent of this bill, which is to provide an unscrutinized secret process by which questions of members' impropriety can be resolved, while effectively muzzling members whose role as public watchdog would bring to light the same facts, though in a much more unpleasant way for the government. It's really: "Let's put a muzzle on the bothersome member for Esquimalt-Port Renfrew."

As I said at the beginning, section 15 was one of the sections we found particularly offensive. It particularly went against the Premier's own words at his

[ Page 11634 ]

swearing-in ceremonies on August 6, 1986, when he said:

"As the leader of government I believe it is critical to that process that all British Columbians have full confidence in those who serve in my administration. I want to ensure that those who are elected work under conditions and guidelines that are not only reasonable and fair but which leave no doubts whatsoever in the mind of the public as to the ethics and integrity of those who serve in public office.'

[11:30]

Well, some fresh start with this bill and that section 15, Mr. Chairman! Part of it has been withdrawn; part of it is still there. But I think getting the bill forward — this section, as I said, is the one we found particularly offensive — really goes to the heart of the Premier's and this government's understanding of parliamentary democracy, and that's why I said there's a pattern here that section 15 makes very clear.

A quote from the Premier is probably the best way I can describe why section 15 found its way into this bill. It's from when the Premier gave his opinion on parliamentary democracy. It's one I don't believe in. I believe very strongly in parliamentary democracy and our parliamentary system, in the right of members to speak freely and the need for a multiparty system — which many countries are now struggling towards. The quote from the Premier on British parliamentary democracy is as follows: "It is totally antiquated. It is really a bit of a farce. Most elections mean another dictator for three or four years."

Well, New Democrats don't believe that, Mr. Chairman, and that's why we feel that pulling out section 15(2).... It was because the government got caught. We think there are other parts of that section that need to be changed and should be changed, and we are going to be pushing for that to take place. I'm sure other members of the New Democrat caucus will have more to say on section 15.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Mr. Chairman, after listening to the Leader of the Opposition, I just have to put a few personal remarks on the record. I think he makes some good points. I can't quarrel with much of what he said. I feel very strongly about freedom of speech, as I think every member on this side and, I'm sure, every member on that side does.

When we looked at this section — and believe me, we looked at it carefully; not for a long time, but we looked at it very carefully — it gave us some problems too. The intent of it from my perspective — and I guess this is a personal point of view — was to prevent any hon. member from being unjustly accused, tried and convicted in the minds of the public before having a chance to state his or her case. I think the intent was right. I think the Leader of the Opposition was wrong when he said there was something untoward about it or something clandestine, or that there was a hidden agenda and it was trying to gag a member. That certainly wasn't the intent from this member's point of view. I would be the last one that would try to gag anybody.

I think when we talk in our society about freedom of speech, with that privilege that we all revere goes responsibility. When you're outside of this chamber you must exercise responsibility, because if you don't, there are ways of redressing what you have said. When you're inside this chamber, you are immune from redress by a citizen or another member of this chamber. From my perspective, the intent was to bring a little more responsibility, perhaps, to some of the things said in this chamber from time to time.

Having said that, it gives me a problem, too, to interfere with the rights of an elected member and the traditions that we have enjoyed since 1216 — the signing of the Magna Carta. That bothers me too, so I would just urge members to use a bit of tolerance in this place and not say things in this chamber they wouldn't say outside the chamber. It's a guideline I use personally.

MR. HARCOURT: I agree.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: ... and the Leader of the Opposition says he agrees with that. I will not say anything in this chamber that I wouldn't step outside the door and say. I mean that sincerely.

But I've seen it done in this chamber, Mr. Leader of the Opposition. Since 1981, when I came here, I've heard some pretty damaging remarks — both ways — that people would not step outside that door and say, because they had the immunity of parliament.

All I'm saying is that I revere this place very much. I think most members do. We really feel honoured to be here, and we should revere the privileges we have as members — the privilege to represent people, the privilege to say what we want without fear of reprisal. But we should always remember, in the back of our mind, that we are dealing with lives, careers, families and dreams, and we shouldn't say anything we wouldn't step outside that door and say.

