[ Page 4735 ]

The House met at 2:06 p.m.

L. Reid: I have four individuals in the public gallery today: Mr. Horst Bernstein, Mrs. Zlata Leskovar, Mr. Klaus Kronauer and Ms. Ivka Kronauer. They are visiting here in Victoria today, and I'd ask the House to please make them welcome.

Hon. S. Hammell: Visiting us in the House today is Mel Belluk from Winnipeg. Mel is a retired high school principal and the father of my special assistant, Lois Belluk. Mel is here with his sister Vy Rice of Aldergrove. Would the House please make them welcome.

L. Stephens: In the House today are two groups of school children from my riding. The first group is from Credo Christian School, with 32 grade 7 students, their teachers Mr. Hugo Vanderhoek, Mr. Jason Wierenga and Mr. Jerry Scholtens, and parents Mrs. Marg Aikema, Mrs. Pat Kieneker, Mrs. Sietie Bergsma and Mr. Conrad Vanderhorst. Would the House please make them welcome.

The second group is from Willoughby Elementary School, with six grade 7 students, their teacher Mr. Chuck Willmont, and parent Mrs. Cindy Smith. Would the House please make them welcome.

Hon. G. Clark: Today in the member's gallery we have a very special visitor from China. Mr. Song Youming is the newly appointed consul general of the People's Republic of China in Vancouver -- a very important post. I'm sure many members of the House will be meeting regularly with Mr. Song over the next few years. I'm looking forward to meeting with him this afternoon. Mr. Song will be very busy preparing for the APEC economic leaders' meeting in Vancouver this November. On behalf of all members of the House, I wish him well. Please join me in giving him a very warm welcome to the House and to our Pacific province.

P. Nettleton: Visiting here today is Brian Matthews, past president of the Young Liberals of British Columbia. I would ask members to join me in welcoming him.

F. Gingell: Joining us today in the gallery are friends from Delta. They're members of early Delta settler families and particularly good friends of ours from just up the street -- when just up the street was up a gravel road. Sitting over here are my very good friends Earl and Pearl Bowling. I ask all members of the House to join me in making them welcome.

I. Waddell: I'd like to add my welcome to Consul General Song.

I would like to introduce to the House and ask the House to make welcome two young men from Vancouver: Stephen Dang and Jogi Jarri. Stephen was a Page in the House of Commons in Ottawa. I'd like the House to welcome them.

While I'm on my feet, I'd also like to. . . . It's St. Jean Baptiste day. Je vous souhaite, nos amis qu�b�cois/qu�b�coise et notre communaut� franco-columbienne, une bonne f�te de Saint-Jean-Baptiste.

R. Thorpe: I'd like to introduce guests visiting today: Kerry Dahl and Peter DeMeyo from Victoria. Peter will be 36 tomorrow. Also visiting are Nancy Routley from Kaleden and my very good friends from Penticton: Ryan Lloyd, Tony Lloyd and Judy Lloyd. Would the House please make them feel very welcome.

G. Janssen: With us today from Florida are Frank Meiners, Marlene Meiners and Carlos L. Valdes, Republican Whip of the Florida House of Representatives. I ask the House to make them welcome.

B. Penner: Seated in the gallery today are three visitors from Vancouver: 15-year-old Jeff Beaumont, his father Mr. Beaumont and Rev. Susan Kerr. Jeff Beaumont is the regional spokesperson for a group known as the Drug-free Marshals. This is a program that started in 1993 and has since been adopted by a number of community groups, sports teams and churches across North America. Just before question period I had the opportunity to sign a pledge, and today I'm proudly wearing my marshal's badge, undertaking as the youth spokesperson for the B.C. Liberal Party to stay away from drugs. I think all of us in this House should set that kind of a positive example for our young people. Would the House please make these three individuals welcome here today, and please extend your best wishes to this program.

F. Randall: I would also like to acknowledge, in the gallery, Horst Bernstein, who is a retired operating engineer and an old friend. Would the House please make him welcome.

Introduction of Bills

SUPPLY ACT (No. 2), 1997

Hon. A. Petter: This supply bill is introduced to provide supply for the continuation of government programs while the debate on the government's estimates for 1997-98 continues. The first interim supply for 1997-98 granted by the Legislative Assembly was for one-quarter of the tabled estimates. This funding will be exhausted by June 30, 1997, and therefore a second interim supply is required to provide for the continuation of government programs.

Bill 49 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

FOREST STATUTES AMENDMENT ACT, 1997

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Bill 47, the Forest Statutes Amendment Act, 1997, makes a number of amendments to the Forest Practices Code of British Columbia Act, the Forest Act and the Range Act. The focus of these amendments is to reduce unnecessary administrative burden associated with the code without affecting environmental standards; to provide for implementation of a new, more efficient FRBC program delivery model; to streamline and enhance tenure administration powers; to clarify and improve enforcement powers and other administrative provisions in the ministry statutes. Many of 

[ Page 4736 ]

these changes are drawn from suggestions and recommendations of industry and other stakeholders after two years of experience with the Forest Practices Code. Others address problems identified by ministry programs and the auditor general.

[2:15]

Bill 47 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Oral Questions

LOTTERY CORPORATION PROMOTION
OF CLUB KENO GAMBLING

Hon. D. Miller: No, I don't. But I really am a bit puzzled, because, with all due respect, we canvassed this issue extensively just this morning in the small House in the estimates. That issue was fully discussed. I explained to the gaming critic, who should be asking this question and somehow isn't, that when new machines are installed at a new location, the Lottery Corporation does indeed have part-time people on call, who do go in and explain how the machine operates. There's no attempt to lure people. It's simply people who are employed. I'm happy that they've employed students to do that kind of work, even at the kind of minimal hours available. Again, I'm puzzled as to why the critic didn't convey this to the hon. member at their caucus meeting.

M. de Jong: I want to make sure I understand this correctly. I want to know what this government's response would be if cigarette companies were giving away free samples. How is that different from this government giving away free Club Keno kiddie packs in pubs across British Columbia?

Let me ask the Premier, because apparently the minister doesn't take the issue seriously. Does he find it acceptable that the B.C. Lottery Corporation has hired summer students to entice pub patrons to become hooked on his government's Club Keno gaming gambit?

Hon. D. Miller: The member is persistent in his desire not to listen to the answer but to continue with the theme. In fact, what he says is happening is not happening. Now, I might be the wrong guy to ask when it comes to cigarettes.

M. de Jong: I'll buy you a beer. Come on.

Hon. D. Miller: Now the member is offering to buy me a beer. I'd be happy to at some point, perhaps when we're out of here and we have more time -- and I understand things could move a little quicker in that regard. I'm sure he's a nice guy to sit down and have a beer with, and at some point I'd like to take him up on the offer.

In the meantime, I want to repeat that we are not doing that at all. When a machine is installed at a new location, we do supply someone to inform people as to how the machine operates.

It's interesting that there have been public opinion surveys on this question. There's very strong support for those kinds of machines. There's also very strong support for the fundamental notion that individuals in our society are free to make up their own minds about these kinds of questions.

The Speaker: Thank you, minister.

Hon. D. Miller: So I think that things are well in hand, Mr. Speaker.

K. Krueger: I'd like to take the minister up on his kind invitation, to ask a follow-up question about the Keno-pusher matter. The NDP's gambling agenda really has sunk to a new low with this latest revelation. To be promoting potentially addictive products by giving them away -- giving away free tickets in premises where alcohol is served -- clearly crosses the line.

My question is again for the minister responsible for the B.C. Lottery Corporation. It was clear this morning that he hadn't known about this process before estimates. Now that he does, does this minister approve of B.C. Lottery Corporation's plan to give away free Club Keno tickets as a means, clearly, of increasing gambling revenue?

Hon. D. Miller: Again I must confess to some puzzlement. We spent, I think, two and a half long, protracted days in which this member could canvass all issues relative to the gaming file. Having failed to make any points, he continues and asks questions -- which he asked this morning -- in question period.

I repeat: we are not doing that. We are not attempting to lure people. But it seems to me that when you install a new machine, explaining how the machine works might be a fundamental part of that. The decision as to whether or not a pub. . . .

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members, order, please. It's awfully hard to hear the answer, even with a voice like that.

Hon. D. Miller: The decision as to whether or not a Club Keno machine is located in a particular bar or pub is really up to the owner of that establishment. They are quite free to not have the machines.

I point out that the policy we brought in with respect to gaming has expressed prohibitions for those under 19. Clearly, drinking establishments are only available to adults, those over the age of 19. They are able to make their own free choice, as they have done since 1988 on breakopen tickets.

So I think this is an attempt to exaggerate an issue. They've failed so far, and I think they'll continue to fail.

K. Krueger: The Premier has called on Crown corporations to create 3,500 student jobs this summer. We wonder, and 

[ Page 4737 ]

I'd like to ask the Premier: did he approve of B.C. Lottery Corporation's plan to do their part, apparently, by giving students red B.C. Lottery Corporation shirts and a fistful of Club Keno tickets and perhaps paying their cover charges to go into pubs and push this potentially addictive product on people?

Hon. D. Miller: As I said in estimates, it's a bit paradoxical, because this member lobbied intensely to have a contract awarded to his constituents. The dichotomy is glaring and apparent for all to see.

If the members opposite wish to take a position that the B.C. Lottery Corporation should not hire students trying to find some employment, then they should stand up and say so. The utilization of these students on a part-time basis, on call, to work with customers in terms of explaining these new machines is quite apropos; it's quite acceptable. And it will not be changed.

EMPLOYMENT STANDARDS FLEXIBILITY
FOR OIL AND GAS INDUSTRY

Under order-in-council 0222, the government has ensured that the logging contractors will retain the flexibility that they need to remain competitive and keep their workers employed. Yet the oil and gas service companies are going to lose their competitive standards. Already at least five companies -- and you can clap for that one, too, hon. member -- in the Peace are openly considering moving their head offices across the border to Alberta, resulting in lost jobs and tax revenue in British Columbia. Will the minister agree to review this situation and restore the flexibility in employment standards to those oil and gas companies, which the logging operators now enjoy?

Hon. J. Cashore: This is a complex issue, and it's a very difficult issue. I appreciate the way in which the member is representing his constituents. We have to take his point seriously. We have gone through a process with the Employment Standards Tribunal. People in the area from all walks of life were heard from. At the present time we are looking to a process that would not preclude the use of variances. But I continue, as I said during estimates, to welcome the input of this member, because it is a difficult issue.

R. Neufeld: Well, having talked to the Minister of Employment and Investment recently on this subject, I know that he's very concerned, and I'm sure the Premier is very concerned about the loss of British Columbia jobs and British Columbia investment. I would hope that the minister would give those companies and their employees the assurance that they will be allowed to retain some of the employment standards that they have had and that are now guaranteed for logging operators.

I know there was a tribunal hearing, but I tell the minister that an order-in-council changed the Employment Standards Act to reflect what is needed in the logging industry for contractors in the forest industry. You completely changed the act for the logging industry. All we're asking for in the oil and gas industry is the same equality, the same equal opportunity to compete in British Columbia for these jobs and this employment investment that British Columbia does need.

Hon. J. Cashore: I want to reiterate that in the Peace River area, the tribunal process did talk to workers; it talked to employers. They came out with the best considered opinion they could given those circumstances, and we are trying to work with those facts -- and also for the betterment of the community.

CONTRACT PAYMENTS
TO FORMER CABINET MINISTER

Does the Minister of Health think that paying an ex-NDP cabinet minister $32 a word is a good way to use scarce health care dollars?

Hon. J. MacPhail: I haven't read the report, nor do I intend to. The chair of the regional health board, Mr. Jac Kreut, and the CEO of the regional health board, Mr. Ken Fyke, are both responsible for the managing the health care budget in the community. I am making sure that they do that. They report to me. It is up to them to account for each and every dollar spent and each and every dollar saved, which they have committed to do.