Most of the members in this chamber would agree with that. For that reason, Mr. Leader of the Opposition and all members here — and I mean this in the most open sense of the word — we agree with you on this. We reassessed our position and the intent, and we sat in our caucus room this morning and said: "In all conscience, we know what we were trying to do with section 15(2), but we should remove it."

As another member has said here — and I said last night — the term "honourable member" has to continue to have some meaning. We are all honourable members in this House. If we never forget that and remember the traditions of this place, then there is no need for section 15(2).

I didn't mean to ramble on, Mr. Chairman, but it was important to put some of these thoughts on the record. I'll leave it at that.

MR. HARCOURT: I was pleased to hear the words of the government House Leader, in particular his comments about us being honourable members and about the responsibilities that go along with this ancient privilege. I can assure him that I believe that

[ Page 11635 ]

personally. As my caucus will tell you, I have said to them over and over again: "If you can't say it outside this Legislature, don't say it inside the Legislature." Believe me, I've had words with a few of my caucus members about that very point.

This Legislature, over the last four years, has become a less vicious place. I believe we have all tried hard. Sometimes we lose our tempers. We may say things we regret. But that has been an area where, on both sides, we have improved, recognizing that our very ancient privilege has some responsibilities. I take to heart the words of the government House Leader.

MR. MERCIER: Mr. Chairman, I just wanted to take a couple of minutes to say I strongly support the amendments deleting 15(2) and 16(5). The section as amended provides all the appropriate avenues for dealing with matters arising pursuant to the proposed act.

This section provides for the retention of this Legislature as a very special place, where elected members make laws and which in itself is not a court of law. It is important to the democratic process and parliamentary procedures that in times of difficulty for a member, the member can be fairly dealt with in the appropriate fashion; namely, by the member's peers and constituents.

Since we are all honourable members — referring to the comments of the opposition House Leader on 15(4) — for the short period of time when a commissioner is dealing with a matter, it is not unreasonable to practise the restraint envisaged in this part of section 15.

Amendment approved.

Section 15 as amended approved.

On section 16.

HON. MR. DIRKS: Mr. Chairman, I move the amendment to section 16.

On the amendment.

MR. SIHOTA: I don't see, as I understand the amendments.... I just want to make this clear. We've totally deleted section 16(5). That is my understanding. I see people nodding there. Okay, if that's the case, I think that deals with the bulk of my concerns.

MR. PERRY: I have one question, Mr. Chairman, on the former subsection (7). I suppose that's now subsection (6) of section 16: "...the commissioner shall report his or her opinion to the secretary of the Executive Council."

Can I ask the minister to explain why the report would not be made to the Legislature? It strikes me that this puts a cabinet minister in an exalted position above other members, where a question has been raised by other members of the executive council who would be the only individuals in a position to be familiar with that conduct, and yet the commissioner shall report only to the secretary of the executive council and not to the Legislature. Is there a reason for that, and how would the Legislature retain confidence that cabinet ministers are not to be treated specially and distinctly from other members of the assembly?

HON. MR. DIRKS: Just to briefly answer the member's question, that is a question that is raised by cabinet on a matter that has happened or would happen within cabinet. As the member knows, matters that go on in cabinet are kept confidential.

Amendment approved.

Section 16 as amended approved.

On section 17.

MR. SIHOTA: Again, I don't want to repeat everything I said yesterday. I think that you're putting the Legislative Assembly in a very difficult position. Given the numbers in terms of the majority and the minority, if there's a finding, it makes it very difficult for the assembly to.... All it really does by bringing it forward for debate is that you're going to get into the political debate that I think you were trying to avoid elsewhere in the legislation in a funny sort of way. But it's up to you guys if you want to do that.

I think it's a lot better if the judge makes the decision and decides what the penalty is going to be and what action is going to take place; then that's the sentence or the penalty. So I would have preferred that it would be handled in that fashion, with the commissioner having made his decision and arrived at his determination and leaving it right at that. I think that's the way the legislation should have been.

Sections 17 to 23 inclusive approved.

On section 24.

HON. MR. DIRKS: Mr. Chairman, I move the amendment.

MR. SIHOTA: This is the last section I'm going to speak to, and I guess it's a victory for us on this side of the House to get 15(2) eliminated and to allow section 25 of the Constitution Act to remain, as is the matter of repealing section 27 of the Constitution Act.