[2:30]

My question is to the Premier: does he agree with the public that paying an ex-NDP cabinet minister $32 a word -- that's a record in British Columbia -- is an obscene abuse of precious health care dollars? Does he agree with that?

Hon. J. MacPhail: At the time, this government said that it was pretty hard to contemplate anybody earning $1,000 a day. We went on record saying that. We also went on record saying that it was entirely the responsibility of the regional health board to deliver proper health care and to meet the administrative cost savings that they were mandated to do. That commitment was made, and it was their responsibility to figure out how to achieve that.

I am informed by the regional health board CEO that they are on track in achieving those savings and at the same time expanding and enhancing health care in the capital health region, and that they are doing it in a way that's responsible and meets the community needs.

Orders of the Day

Motions on Notice

CONFLICT-OF-INTEREST COMMISSIONER
AND MEMBERS' CONFLICT OF INTEREST ACT

Hon. J. MacPhail: I call Motion 63 that sits on the order paper in my name, and I call it as printed.

[ Page 4738 ]

That this House authorize the Select Standing Committee on Parliamentary Reform, Ethical Conduct, Standing Orders and Private Bills to select and unanimously recommend to the Legislative Assembly the appointment of a Commissioner, Conflict of Interest and,

That after the Committee has unanimously recommended the appointment of a Commissioner, Conflict of Interest and the Commissioner, Conflict of Interest is appointed by the Lieutenant Governor-in-Council pursuant to the Members' Conflict of Interest Act, RSBC 1996, c. 287, s. 14 (2), the Committee is authorized to examine, inquire into and make recommendations on the matter of the Members' Conflict of Interest Act, RSBC 1996, c. 287.

In addition to the powers previously conferred upon the said Committee by the House, the Committee be empowered:

(a) to appoint of their number, one or more subcommittees and to refer to such subcommittees any of the matters referred to the Committee (but to deal with matters in the order in which the Committee has been authorized to deal with them);

(b) to sit during a period in which the House is adjourned, during the recess after prorogation until the next following Session and during any sitting of the House;

(c) to adjourn from place to place as may be convenient; and

(d) to retain such personnel as required to assist the Committee;

and shall report to the House as soon as possible, or following any adjournment, or at the next following Session, as the case may be; to deposit the original of its reports with the Clerk of the Legislative Assembly during a period of adjournment and upon resumption of the sittings of the House, the Chair shall present all reports to the Legislative Assembly.

Hon. J. MacPhail: Hon. Speaker, this is the motion that authorizes the Select Standing Committee on Parliamentary Reform, Ethical Conduct, Standing Orders and Private Bills to select and unanimously recommend to the Legislative Assembly the appointment of a commissioner of conflict of interest.

We started this process as a Legislature in the last parliamentary session. There were not one but two motions passed, where all parties in this Legislature agreed to the terms of reference. It was brought to my attention by members opposite that they wanted to clarify the original terms of reference referred in the last session, to ensure that not only was the committee right to recommend on how a commissioner should be selected, but also that the committee should have the right to select and recommend appointment of that commissioner, as well. Those motions are on the record in Hansard, of course.

The process has run into some conflict amongst members. I have certainly, as House Leader, tried to resolve those conflicts and assure members that in the terms of reference, as we proceed -- for the first time ever, as a parliament -- to make a recommendation for the conflict-of-interest commissioner, we can then proceed to examine, inquire into and make recommendations on the matter of the Members' Conflict of Interest Act, as well. Those are clearly contained in the terms of reference.

It is clearly time to get a conflict-of-interest commissioner appointed. The process makes sense. It's the first time ever that a government has committed to allow all members of the Legislature to participate in the selection and appointment of the conflict-of-interest commissioner. Our government is firmly committed to the Conflict of Interest Act. We abide by it, and we believe that now is the time to get a permanent conflict-of-interest commissioner. That is why we want to move on with this immediately.

R. Thorpe: Hon. Speaker, I must rise to speak against this motion. This government, in its attempt -- it's not even an attempt, actually; it's a scam and it's a sham -- in this particular act. . . .

On March 26 of this year, the former commissioner said in a letter: ". . .I am more convinced than ever of the need to embrace, within the statute, principles of honesty and integrity that cover a spectrum of ethical conduct much wider than just conflict of interest."

This government has continued to delay in this process. They have held back, they have delayed meetings, and they have attempted to change the agenda. We must always ask ourselves: what do they have to hide? Is it former ministers making $1,000 a day? Is it appointments? Does it have to do with constituency offices? What does it have to do with? What are they afraid of? Ask yourself: what does the government brass know that they do not want British Columbians to know? That is a question that must be answered. Why is this government against having the highest ethical standards for their elected officials? What is wrong with including honesty, integrity and ethics? What is wrong with that? This side says there is nothing wrong with that.

In the terms of reference originally passed on July 18, it says: ". . .make recommendations on the matter of the Members' Conflict of Interest Act. . . ." It's clearly stated, yet the government side has refused to discharge that responsibility.

Then, on July 19, what did the Premier have to say? "The committee's mandate also includes looking at the process of selecting a commissioner" -- one of the things we agree with -- "but also the duties and the powers of the office." Those were the words of the Premier a year ago, July 19 -- eleven months ago. Is this now to be another broken promise? Let's hope not.

Then the Hon. Ted Hughes, QC, former commissioner and acting commissioner, says in his letter of March 26: "That is not to say that I leave office with the view that all is well." We all have to carry part of that burden, because Mr. Hughes was telling us -- and he had worked very hard on behalf of all British Columbians, on behalf of all members of this House, to ensure that we had the highest ethical standards, the greatest integrity, and that our conflict of interest was dealt with in a timely and professional manner. . . .

He said:

"As I observe the current scene I am more convinced than ever of the need to embrace, within the statute, principles of honesty and integrity that cover a spectrum of ethical conduct much wider than just conflict of interest. That occurrence, as recommended at pages 8 and 9 of my January 1996 annual report, coupled with the appointment, as my successor, of a person possessed with an abundance of common sense along with his or her other attributes will, in my judgment, result in substantial dividends to the people of this province."

In looking at the report of the conflict commissioner in 1995-1996, there were seven key recommendations. In our committee we had at one time agree that there were three principles that the committee would move forward on, and they are. . . . Let me read them:

"(1) Broadening the scope of the act to cover ethical conduct that would require members to act with honesty and uphold the highest ethical standards so that public confidence and trust in the integrity, objectivity and impartiality of government are conserved and enhanced. . . ; (3) Embracing senior officials within requirements of the act."

[ Page 4739 ]

The opposition side was committed, and at one time the government side was committed, to moving forward on those terms of reference. Several times, as the Deputy Chair, I wrote notes to the Chair suggesting that we move forward in this area. On February 5, the Chair -- the member for New Westminster -- did in fact acknowledge that the review of the act was part of our mandate. He went on to say that the committee was quite open to a full and thorough review of the act in the longer term, but that the first priority must be a search for the new commissioner. Yet when we pushed him for the definition of "the longer term," we could not get an answer, and from meeting to meeting the agenda changed.

In my letter of February 10 to the Chairman, I stated on behalf of our caucus and the official opposition:

". . .please allow me on behalf of the committee members from the official opposition to request you bring forward a detailed schedule which will address both responsibilities of the committee: (1) the review and recommendations on the act; and (2) reviewing of applicants for conflict-of-interest commissioner."

As I said earlier, the release from the Premier's Office clearly stated that it was to review the duties and the powers of the office. Is this just to be another broken promise from our Premier? Is it saying one thing yet doing another? On behalf of all British Columbians, we ask for this Premier to keep his word, to stop breaking his promises.

Let us all join together, as we had agreed, to work in parallel, to review the act and to select a commissioner. Much work has been done in getting ready to select a commissioner. It is only a matter of weeks from being completed. It's only a matter of weeks to review the act if we all agree that that's what has to be done. But for some reason, the government side does not want to review this act.

An Hon. Member: Why would that be?

R. Thorpe: I don't know.

Other speakers from the opposition side are going to bring up points that are going to demonstrate that this government has never, ever had the intention of reviewing this act, and has never had the intention of making amendments to this act. Yes, some of the members on the government side have puzzled looks on their faces, but they're just acting. They know they don't want this act changed. If they wanted this act changed, it would be changed.

As I wrap up here, I want you to listen very carefully, because these were the words of the Premier of British Columbia in this House on August 13, 1996: ". . .I anticipate three committees meeting off-session, which will certainly be a record in British Columbia. One is the Aboriginal Affairs Committee, which is, I think, significant work -- I hope it is significant work." This is the Premier of British Columbia: "The second is the committee not just to appoint a new conflict-of-interest commissioner but to review the legislation surrounding that and ways which we can move -- and I think that's important work."

I ask this government and I ask the Premier of this province: please, keep your word to British Columbians.

[2:45]

Indeed, that's the only thing that I can read into the fact that this motion is bringing in the fact that they're going to choose the commissioner first, and if there are to be any changes, they'll do that second. It seems to me that it would be prudent to do it in the reverse order: we should be discussing whether we change it the other way around and say we should make the changes to the act first and then, based on the new act, if that's necessary, choose a commissioner to carry out the mandate of that act. It would seem that we are choosing the commissioner and then saying: "The conditions under which you were brought in may change. Rather than hire a person and have them know exactly what the conditions of employment are, we're going to set those conditions second." So I suggest that it would be very prudent if we were to change the order of this motion to that particular order, so that we're going to be doing the choosing of the commissioner first.

I think the past commissioner served this province well, and with distinction, but in the process he discovered some problems within the act. I think it was more than a year ago that he gave the members of this legislative chamber some possible amendments for consideration of this House. From the time that Mr. Hughes brought forth those possible amendments for consideration, unfortunately, the government's committee did nothing. So they've had this for a whole year. They've had a year in which they could have been looking at the two issues of a commissioner and the revisions to the act, and have done neither. In fact, they brought in an interim commissioner -- one with questionable qualifications, I think -- appointed him incorrectly, and that was quickly changed. Fortunately, the government realized it wasn't going to sell well in the public, but they've done absolutely everything to circumvent the need of this legislative chamber to have an appropriate and duly appointed conflict-of-interest commissioner.

So we've gone through quite a process, where we now have, in effect, illegally. . . . The act doesn't permit the appointment of an acting commissioner twice in a row. We've now had the third appointment of an acting commissioner, so we don't currently have a legitimately placed commissioner. So we have to ask why they are rushing to do it this way, and I can only surmise that the reason is that they're not very happy about having a change to the act. They don't mind getting somebody in there, but they want that person to operate under the old Conflict of Interest Act rules. It would seem that the past commissioner feels there should be some changes to 

[ Page 4740 ]

tighten the regulations under which that commissioner acts. This government does not seem willing to consider those. That's why I am concerned that we should do it the other way. We need to know what the act is when we're hiring a person to carry out the conditions of that particular act.

The act brings in quite a few items. In particular, I think the commissioner showed some concerns about sections 14 and 15 of the act, but I'm thinking back to when the commissioner did a study. He brought in an interim report and other reports, and finally the report on the constituency allowance review that he did in 1993. I think that was brought in as an outcome of some concerns over the fact that when the Nanaimo Commonwealth Holding Society scandal broke, there was some concern that some of the moneys that were given to MLAs to operate their constituency offices found their way through the funnel of the Nanaimo Commonwealth Holding Society -- at least through one of the principals of that particular organization, Marwood agencies, I think -- for distributing and working out their constituency allowances. We find that people like the past Premier and the current Premier were using the services of Marwood, which has had close connections to the Nanaimo Commonwealth Holding Society as a clearinghouse for paying bills and looking after the accounts of their constituency offices.