I don't think that section should ever have been repealed. I made those points yesterday, and I'm glad to see that the government is now in agreement with that proposition. It still allows the Legislature to strike the committee that is necessary and appropriate and deemed to be appropriate under the Constitution Act to deal with this type of issue.

MR. CHAIRMAN: If the Chair may instruct the chamber at this time, this is one of these sections

[ Page 11636 ]

which we will defeat. The amendment deletes the section.

Section 24 negatived.

Sections 25 through 32 inclusive approved.

On the title.

MR. BRUCE: I rise in respect to the title — not to be cute or to prolong the debate. Sitting here today and listening to what has transpired on both sides of the House, indeed there have been some interesting comments. Regardless of the rules or regulations that are put in place, with respect to either conflict of interest or how this House is operated, it truly comes down to whether each of us is to be an honourable member in how we're going to conduct the affairs of the province of British Columbia on behalf of the people.

[11:45]

I would suggest that it might be more appropriate that in the spirit of what this House represents, in the cherished aspect of freedom of speech and the privileges that are associated with this House, it might be more aptly called "Honourable Members' Conflict of Interest Act."

Title approved.

HON. MR. DIRKS: I move the committee rise and report the bill complete with amendments.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill 66, Members' Conflict of Interest Act, reported complete with amendment.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: With leave, I move that the bill be read a third time now.

Leave granted.

Bill 66, Members' Conflict of Interest Act, read a third time and passed on division.

MR. SERWA: I rise to pay tribute to a colleague in this Legislature in the event that the House is not reconvened prior to the election. I believe that this is the last session that this member will be here with us. I've known the hon. member for 37 years, probably the longest of any hon. member in this House. The gentleman I'm referring to was a teacher at Kelowna Senior Secondary in Kelowna, and at that time did a tremendous job in introducing a music program to the school. He left a legacy, a true heritage of his being there, in that Kelowna Senior Secondary is still renowned for the quality of its music program.

The hon. member does stand for honour, honesty, integrity and commitment. His razor-sharp wit and his ability to inject humour into this House, coupled with his sensitivity to know when to use that humour to relieve and relax tensions in this House, has been most sincerely appreciated by all hon. members. He is a man and a friend who has been respected and trusted by all members of this House.

I note that the hon. member has spoken often about the triple-E Senate. I understand — and now I can fully appreciate — his description of the criteria of the triple-E Senate: elderly, expensive and expendable. I wish him good fortune in his attempts, because surely he has designed the shoe that fits him completely.

To that hon. member, on behalf of his former students, present students, many friends, colleagues in the House and the people of British Columbia and Canada, I wish him best wishes in his future fortunes.

MR. ROSE: I thank my ex-student for his tribute. These things are a little hard to take sometimes. As a matter of fact, I had some tributes last night, too, not only at our party but also at vespers. I don't know if I'm going to miss the House, but I'm certainly going to miss vespers. As a matter of fact, I've had a number of tributes lately, and every time I hear them, I feel as if I'm attending my own funeral — and not the star of the show either.

I guess, Mr. Speaker, this is my last hurrah. I, along with a number of other members, including my colleague for Dewdney, Mr. Pelton, the deputy.... I'm sorry, I don't want to be out of order on the last speech. My good friend and fellow musician from Dewdney may not be back either. My friend the member for Rossland-Trail (Mr. D’Arcy) is not coming back. You'd be surprised at how many others of you are not coming back as well.

I'd like to tell you that seven years ago, when I first came here from the upper chamber... I got closer to the Senate then than I would ever get again. I suffered a great culture shock. It wasn't a very nice place. I pay tribute to a lot of people that it is a better place than it was in 1983. Certainly the Premier has been helpful. The House Leaders, the predecessor of the House Leader and our leader have all helped. I'm sorry that we lost the civility we had for three and a half years. I regret that. I don't know how we can overcome that. The member for Cowichan-Malahat (Mr. Bruce) put his finger on it just a moment ago.