As an outcome of a concern that was brought by various members of this chamber and the public, the conflict-of-interest commissioner did look into that. When we look into it, we find that he felt there were about ten MLAs that needed a little more scrutiny than just the quick one that the conflict-of-interest commissioner -- who is not an auditor -- felt was necessary, so he had their accounts looked at in more detail. I think that after doing that study the conflict-of-interest commissioner found that most of these accounts were all right.

He did comment -- and I would just like to quickly find the quote, because there were some concerns he had at the time -- that there were some problems in the way in which the bookkeeping was going on. He said: "Only one is still struggling to meet my requirements, but I believe they will soon be met" -- that is, the requirement for the information to be given to him. "Often, and the one I just mentioned is a case in point, staff who prepared the books and records" -- that's for looking after constituency accounts, moneys given by the legislative chamber, by the province of British Columbia and by the taxpayers of British Columbia for us to operate our constituency offices and to serve the ridings that we represent -- "could not be located and many records were handwritten entries only, sometimes bordering on the illegible."

So we find that some of the records weren't kept in the best format. Indeed, the records themselves seemed to be missing, in some cases. I believe that the current Premier's records were destroyed. So there was no way -- other than assuming that what the hon. member said was indeed honourable, and therefore acceptable -- of checking the accounts of the current Premier, because when the office moved I think those records were destroyed. So we find that the haphazard method of the way each member keeps their records makes it difficult if there is some charge of conflict in the appropriate use of that government money going on. It's rather difficult for the conflict-of-interest commissioner to be able to audit those books and go forward. So I think there are some needs for revision of the Conflict of Interest Act, and those must come first.

We are in a position today to look at this motion brought forward by the hon. Health minister and to consider whether we want to move to putting the commissioner there first and discussing what changes, if any, could be made to the act later on. But I think that would be terribly inappropriate, and I would urge every member in this House to consider the fact that once we've chosen the commissioner, we are not too certain at what speed any further considerations or changes to the act might take place.

If we look at the government's past record -- and we have a record of more than a year from when it was known that we would have to be looking at amendments to the act and at choosing a commissioner. . . . When we look at the speed at which they've done the first -- that is, choosing a commissioner -- we find that there's no faith at all that this government will carry through with the second portion of the particular charge that was given to that committee when it was up to make those two decisions. I think it's important as leverage, if nothing more, to insist that we make the amendments first. After we've made those amendments we could very quickly come to resolution about who the commissioner should be to carry out the new amended act.

So with those few comments, I would suggest that this House reconsider Motion 63, defeat this motion, bring in another one that just reverses the order of the two "thats" that are worded there. It would be highly acceptable to both sides of the House at that point.

G. Farrell-Collins: I too want to engage in the debate on Motion 63, which is before us now. It's probably one of the more serious matters that this House has to deal with in this session.

It seems that there is a growing sense amongst the public year after year that this business we are all in -- politics, the process of politics -- is one that is less than forthright and one that is not often held up to the highest standard to measure up appropriately. That's unfortunate. I don't think anybody ever wants that to be the case. I believe all members come into this field, into public service, with the intent to do just that -- to serve the public. They come here with ideals, with goals, with hopes and aspirations for themselves and their constituents, and indeed the province and the country. Sometimes along the way people make mistakes; sometimes along the way people make deliberate mistakes. Our job as members is to try and restore the faith that the public has in us and restore the faith the public has in the institutions. I think it is a critical job for us to be doing.

Hon. Speaker, for those who remember the history of how the office of the conflict-of-interest commissioner came into being, it too was steeped in a great deal of controversy -- as the reappointment of the commissioner has been. It was a time in this province -- I believe that the people of British Columbia and members opposite will remember it; some of those who were here before 1991 will remember it far more clearly than I do -- where the ethics of those in power were seen to be wanting in the extreme. There were many heated debates in this House over the original legislation; there were many issues that were brought before this House in question period and otherwise about ethical conduct, integrity and conflict of interest.

Something needed to be done. Everybody agreed something needed to be done. And, in fact, something was done. Legislation was brought to this House; legislation was introduced and passed. There were amendments made to that legislation shortly after the change of government in 1991.

But, hon. Speaker, something's happened since then. There have been more instances that have come forward to this House. There have been more issues that require canvass-

[ Page 4741 ]

ing. There has been an entire four-year-long scandal, with multiple criminal investigations, with regard to the Nanaimo Commonwealth Holding Society. One of those investigations that was based on it -- that had to do with that issue -- was one done by the conflict-of-interest commissioner: a special review asked to be done by this House into the constituency offices of members of the Legislature in the past.

Coming out of that was a report by the conflict-of-interest commissioner in 1993, where he made some fairly clear recommendations and guidelines for how constituency offices should be run, how the funds that are used for constituency offices should be used -- that they should not be used for partisan purposes, that one should not close one's constituency office in the middle of a federal election campaign and let the party that one happens to be tied with use it as a campaign office, that one shouldn't take the money that goes into the constituency office for rent and have it end up being used for political purposes.

[3:00]

But it didn't stop there. When the now Premier became Premier, he did something that really showed his true colours. Despite the ongoing consultation that had gone on between the previous Premier and his staff, and members of the opposition -- and members of the third party, at that time -- with regard to who the next conflict-of-interest-commissioner might be and what the process might be of selecting a conflict-of-interest commissioner, the Premier went about of his own accord, picked somebody -- a current MLA; talk about one of the old boys' club -- and tried to appoint him as conflict-of-interest commissioner. That lasted for about a day, but only because the conflict-of-interest commissioner went to the press and said: "I felt as if a gun had been put to my head." Those are the words of the conflict-of-interest commissioner with regard to the actions of the Premier of British Columbia.

How on earth are the other 74 members of this Legislature supposed to put any trust whatsoever in a man who would do that to the conflict-of-interest commissioner, an officer of this Legislature? How are we expected to stand in this House today and ratify a motion that says: "Well, don't worry about it. We'll appoint a new commissioner, and then we'll review the act"? Hon. Speaker, I don't believe that for one minute -- not for one minute. I don't believe it for one second, because it won't happen.

We've had almost a year since the last time this issue came forward and a similar motion came before this House and was referred to the select standing committee on ethical conduct and parliamentary matters under the chairmanship of the member for New Westminster. We've had almost a year -- over 11 months -- since that took place. In six months we could have done a review of the act, we could have had public hearings, we could have drafted legislation, and we could have appointed a commissioner.

When this House sat for the first time this year, on March 24, that member, if he had done his job as the Chairman of that committee, would have come into this House with a set of recommendations for changing the legislation and a recommendation -- probably a unanimous recommendation from all members of the House -- for the appointment of a commissioner. It didn't happen. Going into the appointment and selection process, we were obviously a little jaded, a little concerned that in fact the issue wasn't going to be dealt with in an upfront and honest manner -- given the actions of the Premier, given the thuggery that the Premier used against the conflict-of-interest commissioner. I think one could understand a reticence to trust and believe the government members.

Hon. Speaker, we went into that meeting, into that committee, with an agenda. We said that we would not appoint the conflict-of-interest commissioner. We would go through the selection process, we would help with that, we would cooperate with that, we would do it in good faith, we would interview a conflict-of-interest commissioner, and we would make a recommendation for a conflict-of-interest commissioner. We'd even pass the required resolution from the committee to this House to have the appointment of the conflict-of-interest commissioner go ahead. But we would not ratify that appointment by the required two-thirds vote of this chamber until the government had done a review of the act. That was our commitment.

There was plenty of time to do both of those things. I have a stack of letters here from the Deputy Chair, the member for Okanagan-Penticton, to the Chair of the committee, saying. . . . Here's the first line of one of them, in February of this year:

"It has been some time since the select standing committee met on this critical review. Members of our caucus are very concerned that the select standing committee is not meeting. In fact, there are no meetings scheduled at this time. As we have stated several times, the opposition committee members are committed to discharging their responsibilities. B.C. Liberal committee members want to complete the task assigned: to examine, inquire into, and make recommendations on the matter of the Conflict of Interest Act."

It became clear, in meeting after meeting after meeting in the fall, that the government had absolutely no intention of reviewing the act -- none. Because every time that issue came up, it was quite clear: "Oh yeah, we'll get to that. But really, what we need to do is appoint a commissioner." We could have done all of that by December. We could have more than accomplished all of that by December, but we didn't. There was clearly an unwillingness verbally by the government and the government members to follow through on the commitment -- I might say, yet another commitment of the Premier -- in writing, as outlined by the member from Penticton, to make sure that that happened.

I can honestly say I was astounded when I saw this quote of the. . . . I guess I wasn't astounded. It reinforced my opinion of the way that member operates, when here we are, almost 12 months later. . . . I read a quote from the Premier from August of last year:

". . .I anticipate three committees meeting off-session, which will certainly be a record in British Columbia. One is the Aboriginal Affairs Committee, which is, I think, significant 

[ Page 4742 ]

work -- I hope it is significant work. The second is the committee not just to appoint a new conflict-of-interest commissioner but to review the legislation surrounding that and ways which we can move -- and I think that's important work."

We even went to the point -- which I think was extremely rude on a personal level -- of running ads across Canada, asking highly qualified, professional, ethical individuals to submit a r�sum�, to submit a CV, to put information out and let it be known that they were looking for another job. That's a very delicate thing for some people to do, certainly in senior positions.

We did that, and they sat there. We short-listed them, and we sat there with, I think, ten or 20 names for the last four or five months, having done nothing with them. The committee hasn't met once to deal with that, since we got to that point.

I'm flabbergasted as to how it is that the government brings this sort of a motion before the House today, saying, "First we appoint a commissioner, then we review the act," when it's quite clear that the government has absolutely no intention of reviewing the act. That was highlighted by a motion put forward in committee by the member for Peace River South, the leader of the Reform Party. I thought it was a very nice motion. It was something that I thought everybody could have agreed to. I thought he in fact had breached the logjam. What it says is that we would have a parallel process. We would go along the process of appointing a commissioner at the same time as we review the act, and at the end of the day we'd arrive, having both jobs completed. Why would anybody vote against that? Why would anybody have a problem with that? What was so difficult about us doing that work?

All members on the opposition side were prepared to do it, but I think the member for Peace River South flushed out the Chairman and the members of his committee. When we voted on that provision, they all voted no. They didn't want to have a parallel process; they didn't want to review the act. So here we have this dishonest motion, quite frankly, before the House that somehow leads people to believe that we're going to appoint a conflict-of-interest commissioner and then review the legislation. We'll never get to review the legislation. We'll never get an improvement of the conflict-of-interest legislation in this province without some sort of pressure put on the government. They have no intention of doing it. Mr. Hughes, when he left his post as conflict-of-interest commissioner, made some pretty strongly worded recommendations for changes in his final report. I believe there were six changes that he thought he should see.

One of them was that this apply to senior civil servants -- something which I believe the member for Burnaby North, before the last election, was involved in doing. . . . He was told by the Premier's Office -- this is what I've heard and I probably shouldn't say it; it's out of school -- that recommendations had been made on expanding this to the senior civil service and that the government had decided not to go ahead with that. That certainly was one. . . . I think it was the first recommendation -- or one of the very serious recommendations, anyway -- that Mr. Hughes put forward in his final report.

There were a series of other recommendations -- one that members deport themselves in a way that can be seen to be ethical. It's helping to do what I talked about at the beginning -- that is, give people a different impression about what we're all about, give people a different sense of what this House is about and what elected members are about. What is so hard about that? Why is the government so opposed to having the Conflict of Interest Act deal in a substantive way with the way constituency office funds are used? Obviously they've got a problem with it. They'd like to use those funds to secure assets and then go out and take loans on those assets and run their election campaigns on them. That's obviously what they want to do. Why don't they want it to apply to senior civil servants? Why don't they want to expand it to involve other people and ethical conduct?

The former Health minister barely cleared out her constituency office before she got a contract for $70,000 -- $1,000 a day -- to do a communications study for the health board here in Victoria -- $70,000 to do a report on how to communicate with people. That is an astronomical amount of money. How many people could you put through university with $70,000? How much tuition could you pay for with $70,000? How many limousines could you buy with $70,000?

Interjection.

G. Farrell-Collins: I hear the member for Esquimalt-Metchosin piping up and entering into the debate.

How many things can you do with that $70,000?

That's not the tragedy of it. The tragedy of it was when we actually saw what she did for the $70,000: a flimsy, nine-page document that any second-year communications student at any community college in British Columbia could have done and would have been thrilled to have received $500 for -- or $50, for that matter. For $70,000 we got a nine-page document.

For $35 the former Minister of Health could have gone to any bookstore. She could have gone to Camosun College right here in Victoria. She could have gone to Munro's up the street. She could have walked, if she had to, up to the University of Victoria and gone into the bookstore and bought any of a number of communications textbooks that would have had the same little diagrams, probably the same little analysis, probably the same little suggestions of how you communicate with people. But no, we paid -- the taxpayers paid -- $70,000 for a nine-page document from the former Minister of Health. That is outrageous.

One has to ask oneself what it is that the government is so afraid of. Why won't they move forward with the conflict-of-interest legislation changes? They don't even want to talk about it. They don't even want to hold hearings. They don't even want to have the committee discuss it. They don't even want to go past first base on this issue. All the opposition has -- the only tool the opposition has to try and force the government's hand to do the right thing, finally, to do what's honest, to do what makes sense, to do what will help to promote the House and the standing of this House in the opinion of the people of British Columbia -- is to say to the government: "We will use our ability to stop the appointment of another conflict-of-interest commissioner until you give that conflict-of-interest commissioner the tools that the last conflict-of-interest commissioner begged for."

The act for the conflict-of-interest commissioner is clear. In order to make the appointment of a permanent conflict-of-interest commissioner, it requires a two-thirds majority of this House. There's a reason for that. The conflict-of-interest commissioner sits on a throne for the rest of us -- for these 75 

[ Page 4743 ]

members -- with a sword in one hand and a bolt of lightning in the other. If we transgress, he or she has the ability, as the ultimate sayer, to impose a penalty.

[3:15]

In only the rarest of occasions would that ratification be able to take place with only the votes from the government side. So there's a reason why that's there. It's so that members of the opposition, not just government members, have a say in who is going to be the conflict-of-interest commissioner and what tools the conflict-of-interest commissioner is going to be able to use to do the job on behalf of the people of British Columbia.

I don't take the work of the committee lightly. In fact, I've spoken to the member for New Westminster numerous times over the last year, urging him to get on with the work, urging him to talk to the Government House Leader, the Premier or whoever it is he needs to get the mandate that we all thought he had to do the work of the committee and to make sure that we have conflict-of-interest legislation in this province that works -- and that we answer the reports of the conflict-of-interest commissioner who has left us. The report in 1993, which is now four years old, has languished on the shelves. More importantly, I think, is the report from 1995-96 that he made upon leaving his post, which had a series of recommendations that we need to follow up on.

As a committee, and ultimately as a House, we may go out and examine those issues, hear from the public and find out that we don't agree or that the public doesn't agree with the recommendations of the conflict-of-interest commissioner. At the end of the day, that's our job. We're accountable to the public for the way we do that job. But if we refuse even to answer those, if we refuse even to consider the recommendations that he made, then why is he there? Why do we have a conflict-of-interest commissioner? What's he doing? Why do we ask him to file an annual report? Why do we ask him to make recommendations? Why don't we just say: "Forget it. We don't believe that there should a Conflict of Interest Act in this province. We don't believe that the conflict-of-interest commissioner has a role to play in helping to guide us, to ensure that we continue to raise the standards of this House in the eyes of the public"? Why doesn't the government just come out and say that? Why doesn't the government just come out and say that they don't believe that the role of the conflict-of-interest commissioner is a valid one? Why don't they be honest about it? That's essentially what they've proven over the last 11 months.

We have a duty to our constituents. The member for New Westminster has a duty to his constituents; I have a duty to my constituents; the member for Peace River South, from the Reform Party, who sits on the committee, has a duty to his constituents to answer the call, to answer the concerns and to answer the recommendations of the conflict-of-interest commissioner in some meaningful way. It is to examine them, take them out to the public, hear what they have to say, look around and find out what people who specialize in the field of ethics and conflict of interest have to say, look around the province and hear what the general public has to say, and then come back as a House and as a group of legislators and decide what it is that we want to do with what we've heard.

We may well decide that we agree with some things that he said; we may find that we disagree with other things he said. We may find that we want to strengthen the act even more than what he's recommended. We may find that we think he's gone too far. We may find that the act itself, as it stands, in areas where Mr. Hughes made no recommendation, needs to be improved or needs to be relaxed. But let's go out and ask people about it. Why don't we even go out and talk to the public and find out what they think? Why don't we talk to each other, even, about what we think? Why is it that the committee refuses to do that work?

Interjection.

G. Farrell-Collins: Yeah. Perhaps the government could commission the former Minister of Health or the former Finance minister to do a $70,000 study on why members of the Legislature can't get this job done and why they can't communicate with the public. Maybe there's something in that nine-page document that the committee could use. Maybe the member for New Westminster should read it.

I think it's critical, important and essential that this committee do the work that the Premier promised -- not once but several times -- it would do. Over the last year, the Premier has made so many commitments to the people of this province that I can't count them anymore. I've run out of fingers; I've run out of toes; my abacus is broken, my calculator's batteries are dead. I've run out of ways to keep track of the promises and commitments of the Premier to the people of British Columbia. Also, I've run out of fingers, I've run out of toes, my abacus is broken. and my calculator's batteries have died trying to keep track of the number of commitments and promises that the Premier has made that he hasn't lived up to.

Here's another one. Here's an opportunity for the Premier to live up to the words he said in this House less than a year ago -- to finally stand up and say something that he follows through on. How are British Columbians supposed to believe a word that man says when time after time after time, for the last 12 months or longer -- since he's been Premier, and longer even before that, when he was a disaster as a Finance minister and a Minister of Employment and Investment. . . ? When is he finally going to stand up and do what he says? When is he finally going to stand up and deliver on one of his commitments? When is he finally going to live up to a promise that he makes to the people of British Columbia?

Where is he? Does he have anything to say about this? He's the shooter; he's the gunman. He's the man who held the gun to the head of the conflict-of-interest commissioner a little over a year ago. Where is the Premier to stand up and explain why he changed his mind or why he had no intention of following through on this when he said that in the House? Where is the Premier to stand up and defend his actions over the last 11 months with regard to this committee?

Is he going to take this disaster of a committee, this disaster of an effort to appoint a commissioner, this disaster of an effort -- a fake effort -- to review the act, and hand it to the 

[ Page 4744 ]

Chairman of the committee, the member for New Westminster, like a hand grenade with the pin pulled and wait until it blows up and takes him out, much like he did the Finance minister with his two budgets that weren't balanced? Is that the way he's going to treat the member for New Westminster -- the same way he treated the Minister of Finance, the same way he treated the Minister of Employment and Investment, the minister responsible for B.C. Hydro? "Here, I'm going to go be Premier now. You handle this Raiwind project, this Hydro scandal, and don't focus it on me. I don't have anything to do with that."

Is he going to hand the member for New Westminster the same time bomb, the same hand grenade, that he handed the Minister of Employment and Investment, with a ferry plan at B.C. Ferries that's going to drive the corporation into so much debt that it's not going to be able to operate its more difficult runs in the Gulf Islands? Is he going to do that? Or is he going to take the no-fault thing that the Premier did during the election campaign, when he stood up and said: "We're going to bring in no-fault insurance, because we have to make sure the rates don't go up. I'm going to freeze ICBC rates for three years. Everybody gets a chicken in their pot"? He's going to take the no-fault promise. . . . Is he going to take the promise of no ICBC rate increases, like he did, or he is going to do that to the member for New Westminster the same way he did it to the Minister of Finance? He said: "I make a commitment -- a solemn commitment -- that I won't raise ICBC rates for three years. And, by the way, Minister of Finance, you find a way to do it." It turned out it was no-fault.

Well, that didn't get very far. At least somebody -- we don't know who it is, but somebody -- on the NDP back bench had the guts to stand up to the Premier and tell him that what he was doing was a harebrained scheme and bailed out the Minister of Finance from the Premier's promise. At least somebody did it.

Interjection.

G. Farrell-Collins: The Minister of Transportation and Highways asks me: "What does that have to do with anything?" Well, she should know, because she's the minister of photo radar -- photo radar, that wonderful thing that was going to bring in all these initiatives. It was going to make the government money, and then they'd put revenue figures in the budget. You know what happened, hon. Speaker? She got her own little hand grenade wrapped up in a nice package with a bow on it. Because he handed it to her and said: "Okay, Madam Minister, it's your baby now. You explain why it lost $3 million; you explain why we can't get the computer to work; you explain why the system won't work." She got her own hand grenade.

I could go up and down the line here. There's the Minister of Education; the Minister of Education got his own little package. I remember that during the election campaign the Premier led up to it for three months. The Premier was up and down the province on the bus, up and down the province in the airplane, going in front of every school he could find, saying: "We're going to give you a new school. Yeah, you get a new school, too." He'd go to another community: "We're going to give you a new school. We're going to get rid of these portables."

I've got more to say about this, hon. Speaker, so I'll probably speak through this as our designated speaker, seeing as I'm having so much fun with the members of the cabinet opposite.

Then after the election the Minister of Education got his own little package from the Premier in the form of a capital freeze. It was all wrapped up in a nice little box. It was like a fortune cookie. He undid it and took it out, and there was a little note from the Premier: "Oh, by the way, all those schools we promised that you're going to have to deliver on? Sorry, there's no money. There was no money. We never had the money. I never intended to build them. You go out there and tell the teachers and the parents and the students of this province that they are going to have to do without." So he got his own little package.

I could go around the cabinet table here and pick each and every one of them and talk about what they got for Christmas from the Premier. I'm sure when the members opposite. . . . You know, when Christmas comes and the door bell rings and there's a FedEx guy there, they probably run for cover. They go: "Oh, my goodness! It's a present from the Premier." And you can see them running out the back door as fast as they can move. The kids are diving out the window, trying to get away. Everyone thinks the whole house is going to blow up.

Well, the member for New Westminster got his own package; he got his package last year. He comes in a brand-new member, squeaky-clean, nice and shiny, and he thinks: "Oh boy, I get to chair this committee. We're going to take on some really important business. We're going to appoint a conflict-of-interest commissioner, and I get to review legislation. I get to review a big piece of legislation. I'm on my fast track to cabinet. I'm right on the rails, and I'm heading right into the cabinet."

An Hon. Member: He's been promised a cabinet job.

G. Farrell-Collins: He's just thrilled. He's on the fast track. He's been picked; he's been anointed. And there he was, sitting in his constituency office, and that FedEx truck pulled up outside. Out came the guy in the brown shirt, and he walked in with a little package with a little bow on it and he said: "You are blessed. You get to chair the conflict-of-interest committee."

Wow, was he excited! And what happened? Probably -- I don't know -- 24, 48 hours, maybe a week, maybe two weeks later, when we actually started to do some work in the committee, he got a call from Tom Gunton. Who knows? Maybe it was Tom Gunton. I assume that, because he's the one who sort of runs everything over there. He may have actually talked directly to the Premier; I don't know. But usually the Premier tries to keep his hands off these things so nobody can trace them back to him.