Anyway, I'd like to thank everybody for all their help. Hansard wasn't mentioned yesterday. They are a very professional group. I mean, even if somebody goes ... [SNORT!].... Just to test their professionalism, I'd like to know how this will come out in the Blues: [SNORT!]. If you can spell that, I'll award you the Croix de Guerre and a kiss on both cheeks.

I thank everybody for their collegiality, all the fun we've had and all the serious work we've done. This is a happy and yet sad moment for me. I'm too old to cry, but it hurts too much to laugh. [Applause.]

HON. MR. RICHMOND: If I may just take two minutes to add my words to those that have already been said to Mr. Mark Rose, who is retiring with only three pensions....

[ Page 11637 ]

AN HON. MEMBER: Four. He's got four.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Four. Well, I was close. Mark, in all seriousness — and I say this to you most sincerely — it's been a pleasure working with you as government House Leader to opposition House Leader. God knows, the roles are not always easy. You've been a real gentleman, and it's been a pleasure working with you. Thank you very much.

To all those other members who will not be returning — some by choice and some not by choice, and that goes both ways.... There are members who will not be back. But especially to those not returning by choice, I wish them Godspeed and all happiness in whatever they choose to do. To those who will not be returning — not through their own choice — well, that's the way it goes. We'll miss you around here — some of you. I know that goes both ways too.

MR. SPEAKER: The Speaker was going to have a few words, but perhaps I'll do that in a minute or two.

Introduction of Bills

SUPPLY ACT, 1990-91

Hon. Mr. Richmond presented a message from His Honour the Administrator: a bill intituled Supply Act, 1990-91.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: This supply bill is introduced to provide supply for government programs for the 1990-91 fiscal year. The amount requested is that resolved by vote in Committee of Supply after consideration of the estimates. In order to maintain uninterrupted delivery of government programs, it is essential that this supply be granted expeditiously.

Because of my understanding that the House is about to enter an indefinite adjournment, I request this bill be permitted to advance through all stages this day, pursuant to standing order 81. Mr. Speaker, I move first reading.

Bill 80 introduced, read a first time and ordered to proceed to second reading forthwith.

MR. SPEAKER: While the bill is being distributed, the first member for Vancouver–Little Mountain.

MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Speaker, I want to join with all of those who have paid tribute to the opposition House Leader. I'd also like to add my best wishes to the hon. member for Rossland-Trail (Mr. D'Arcy), who will not be back with us. I also want to just pay a special tribute to other members who have not been mentioned by name. They are the hon. second member for Delta (Mr. Davidson), who has announced his retirement; the hon. second member for Saanich and the Islands (Mr. Huberts) ; the hon. member for Atlin (Mr. Guno) ; the hon. Deputy Speaker, the first member for Dewdney (Mr. Pelton) ; and the hon. second member for Vancouver South, yourself, Mr. Speaker. I would just like to express appreciation — and all members of the House, I'm sure, will join me in doing so — for the contribution they have all made to this Legislature and to the province of British Columbia.

MR. HARCOURT: I would like to reiterate the thanks to the members who will not be returning, many with sighs of relief but memories of a job well done. This is where our democracy really happens, right here two sword-lengths away from each other. I pay tribute to you. I know the sacrifice to yourselves and your families. Godspeed, and I wish you all well.

Aside from thanking the members who will be retiring, I would like, particularly, as the first member for Vancouver–Little Mountain did, to recognize the second member for Vancouver South, the Speaker, who has had a particularly difficult session to watch over and to keep guided along to this point. It has indeed been, Mr. Speaker, an extremely difficult session. You have performed exceedingly well and fairly. You have had both sides of this House grinding their teeth equally at your rulings, sometimes, and I think it is a tribute to the way that you have, in a fair way, allowed this House to operate under difficult circumstances. I may say that you kept the tradition of vespers going, to make sure that this was a well-oiled House, too. In conclusion, may I say that we wish you well, and may there be many blue skies for you to fly.

[12:00]

SUPPLY ACT, 1990-91

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Mr. Speaker, this supply bill is second and final for the fiscal year 1990-91, the first having been introduced on April 23, 1990, when the Legislative Assembly authorized supply for four months. This bill requests a total supply of $14,801,215,205 for voted expenditures as outlined in the schedule to this bill, and includes amounts authorized under section 1 of the Supply Act (No. 1), 1990.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, I point out the requirement for passage of the supply bill in order to provide for the expenditure of the government for the 1990-91 fiscal year. I move second reading of Bill 80.