He would have been called into the office and told: "Well, I'm sorry, hon. member, but we really don't want to review the act. That wasn't the intent. I know I said it in the House; I know I said it. I've said a lot of things, but we really don't want to review the act. In fact, I don't have any intention of reviewing the act."

And there's this nice, new squeaky-clean member, all excited, called into the Premier's office. You know, he does his tie up and walks in and finds out that he's really not on the fast track to cabinet.

F. Gingell: He's on the skids.

G. Farrell-Collins: In fact, he's on the skids, as the member for Delta South so well says. In fact, he too has been taken advantage of by the Premier.

[ Page 4745 ]

He's another roadkill on Premier highway, another member of the government who's been taken advantage of by the Premier, another backbencher or cabinet minister who's been run over by the Glen Clark campaign bus.

Where is it that we're going to finally have somebody on that side stand up and do the right thing? Now, I know that member came here with the best of intentions, and I give him a bit of ribbing here just because it's fun. But I have a lot of respect for him, and I would have hoped that when he came here with his ideals and his vision. . . . I know he's a political activist. I don't agree with a lot of his policies, but I'm glad that he's active, and I'm glad he participates in politics, and I'm glad he's here. I wish it were a Liberal seat, but it will be next time. But I'm glad that he came here, and I know he came here with the highest hopes, despite my kidding him about it. I know he came here to do what he thought was the right thing.

Well, the right thing is to do what the government said it was going to do. The right thing is to live up to the commitment that this House heard from the Premier, to live up to what the legislation tells us, to live up to the commitment that was made and review the legislation and appoint a commissioner.

As I said, we're more than willing to do the two in parallel, as long as there is a meaningful way this legislation is reviewed and as long as it's done with good faith rather than the type of deception that we've seen from the Premier in the past.

So I hope that member will do the right thing and support our opposition to the motion, although I'd be surprised if it happened. I would hope he would do that, because in his heart of hearts he knows what the right thing is.

[3:30]

So I hope the member considers that when he decides to vote and when he sets the tone for how his other caucus members vote on this issue, because there is an issue here of ethics, of morals, of conduct and of making sure that the people of the province look up to this House and understand that this is a place where people come to do the people's business, not to do their own business.

J. Weisgerber: I'm delighted today to have an opportunity to rise and speak to this motion. It's an issue that I feel very strongly about personally. I believe that one of the things that we are entitled to, as members of this assembly, is access to a conflict-of-interest commissioner that has been chosen by all members of the House, that has the confidence of all members of the House. We have an obligation, a legal requirement, to submit financial disclosures to a conflict-of-interest commissioner. It's my intention to do that.

But I tell you also that I believe that we need to have a conflict-of-interest commissioner selected in the way that the legislation intends for that conflict-of-interest commissioner to be selected and to be ratified in the prescribed manner under the legislation -- whether it be the current legislation or amended legislation, as may well be put forward for a third time.

I believe it's worthwhile recognizing that conflict-of-interest legislation was first brought into this assembly in 1990 amidst great, great consternation expressed by the New Democrats, who were then in opposition. There was great anxiety amongst the then opposition members about the potential abuses by the government of the legislation that was being introduced.

One of the sections that was very hotly debated was about the way that an acting conflict-of-interest commissioner would be appointed and the way that appointment would be ratified. It was instructive for me to notice that when the government brought in new conflict-of-interest legislation in 1995, it contained exactly, verbatim, the section on the appointment of an acting conflict-of-interest commissioner.

So somehow the anxiety and the angst that were expressed by members, including the current Premier, about that legislation somehow disappeared, evaporated, in the period of time between 1990 and 1995. Those things that the opposition was so greatly alarmed about in 1990 no longer bothered them in 1995. It's interesting to see how those positions change.

Mr. Speaker, we were incredibly fortunate to have Mr. Ted Hughes, QC, as our first conflict-of-interest commissioner. Ted Hughes was appointed initially as an acting conflict-of-interest commissioner. His appointment as an acting conflict-of-interest commissioner was then followed by his appointment, which was unanimously supported by all members of the Legislature.

Now, I didn't always agree with Ted Hughes; I didn't always agree with the decisions that he made. But I can tell you that I always respected Ted Hughes, and I always had the greatest confidence that any personal information about myself or my family that I shared with Mr. Hughes would be kept in the strictest confidence. I also had confidence to know that should I ever have the need to go to Mr. Hughes and ask for advice about the way I conduct myself as a member of this assembly, I would receive solid advice from someone well-knowledged, well-schooled and someone of absolute integrity. And I think that over the last six or seven years, that office has become part of the institution that we all respect, enjoy and admire -- this Legislative Assembly.

So I see myself now as a member of a committee -- a committee charged with the responsibility of finding a replacement for Mr. Hughes -- and I have to tell you, it has been one of the most unsatisfactory and most frustrating experiences I've had in the years that I've served as a member of this assembly. It's a process that has been met by roadblock after roadblock after roadblock. And I'll tell you, I don't believe the roadblocks are all on one side of the House or all on the other side of the House. This process has not worked the way that committees are supposed to work, and it hasn't worked the way the selection of a conflict-of-interest commissioner should work.

I'll take a few minutes just to go back over the history of the selection of the replacement for Mr. Hughes. I'm going to ignore that unhappy little episode with David Mitchell. I want to talk more about the process as it has unfolded.

Mr. Speaker, you will recall that in 1995, in October, Mr. Hughes gave notice that he would indeed be finishing his term at the end of the calendar year. He later extended his tenure until May 22 to give the House ample opportunity to select a replacement. I think it was obvious at that point that Mr. Hughes recognized the need for there to be continuity, that there needed to be someone in place in that office.

After several weeks in this House in the spring of 1996, on July 5 we finally announced in the House the membership 

[ Page 4746 ]

of the Select Standing Committee on Parliamentary Reform, Ethical Conduct, Standing Orders, etc. On July 18, 1996, three months after Mr. Hughes had resigned, the committee finally got its terms of reference, its mandate. After some discussion, this assembly advertised nationwide August 7 through 14 for a replacement for Mr. Hughes or for a new conflict-of-interest commissioner. We received some very good applications -- some outstanding applications -- from diplomats, judges, chief justices, university professors, people in the business community and academia -- good, solid applications.

You know, we short-listed that group of applications and still have not responded to those people. This is the way this assembly does its business. We ask people to apply for a job, for an important position. Then we leave hanging -- for months -- people of the calibre that I've described who've applied for the position. I think it's shameful. It's a blight on this assembly. I'm embarrassed that I'm a part of that process.

We got on until December, and then the committee decided that indeed it simply wasn't going to be able to move forward. The opposition took one position; the government took the opposite. Neither appeared willing to compromise, to bend to facilitate this important activity.

As the Opposition House Leader indicated, I put forward an amendment or a motion in the committee to try and find some middle ground, a compromise position that would allow us to both look at the legislation -- which was clearly the intent of the Premier when the motion was put forward -- and get on with the critical business of selecting a conflict-of-interest commissioner. Sadly, the motion failed. It failed because the government members defeated it. I was truly disappointed by that.

We got around to this spring session of the Legislature. Mr. Hughes's appointment had expired. On May 8 of this year, almost a month after the House had reconvened, the Premier appointed an acting conflict-of-interest commissioner.

Now, as all members know, an acting conflict-of-interest commissioner can serve for 20 sitting days of the Legislature. That appointment must then be ratified by the House, by a two-thirds majority of the members. In the six weeks that these 20 sitting days covered, the committee, although it had been given terms of reference, never met. The committee, during the entire term of the acting conflict-of-interest commissioner, never met to discuss it. On June 13, the term of the acting conflict-of-interest commissioner was expiring.

Our committee met on June 11 -- for what purpose? -- to select a Chair. After almost two months, we met to select a Chair and to consider two pieces of legislation, private members' bills that are before this House. I raised -- I would have thought to no one's surprise -- the issue of selecting a conflict-of-interest commissioner. I was told by the Chair: "I've been working on this, and there's been communication between. . . . I'm sorry. We probably should have included you -- and haven't -- in the discussions around the terms of reference. . .from the House."

For the entire period of time that the conflict-of-interest commissioner had been appointed in an acting capacity, we never got around to meeting until two days before the term of that conflict-of-interest commissioner expired. Ironically, on the day and probably at the time that the committee was meeting for the first time to select a Chair, cabinet was passing an order-in-council reappointing an acting commissioner -- the same day and, I assume, about the same period of time. I'll talk a little bit more about the whole notion of reappointing an acting commissioner while the House is sitting.

But I think it's important to recognize that during the first term of the acting conflict-of-interest commissioner, there was no attempt made to convene the committee to deal with the ongoing applications that we had solicited almost eight months earlier -- nor had there been, apparently, any intent to move ahead with the recommendation of a conflict-of-interest commissioner to the Legislature, never mind deal with the review of the legislation.

Back in 1990, when the legislation was first introduced and this idea of an acting conflict-of-interest commissioner was first broached and first introduced, the second member for Vancouver East, as he was known then -- the Premier, as he's known today -- along with the Leader of the Opposition, Mike Harcourt, were two of the most vigorous opponents and participants in the debate. The Premier, the then second member for Vancouver East, said in Hansard back in 1990: "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 chose the auditor general and the ombudsman." He went on to say: ". . .and this bill, under this section, is critical to achieving the government's political role" -- this is a criticism of the Socreds, the bad old Socreds of the day -- "because now the cabinet can appoint the acting commissioner." The Premier of today obviously thought in 1990 that that was a very bad thing. He was unhappy with the notion that cabinet would actually appoint an acting commissioner. He went on to say: "Yet they haven't chosen to appoint that commissioner in any way, 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." I apologize for the sentence structure. I'm reading a quote.

[3:45]

As if those concerns weren't enough, the other person who was quite vocal on this matter was the member for Esquimalt-Metchosin. He raised great concern that the appointment of a conflict-of-interest commissioner would only require the ratification of two-thirds of the members of the House. That member believed that there should not be an appointment of an acting commissioner and that a conflict-of-interest commissioner should only be appointed by the unanimous consent of the House. We see a rather dramatic change in position by some of the key players now on the government side of the House.

I also want to reflect on the experience that I've had personally with respect to the appointment of this acting commissioner. In the period of time since the appointment of an acting conflict-of-interest commissioner -- I believe on May 8 by order-in-council and announced on May 9 of this year -- I have yet to receive any communication from the conflict-of-interest commissioner. I've yet to receive a letter of introduc-

[ Page 4747 ]

tion; I have yet to receive an invitation to meet with the acting conflict-of-interest commissioner. Nor have I received an invitation from that individual to come should I have concerns that would involve that office.

I think it's worth noting that within three days of the appointment of Mr. Ted Hughes as acting conflict-of-interest commissioner in his initial appointment, he wrote to all members of the House explaining who he was, the qualifications he believed he had and with an invitation to meet with him to discuss the parameters of his job and any way that he might assist. But from May 8 to this date, June 24, I have yet to hear from this individual who has been appointed acting commissioner and reappointed in a way that certainly misses the intent of the legislation, if it is not -- and many will argue that it is -- an outright violation of the act to reappoint an acting commissioner. Clearly the provision for the appointment of an acting conflict-of-interest commissioner was to deal with a vacancy should one occur while the House was not sitting. The intent was that within 20 sitting days of the House being called back into session, there would be a confirmation of the appointment by the members of the Legislature -- all of us who are served by that person.

I think the appointment of an acting conflict-of-interest commissioner is something that was foreseen. The appointment of an acting commissioner while the House was sitting certainly was not anticipated in the legislation. The reappointment during the same sitting of the Legislature of that same individual was clearly never the intent of the legislation.

I think it is unfortunate that this whole process has followed a path that sees us as members of this assembly in the sorry state of affairs that we find ourselves in today: with an acting conflict-of-interest commissioner reappointed for the second term -- possibly illegally, certainly well outside of the intent of the legislation. I as a member feel that I am deprived of access to someone in whom I could reasonably have confidence. Unfortunately, I don't have any reason not to have confidence in our acting conflict-of-interest commissioner. All I know about him is what I read in British Columbia Report, and I know that members on the other side will recognize that that journal provides a very crisp and clear analysis of things. But the reality for those who don't happen to subscribe, I guess, is that they would be at a loss to know the qualifications that are brought.

Interjection.

J. Weisgerber: This is not a funny matter; this is not a matter that I think we should consider lightly. As I said earlier, at some point in time, if we don't get on and appoint a conflict-of-interest commissioner during this sitting of the Legislature and if the government prevails in the Premier's stated intent to continue reappointing an acting commissioner for as long as he feels like it, we may well find ourselves obliged by law to make financial disclosures about relatively sensitive material to someone with whom we have had no interchange, no understanding, no dialogue and no relationship.

I want to look, because there was an interesting quote by Mr. Hughes. . . . Mr. Hughes believed that it was extremely important not only that he contact members but that he start to establish a relationship with them, a comfort level, so that if you have a thorny issue that you have to bring to the conflict-of-interest commissioner, there is a level of confidence in doing so.

I'm not particularly interested in who's to blame, who's at fault. But I genuinely believe that neither can the government go ahead, bull its way forward and say: "Look, we want to appoint a commissioner, and then when we get around to it, we'll look at the legislation." Nor do I think the opposition will be able to succeed in saying: "We want the act reviewed before we would agree to appointing a commissioner." That was the impasse that I tried to address some time ago with a motion in committee, one that unfortunately failed. But I want to try again by way of an amendment to this motion, an amendment that I believe strikes a compromise between the rather polarized positions taken by the two major parties in the House.

So, Mr. Speaker, with your indulgence, I would like to move an amendment to Motion 63. Perhaps I could provide copies of the motion to the Chair and to members of the assembly.

The Speaker: Can I ask the member to hold for just a moment. I have some concern about whether an amendment to this kind of motion is in order, so let me have a quick look at that, if I might, and I will offer comment.

I just want to draw members' attention to standing order 53 and the commentary thereon, effectively suggesting that a motion to refer something to a committee is not normally amendable without notice given to the House. Given the peculiar and particular circumstances of this case, however, it would seem to me that an appropriate practice would be to ask: do we have leave, then, to entertain this amendment? I simply would use that response and ask the question, then: shall leave be granted for this amendment?

Interjections.

The Speaker: I believe I heard a nay. In that case, I guess I can't accept the amendment. I'm sorry, member. As I said, pursuant to standing orders. . . .

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, please, members.

J. Weisgerber: I appreciate your indulgence, Mr. Speaker. I'm disappointed, as I continue to be disappointed by the government's response to any attempt to find some middle ground. I find myself left with the clear feeling that the government neither wants to find a resolution to this issue that it's faced with nor wants to be forced to examine the conflict-of-interest legislation as it was first developed, or as the mandate was first created by the Premier in his reference to the House. It's a reflection of what's gone on in the committee over the past year. I'm quite honestly surprised that the nay would come from the government side. I'm disappointed that the nay came from the cabinet benches. So I can only assume that it is a decision of the executive council to try and bull ahead with this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, for the record, so that British Columbians who want to look at the government's sorry record on this issue. . . . When they look at Hansard and want to determine what kinds of initiatives were taken and what kinds of advances were made in order to find a resolution, I think it's important to read into the record the motion that I would have moved had the executive council not withheld consent. I would have changed the first paragraph of the motion to read as follows: That the committee unanimously recommend the appointment of a commissioner, conflict-of-interest, and the commissioner, conflict-of-interest, be appointed by the 

[ Page 4748 ]

Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council pursuant to the Members' Conflict of Interest Act -- etc., section 14(2) -- and that simultaneously the committee examine, inquire into and make recommendations on the matter of the Members' Conflict of Interest Act. That certainly seems rather innocuous. It seems to me to be a sensible kind of compromise. It is very much like the motion that I put forward in the committee some six months ago.

In closing, I can only summarize that this is not at all an accident in either case but a clear strategy that has been embarked upon by the government. While I came to this debate as equally prepared to criticize the members of the opposition as I was the government, I find my position changing as I stand here. Quite candidly, I am outraged that the government would not even hear a motion to amend before denying the ability for that to go forward.

I would suggest that as a matter of courtesy and cooperation, the motion should have been put to members of this assembly. If they disagree, they have the majority to vote it down. But it is particularly troublesome to me that the government won't even hear a motion to amend an issue that has been deadlocked in committee for almost a year and a half now.

[4:00]

So with that, Mr. Speaker, I take my place. I am expressing again my great disappointment in the way this entire matter has unfolded. I think it's one of the examples of how the Legislature can fail to operate and how the goodwill of members sometimes is missing.

G. Bowbrick: I think it's important that we direct our minds very specifically to what the motion before us says and what it's about, because the overarching concern for British Columbians is to ensure that we have a permanent conflict-of-interest commissioner in place, who has been confirmed with the consent of at least two-thirds of the members of this House. That's what this motion is intended to accomplish. It is also intended to ensure that a review of the act will take place.

[G. Brewin in the chair.]

I should say from the outset -- because I've sat and listened carefully, attentively and politely to the comments of opposition members, in particular the member for Vancouver-Little Mountain -- that I am a little bit concerned about the tone of the member for Vancouver-Little Mountain. He seems to suggest. . . . He doesn't seem to suggest, he outright says that this government has no interest in reviewing the act. I believe that to a considerable extent, he pins that on me as a member of this House and as Chair of the committee that was charged with this matter. I want to say that I find that offensive. My commitment -- and I'm willing to stand up in this House and make this commitment -- is that I am as committed as possible to making sure that we do review the act.

The entire dispute, and I think it's a shame. . . . This is my first experience with a committee. I was elected only a year ago, but there has been a dispute, and this committee has become bogged down in a disagreement between the government members and the official opposition members, which really boils down to timing. It's not a question of whether the Conflict of Interest Act should be reviewed. That's something which government members have been open to and which I have been very open to all along. Mr. Hughes, the former conflict commissioner, graciously stayed on as acting commissioner. He had been on for some time. The issue was: how soon can we find a commissioner to take his place on a permanent basis?

I also want to direct a couple more comments off the top to the member for Vancouver-Little Mountain. He made a great deal of reference to my relative inexperience in the House: new member coming here as an idealist, what it must be like for me to have to deal with this big, bad government. Well, I certainly did learn something very early upon taking the position as Chair of this committee. I learned very early about very cynical hardball politics, and that's exactly what's been going on in this committee. I don't intend to rehash, blow by blow, what went on in this committee. I think that to a great degree that's beneath us as members of this House, because I don't think the public in British Columbia is interested in hearing a rehash of what was in many respects petty bickering that went on in this committee. As I said before, I think the people of British Columbia are interested in having a permanent commissioner in place.

As I say, I certainly did learn something early, and I learned it often. I'm not surprised to find hardball politics at the provincial level in British Columbia. I guess I just didn't expect to be faced with it so soon. When all of the sanctimonious words that we've heard from official opposition members of the committee -- this afternoon and previously -- are stripped away, what it comes down to is that the official opposition wants amendments to the Conflict of Interest Act. They want their amendments. I think that the member for Okanagan-Penticton picked three from Mr. Hughes's recommendations in his most recent annual report. I think that these are things our committee should be looking at, but unfortunately, the position of the official opposition in all of this has been a very simple one, and that is. . . .

I think it's important that we spell this out for the hardball politics that it is. In order to have a new conflict-of-interest commissioner permanently in place in British Columbia, this House requires two-thirds of the members to confirm a name put forward by the Premier. The Premier felt it was important that this matter be referred to an all-party committee so that an all-party committee could review a number of applications, interview candidates and agree upon a name in committee that could then be presented to the House through the Premier. The House would have the opportunity to confirm that person or to deny their appointment.

Now, of course, the mathematics of this situation are very simple. The government doesn't have two-thirds of the members of this House, and I think the legislation was specifically designed with that in mind. It was specifically designed with those numbers in mind to ensure that we would at least have representation or support from several of the parties in this House, including the government.

[ Page 4749 ]

It's also true that this act only requires a simple majority in order to be amended. I think that if at the time the act was originally envisaged, debated and passed, this House had contemplated that this act should have a super-majority requirement for amendment of the act, then this Legislature would have included that provision in the act.

What is happening here, hon. Speaker, is very simple. I want to thank the member for Richmond Centre because he stated it as plainly as it can be stated. That member stated this afternoon, in this debate, that this is all about leverage. So strip away all the sanctimonious words that we hear coming from the opposition side; this is about leverage. It is about one party wanting to get amendments when they want them, and they are prepared to hold up the appointment of a conflict commissioner in order to do that.

Now, there is common ground here. All the way through, it's been my position as Chair of the committee, it's been the position of government members on that committee and indeed -- I think it's fair to say -- of government members generally that we've had the act in place for a number of years now, and it's entirely appropriate to have a review of the act. But we're now in a situation where we have got. . . . I don't know how long this session will go on, but assuming it goes on for another month or month and a half, ideally what we'd like. . . . The reason we need this motion today is because the committee cannot make any decisions without the authority of this motion, without these terms of reference. The committee needs the authority to be able to go away and continue its work in selecting a new commissioner or selecting a candidate to put before the House for confirmation.

I think it's important that we give credit where credit is due. This hasn't been an entirely acrimonious process. In fact, all members of the committee worked well together in going through over 200 applications. As the hon. member for Peace River South has indicated, many very highly qualified people applied for this position. In fact, we're now in a situation where there is a shortlist of 11 candidates -- 11 candidates who really should be interviewed by the committee, and then a name should be put forth to this House.

Then opposition members -- the official opposition in particular -- will be faced with a very clear choice. They can accept my good faith and the good faith of other government members who say: "Yes, let's review the act; it's there in black and white; it's in the motion that we're debating today." They will accept that, and they will confirm that person who will be recommended by the committee. Or they can reject that person. If they reject that person the position we'll be in once again is that British Columbia will continue not to have a permanent conflict commissioner in place. So it's a very simple decision for all members of this House to make, and in particular the official opposition.

I think it's also important to note that the whole debate here, in the committee and now in this House, revolves around timing. The member for Richmond Centre indicated earlier that the reason the official opposition is taking the position that there must be a full review of the act with amendments in place before a commissioner can be confirmed by this House is because it's necessary for the commissioner -- when the commissioner is confirmed by the House -- to know exactly what they're dealing with in terms of the Conflict of Interest Act.

With all due respect to that member, I understand the argument and I've heard the argument, but it is, in my view, an argument that has to be rejected -- first of all, because of the urgency of making sure we get a permanent commissioner in place; and secondly, because it's something that's faced by other high-level decision-makers in our system of government every day. When Supreme Court justices and Provincial Court judges are appointed, they do not know in advance exactly what the laws of this province and this country will be for however many years they sit on the bench.

Decision-makers of that calibre know that they're probably going to be dealing with -- certainly in the case of judges -- amended legislation throughout the term of their time on the bench. Surely it's incumbent upon the committee to make it clear to any candidate that any person taking the conflict-of-interest-commissioner position is likely to see some amendments made to the act as a result of the review which will be undertaken by the committee as per the motion that is before this House today. They'll have to adjust to those, but we'll have faith in those people, because quite frankly -- without referring to individuals, of course -- we have very high-quality candidates who have applied and who are on the shortlist. I have full confidence in their ability to deal with one piece of legislation -- that's all they have to deal with -- and any amendments that might be made to that legislation in the future.