Bill 80, Supply Act, 1990-91, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration forthwith.

SUPPLY ACT, 1990-91

The House in committee on Bill 80; Mr. Pelton in the chair.

Section 1 approved.

Schedule approved.

Preamble approved.

[ Page 11638 ]

Title approved.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Mr. Chairman, I move that the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill 80, Supply Act, 1990-91, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, His Honour the Administrator is about to enter the chamber and is here for our purposes. I would like to say a few brief words before he does. I thank everybody, including the men in black who monitor this operation and those who provide all our services: Hansard, the dining-room and others. When you charged me with this duty, I took the gavel normally used to call for order and hung it on a small metal clip behind the post. We've never had to use it. That's a credit to all of you — I thank you.

Mr. Clerk, there will be a short recess while we await the arrival of His Honour.

His Honour the Administrator entered the chamber and took his place in the chair.

CLERK-ASSISTANT:

Electoral Districts Act

Game Farm Act

Transportation Capital Funding Act

Science and Technology Fund Act

Private Post-Secondary Education Act

Engineers Amendment Act, 1990

Carmanah Pacific Park Act

Health Professions Act

Mineral Tax Amendment Act, 1990

Municipalities Enabling and Validating Act, 1990

Forest Amendment Act, 1990

Energy Efficiency Act Education Statutes Amendment Act, 1990

Accountants (Certified General) Amendment Act, 1990

Community Care Facility Amendment Act, 1990

Family and Child Service Amendment Act, 1990

Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act, 1990

Guide Animal Act Forest Amendment Act (No. 2), 1990

Assessment and Property Tax Reform Act, 1990

Municipal Amendment Act, 1990

Labour and Consumer Services Statutes Amendment Act, 1990

Attorney-General Statutes Amendment Act, 1990

Referendum Act

Food Products Standards Act

British Columbia Wine Act

Mine Development Assessment Act

Financial Administration Amendment Act, 1990

Health Statutes Amendment Act, 1990

Solicitor-General Statutes Amendment Act, 1990

Natural Gas Price Amendment Act, 1990

Indian Self Government Enabling Act

Senatorial Selection Act

Members' Conflict of Interest Act

Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (No. 2), 1990

Waste Management Amendment Act, 1990

Property Purchase Tax Amendment Act (No. 2), 1990

Municipal Affairs, Recreation and Culture Statutes Amendment Act, 1990

Forest Amendment Act (No. 3), 1990

Adoption Amendment Act, 1990

Range Amendment Act, 1990

Okanagan Valley Tree Fruit Authority Act

Attorney General Statutes Amendment Act (No. 2), 1990

Assessment and Property Tax Reform Act (No. 2), 1990

Public Sector Collective Bargaining Disclosure Act

Vancouver Stock Exchange Amendment Act, 1990

Vancouver Charter Amendment Act (No. 1), 1990

Seventh-day Adventist Church (British Columbia Conference) Act

Vancouver Charter Amendment Act (No. 2), 1990

CLERK OF THE HOUSE: In Her Majesty's name, His Honour the Administrator doth assent to these bills.

CLERK-ASSISTANT:

Supply Act, 1990-91

CLERK OF THE HOUSE: In Her Majesty's name, His Honour the Administrator doth thank Her Majesty's loyal subjects, accept their benevolence and assent to this bill.

His Honour the Administrator retired from the chamber.

HON. MR DIRKS: Mr. Speaker, I move that the House at its rising do stand adjourned until it appears to the satisfaction of Mr. Speaker, after consultation with the government, that the public interest requires that the House shall meet or until Mr. Speaker may be advised by the government that it is desired to prorogue the fourth session of the thirty-fourth parliament of the province of British Columbia. Mr. Speaker may give notice that he is so satisfied or has been so advised, and thereupon the House shall meet at the time stated in such motion and, as the case may be, may transact its business as if it had been duly adjourned to that time and date. And that in the event of Mr. Speaker being unable to act owing to illness or other cause, the Deputy Speaker shall act in his stead for the purpose of this order.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 12:09 p.m.