Once again, as I say, this is very much about timing. One of the things that concerns me and other government members is the position the official opposition took that there were three simple amendments to be made. I think they referred to recommendations 1, 3 and 6 of Mr. Hughes in his most recent annual report -- that those were sufficient. Make those amendments and they would be happy; we could move on and have the permanent commissioner in place. They would be quite happy not to use the appointment of the commissioner as leverage, because they would have what they wanted.

It's my view that any review of the act has to be far broader than that. Mr. Hughes, of course, deserves enormous respect for the work that he's done in this province -- for the views that he holds on the Conflict of Interest Act. But the fact remains that we need to have a broad review that will seek input from people other than just the former conflict commissioner. What do the people of British Columbia have to say about their Conflict of Interest Act? It is, after all, their act. It's integral to our democracy and the confidence they have in our democracy in British Columbia.

I should also add that one of the things that concerns me a great deal -- and I note that all of the opposition members who have spoken today have omitted to refer to this -- is that we did do some review. In fact, we looked at all other conflict-of-interest legislation across the country, and I was quite surprised, actually, that in one of our meetings, two of those members who are on our committee actually started promoting the idea of introducing blind trusts into this legislation.

[4:15]

I said I would touch on the substance. A blind trust essentially allows -- and some other provinces have this -- a member to take their personal property and their financial 

[ Page 4750 ]

interests and stick them into a trust which they say is blind and then not declare those as part of their disclosure under our Conflict of Interest Act. Well, the difficulty with that is that we would have a situation where you could never determine whether a member would be in conflict of interest, because you could never determine what their interest is. So I had concerns about that.

I had concerns about the suggestion that we just proceed with a few amendments. "They would be easy," opposition members said. We could just put them on the agenda for this legislative session and pass them, and then they would be happy. Well, I'm committed, and I'm happy to say in supporting this motion that government members are committed to doing a thorough review of the act and not a haphazard review of the act.

An Hon. Member: No blind trusts.

G. Bowbrick: No blind trusts, as the hon. member says.

I won't speak as long as the member for Vancouver-Little Mountain. I think it's fair to say that it's important that we all have self-esteem, but it gets a little much when members love themselves as much as the member for Vancouver-Little Mountain does.

K. Krueger: Settle down.

G. Bowbrick: The member for Kamloops-North Thompson says, "Settle down," and it's advice he would do well to take for himself from time to time.

In summary, it's important that all members of this House remember what this is all about. What is this motion about? It is about the importance of the office of the conflict commissioner to the citizens of British Columbia and to the maintenance of public faith in the integrity of the institution which we have the privilege of serving. That is what this is about. It is not something which is to be trivialized by political posturing by opposition members who want to gain leverage, who want to score some political points. That is not what it's about. The conflict commissioner position should not be used as a pawn in a dispute between government and opposition when it comes to amendments to the act and the timing of amendments or a review of the act. That is not how that position should be used. It debases the position, and it's absolutely unacceptable to me.

So I suggest that in the interest of respect for what I would suggest is the most important independent office of this Legislature, all members of this House get on with confirming a new conflict commissioner. After this motion has been passed, allow the committee to interview the 11 well-qualified candidates on the shortlist. The shortlist has already been developed.

It's important to get a permanent commissioner in place in order to make sure that we maintain and increase public confidence in our institution. As one of the members opposite said earlier today, this is about the duty that we have to our constituents. I'm mindful of the duty that I have to my constituents; I would like to believe that all of us are mindful of that duty. It's for that reason that I say we all have to support this motion to allow the committee to get on with its work and make sure that during this session of this Legislature, we are able to confirm a new conflict commissioner on a permanent basis in British Columbia.

G. Wilson: In listening to the member for New Westminster, I can understand why there's a certain level of sensitivity, because as the Chair of the committee that's supposed to have this issue resolved, clearly the Chair has failed.

This committee is charged with doing its work outside of this chamber, so that those of us in this chamber can be debating issues of substance and importance to the people of British Columbia in the form of legislation. Currently we have 31 pieces of legislation pending debate -- 31 bills on the roster -- and we're standing in this institution right now, in this chamber, debating a motion that should be properly done in committee. The reason we are is because that committee has failed in its ability to bring before this House a commitment to amend a piece of legislation and to bring a name forward for recommendation as the conflict-of-interest commissioner. That's why we're here.

I have to tell you, hon. Speaker, that when I first got word that this motion was coming forward -- it was when I was sitting in my chair right after question period, because I had not been given advance notice of this motion -- my first frustration was with both sides in the major parties, frankly, because it seemed to me that this was a matter that really shouldn't be taking up House time. I debated whether or not I'd even speak to it, because I thought: "Well, if we can get this issue through and dealt with, then that's fine." The member for Peace River South said: "Look, I'm on the committee, and I can tell you, Gordon, that this is the history of what's been going on. Here is an amendment which I think will meet the middle ground and the test that both sides can agree to, so that we can concurrently look at amending the legislation while we move forward with the appointment of a new conflict-of-interest commissioner." It was a perfectly sensible, proper amendment and one that in my judgment would have brought the two sides together, so that the committee could go back and get on with its work, and we could get on with the business of the people in this chamber and debate some of those 31 bills.

But when that was introduced in the House, it was the member for Cariboo South who said no. I read in today's San Francisco Chronicle that this member says that the government doesn't have to worry about the likes of public opinion, because they are "on the side of the angels." That kind of an attitude is a problem for many people in British Columbia because it suggests that we can be completely contemptuous of this parliament and of the process and procedures of this parliament and that somehow we can continue to just go full steam ahead and do what we want, when we want and how we want. It's a damn-the-torpedoes attitude that says: "We're going to simply go ahead with our own policy agenda, and this assembly can take second place."

The conflict-of-interest commissioner is not a creature of the government, and neither is the conflict-of-interest commissioner or the act that regulates conflict of interest, the Members' Conflict of Interest Act -- and I refer to it as the Members' Conflict of Interest Act. That is not a creature of the government, either. It is an act that is set out for each and every individual member in this chamber, not by party affiliation. It's got nothing to do with party affiliations; it has to do with individual members.

We are supposed to have a committee structure that deals with these issues. Because there is a dispute between the two major parties as to how that should proceed, here we are in this chamber debating this matter to try and seek some resolution. Well, you only have to look at the act to realize that it isn't going to work that way, because notwithstanding what we 

[ Page 4751 ]

may do on this motion, the appointment of the conflict-of-interest commissioner will still require a two-thirds majority. So notwithstanding whether we vote yes or no for this motion, or whether the simple majority of the members opposite can get their way today, they're not going to get their way in the long term, because they will not get the two-thirds majority.

So what is all this debate about if it isn't about political posturing and trying to determine who's in charge and who's going to have the upper hand -- you know, sort of the ultimate test of machismo? This is ridiculous; that's what it is. It's an abuse of this parliament. When the member for Peace River South brought forward a sensible amendment to meet the middle ground, to find the compromise necessary and to suggest that we could actually get on with the business and deal with the issues of the day, a member of the executive council -- the Minister of Forests, the member for Cariboo South -- said "no way," because that side is on the side of the angels.

I don't intend to carry this discussion any further than I have, except to say that I firmly believe that the leaders of the two major parties need to get together and decide who sits on that committee. If it means we have to change the Chair and the members of that committee to get this thing to work, then that's what you need to do, because this is a committee decision. This should not be in front of the members of this chamber, taking up valuable time that should be spent debating on bills, 31 of which sit before us today. If that committee can't work, it's a failure of that committee. It is incumbent upon the leaders in this chamber -- the leaders of the official opposition and the government -- to get together and structure a committee that will make it work. Surely to goodness we are mature enough, as elected members, to be able to deal with this matter and deal with it expeditiously so that we can have a conflict-of-interest commissioner established to protect the public interest -- which I believe all of us are committed to.

I hope that this debate can be curtailed, shortened, that the committee can get down to the job it is needed to do and bring forward a name that each of us can agree to, and also bring forward amendments as are timely and necessary to the act that all of us are going to be both protected by and may have use of in order to protect the integrity of our elected office. With that, I'll take my chair and hope the members will be guided at least in part by what I've said.

T. Nebbeling: I keep hearing the words "public confidence" and "public expectations," so I would like to speak on this matter and on this motion from that perspective.

I only arrived in this House a year and two months ago, so many of the conflicts that we have seen happen in the past that indeed required the opinion of the conflict-of-interest commissioner happened for me by viewing TV. That really was the way I could acquaint myself with issues like the Nanaimo Commonwealth Holding Society, issues such as the shotgun divorce -- not a shotgun wedding, but a shotgun divorce -- that was being imposed upon the commissioner by the Premier at one point. I will talk a little bit more about that.

These are the issues and the actions that the public out there and here in the gallery see happening and hear about. These are the types of issues that create an image of what is happening here in the House and what is happening with the ethics standards which are not necessarily as bad as they seem to be but certainly in the mind of the public at large are not at all the standard that they would expect from their elected officials.

I could almost say I'm very offended that now that I'm in the House, we still have a debate on how we can and how we will change the perception the public has about our behaviour in the House and outside the House. It just doesn't make any sense to me, like the previous speaker, that this committee has not been able to come to a conclusive recommendation to the House to go in a direction that will start creating, once again, that level of confidence and that level of ethical appreciation that the public expects from us.

[4:30]

I have experienced that as a member of the Forests, Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources Committee. We have had so many debates where we were not talking about principles of the forest industry or about principles of managing our mining or our natural resources; but we were talking about principles that we were asked to deal with by the public at large. There were letters to the committee, saying: "You are discussing issues that are really of importance to our community, and we want you to come to our community." Cynically enough -- and some of these letters came from communities that had the representation of some of the members on the standing committee on forest issues -- every time these issues came forward when the government side had to vote, they always voted against the motion -- all six, all as a bloc, including the members whose communities had asked for some public representation in their community. I think that is what you see happening time after time in the committees. Nobody on the side of the government is allowed in committee to have an opinion and express that opinion through a vote that would move issues forward.

That is why when I hear the Chairman say that we as a committee should have been able to come to a conclusion, but the other parties cannot come together. . . . Well, there are two parties there against a bloc of six, so obviously in the argument of the other parties there were some elements that should have at least touched the members opposite. They didn't do that, and as a consequence today, 14 months after I came to this Legislature, 16 months after the debacle of the Premier's attempt to replace the sitting conflict-of-interest commissioner with David Mitchell -- the member in the House whom I replaced eventually, and rightfully so. . . . Mr. Chairman, I am truly appalled that the public out there is still having a certain perception about this House, of which I'm a part, which certainly does not reflect my personal ethical standards. It goes on and on.

The previous speakers have spoken on the matter of the member whose riding office was made available to a federal candidate. The commissioner's position was used as justification for that action. We went through that nine-day episode, and ultimately the member had to apologize, because she knew that she didn't have the support of the past commissioner. She knew that she made it up in order to justify her direction, and ultimately we did receive an apology from the member, although it was a thinly veiled apology.

[ Page 4752 ]

Through my experience as the mayor of Whistler and as a councillor of Whistler, I know how important it is that there are clear rules on conflicts of interest for any elected person. On a municipal level it happens all the time. It's almost on a monthly basis that lawyers have to be brought in to show if indeed there is a conflict, if there is a bias.

[The Speaker in the chair.]

One of the recommendations that the previous commissioner made, which I thought was a big step forward, was to also bring some line. . .an understanding of how, indeed, on a municipal level certain guidelines are set that will dictate when a councillor or a mayor could be in conflict or not. That is one of the recommendations that was made by Mr. Hughes. The fourth recommendation, extending some form of conflict-of-interest and ethical-conduct legislation to municipal government, is something that municipal governments truly welcome. Again, because of the action of the government and its unwillingness to accept common sense in dealing with these issues -- a high-ethical-standard-type of guidance -- that denial by the government has meant that municipalities are still struggling with that issue, as well. When the committee looks at it, I wish they could look beyond their own interests alone, as seems to be the case. I cannot urge the committee members more strongly than I do here at this stage to consider that other parties are also looking for a solution to this whole problem. Mr. Hughes, at the time he put his recommendations together, clearly started to incorporate that concern.

For that reason, I would suggest that the committee has to come forward in an expedient manner and bring back these recommendations, so that we in the House can deal with them and get some guidelines on conflict-of-interest issues that make sense, that are workable and that are not driven by ideology.

I'm saying this because I was really concerned when the Chair of the committee, the member for New Westminster, started to talk about what he would like to deal with in the public arena: the issue of blind trust. I know that the member is a young person and most probably hasn't worked for many years in the private sector and hasn't built up either collateral or his own business. But I know that on the side of the government and on the side of the opposition, there are members who have their own businesses, often small businesses -- mom-and-pop-type stores with maybe two or three employees. Many of these members, although busy pursuing a career in the private sector, were often also involved with community activities. And these are, as we all know, often the people that eventually get targeted to go into politics -- often first in municipal politics, and then sometimes they go into the provincial arena.

In municipal politics it is quite okay to have your own small-business work during the day, do some evening meetings and get together in council every Monday afternoon. That's the contribution that business people or people in general like to give to the communities where they make a living, where they make a future for themselves and for their family.

So on the municipal level there's no problem. Everybody knows what you do, although there are guidelines, obviously, as to how you have business with. . . . Well, you don't have business with the municipal infrastructure if you are on a council. But nevertheless, there are ways to stay involved in business without getting caught -- and by getting caught, I mean losing an income. That is the income that entitles you, of course, to give some of your time back to the community and its well-being.

So one of the ways is the blind trust. What you do is hand over your authorities and shares in the company to a person who will be responsible for running that business during the period that you represent the community in an arena such as the Legislature. I myself had to do that, for example, and I know that some other members had to do that. I know there are members opposite who had to do that. The member for Cariboo South constantly gets harassed by certain groups for having a business that his family is running, although he is part owner. Having spoken to that member, I know that he has put his portion of the business in a blind trust. Unless he was very wealthy, that member would not be able to be here today trying to make his contribution to the well-being of this province.

So for the member for New Westminster to talk about that particular issue as almost: "It's criminal that you're allowed to have property in a blind trust. What will happen with that business? Is it doing business with government through other sources. . . ?" I mean, it is totally driven by suspicion, and it is the suspicion of the ideology of socialism in the sixties. I find it very scary to see a member with that kind of attitude towards how we deal with ethical standards in the House being driven by that kind of motivation. So I am now concerned about the chairperson, Mr. Speaker.

If I look at some of the other elements that the conflict-of-interest commissioner, at the time that he was actually in the position, recommended. . . . His very first objective is so simple, and I cannot understand why the government has trouble adopting this: broaden the scope of the act to cover ethical conduct that would require members to act with honesty and uphold the highest ethical standards, so that public confidence and trust in the integrity, objectivity and impartiality of government are conserved and enhanced. What the hell is wrong with that? How can people on that side even have a problem with adopting a rule like that? It says it all.

It is the denial of a statement like that which causes me to believe that there are other reasons for trying to hide what this amendment, these new added rules, to the conflict-of-interest commissioner's rules and guidelines. . . . It is this kind of denial of a simple but honourable thing like this recommendation that tells me there's another agenda. That's why I believe that this government is not willing to consider these changes in the rules -- the amendments -- parallel with the appointment of the new commissioner.

As long as we cannot have the government side accept the fact that the main objective has to be that the public out there is once again going to believe that the people working here are working with integrity, are working for the community as a whole -- as long as that is not enshrined in the rules and regulations -- I believe that skepticism will continue in the minds of the public. I personally feel offended that I have to work under these kind of conditions.

So our request on this side is: indeed, let's look at who would make the best commissioner dealing with conflict-of-interest issues and, at the same time and parallel to that, prepare the amendments, so we can bring it as a package to the House. If we do that, then we will succeed in creating the foundation of an image of this House that is based on ethical conduct and honesty and high ethical standards.

Mr. Speaker, I obviously will not support Motion 63. I would have hoped we could have dealt with the issue through the amendment by the member for Peace River South. Again, the meeker majority of members opposite is going to deny that motion getting consideration, as well. I just mention that because the bloc that will vote, called the govern-

[ Page 4753 ]

ment, has the same mentality as the bloc working in committee you get your marching orders; you follow this way. It doesn't matter if it makes sense; it doesn't matter if we can move forward by taking a little bit of a different direction. These are the marching orders the members opposite get; these are the marching orders the members opposite live by and work by. And these are the measures for members opposite that will continue to erode what I believe needs immediate healing -- that is, the authority and the ethics and the standards of this House when it comes to conflict of interest.

[4:45]

I can certainly speak for myself, and I'm certain that my sentiment is probably shared by other members of the same committee. As I joined the committee -- I think there are six government members and five opposition members -- there was no particular sense of animosity or no particular sense of partisanship. It was simply a matter -- from my point of view and, I'm sure, as I say, from the point of view of most members on the committee -- of let's get the job done.

I looked forward to and enjoyed, as well, the opportunity to meet some of the members of that committee from the opposite side and get to know them better. We aren't always afforded that kind of opportunity, particularly here in the House where it's more suited to a rather adversarial setting, in which business is conducted in very much an adversarial manner. But I saw the committee as an opportunity to build bridges, not just because relationships are important, as I believe they are, but because we build bridges and build relationships with the view to conducting the business that people have elected us to conduct.

In my case, I come from Fort St. James, which is a considerable distance from Victoria. I had certainly been raised on Vancouver Island for a number of years and enjoyed living here. But more recently, of course, I've lived in the north and enjoyed living in the north and becoming somewhat familiar with the concerns of northern British Columbians. I felt privileged to have the confidence of the constituents in Prince George-Omineca when they provided me with the opportunity to represent them and their interests and their views. Again, when I came to this committee, I came very much aware of the privilege that had been afforded me by my constituents, in terms of representing their interests in reviewing the appointment of a conflict-of-interest commissioner and reviewing the act.

There are costs associated with being on such a committee. There are costs certainly to my constituents and to the taxpayers generally throughout this province. There are, I believe, in total 11 members on that committee travelling from throughout the province, many of us having to travel by air, in some cases two or three flights. There's accommodation; there are costs associated with accommodation. There are costs associated with meals and taxis and what have you. So there are tremendous costs -- monetary costs -- borne by the taxpayers in order for those of us who are on the committee to conduct our business.

There are other costs. There are costs that are borne by members of the committee in terms of our unavailability to constituents who have needs, who have concerns and who want to have our ear in terms of addressing those needs and concerns. We're unavailable for the time that we're on the committee here in Victoria, conducting committee business in Victoria, to meet personally with our constituents and assist them in resolving their difficulties and problems. I believe that we have a duty and an obligation to our constituents to make good use of our time and our energies. So there are not only monetary costs but there are other costs borne by our constituents, for all members on both sides of this House that are on the committee.

Another cost that I know is borne by myself personally as a member is opportunity cost, in terms of time that I cannot spend with my family, my children, doing things that are important to them, with them and for them. I know that there are members on the opposite side of this House as well who bear those same costs. I've discussed this with them in some detail. So these are the concerns that I have, and I know these are the concerns that many of my constituents have when they scrutinize the work that we've done, or at least the work that we set out to do, in terms of committee business.

One would have thought -- I know I certainly did, as I said earlier, when I took on the job of being a member of this committee -- that it would be a reasonably straightforward task -- that is, the task of dealing with the appointment of a commissioner and a review of the act. I know that it was with some hope, some sense of optimism, that I was on the committee when the motion was introduced by the member for Peace River South in an attempt to find a compromise -- a vehicle, if you will -- to allow both sides of that committee, representing the government and those of us in opposition, to have what we felt was necessary, and to do it in such a manner that there would be as little blind trust required as would be necessary. The same hon. member for Peace River South introduced a very similar motion today in attempting to find a compromise to avoid the tedious debate that we've found ourselves involved in with the. . . . Again, I would point to the costs associated with a debate of this nature, in terms of tying up the House -- unnecessarily, I would argue -- so that we can work our way towards a resolution of this problem.

So in that sense I find myself as part of a process that has failed. I certainly take no pride in being part of the committee, in the sense that we have failed in terms of achieving what we had set out to achieve: the appointment of a commissioner and a review of the act. It is indeed unfortunate that we find ourselves in that position and that I as a member find myself in that position.

When I face my constituents in the coffee shop -- as I will do from time to time on the weekends -- and they ask me what it is that I've done in reference to this committee, I will have to admit, as I do here today, that I have failed to date in making the kind of contribution that is necessary to see us achieve what we set out to achieve. So in that sense, I think we all share the sense of failure. That's why, as I say, I was very hopeful that the compromise that had been proposed by the member for Peace River South would be embraced by both sides in an effort to reach an end of the mandate of the committee, which was to find an appropriate commissioner and to review the act. I believe that that compromise did just that.

I guess one has to ask oneself: why is it that we need a conflict-of-interest commissioner? I don't think I will go into the litany of the sins of the past in terms of members who have 

[ Page 4754 ]

erred; rather, I would just say that I think it's evident to all of us here on both sides of this House that we do need a point of reference in terms of how members should conduct themselves. I believe the public demands that we have a point of reference. They have a right, and we have a duty and an obligation, to review the act in a timely manner. I would suggest that that time is now.

I know that the Chair of this committee has made much of the timing of the review of the act -- as proposed not only by those of us in opposition but by the hon. member for Peace River South -- and has suggested that it is not appropriate to embark on a review of that act prior to the appointment of a commissioner. I don't see the logic in that. I don't see why we cannot embark on a parallel process of appointing the commissioner while at the same time reviewing the act. The Chair indicated that the act is something which is evolving over time, and I would agree that it is evolving over time -- all the more reason, I would argue, to commence immediately, in a timely manner, dealing with the review of the act.

It's not enough to say that those of us on this side of the House are unreasonable in terms of our demands in reference to a review of the act -- that we want certain amendments made that are perhaps inappropriate. I don't think it's enough to take that position. But rather, we should together embark on a review of the act, and we can then discuss what is and what is not appropriate in terms of amendments to the act. As has been pointed out, I think it's important for all of us who have had any contact with the previous conflict-of-interest commissioner, Mr. Hughes, who I would say is respected, or has been respected, by all members of this House -- and by the public, as well.

We recognize that we need someone of his calibre, be it a man or be it a woman, to assist us in terms of conducting ourselves in a manner that is appropriate. We need someone of his calibre to whom we can refer matters in which we feel members have not conducted themselves appropriately. I think it's a need that we all see; it's a need that we all recognize. It's a need, as well, I believe, that the public sees and recognizes. It's a matter that the public expects us to address in a timely manner. Again, my challenge to the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway and to the hon. members from the committee -- comprised, as I say, of opposition members as well as members representing the government side -- would be that we should be moving, putting aside partisanship, putting aside our own egos and putting aside things that get in the way.

I know that the hon. Chair made some reference to pettiness, and I think that sometimes pettiness can get in the way of doing the business at hand. It's something that we're all susceptible to, I believe. And when I say all, I include myself; we're all susceptible at times to being petty and to falling short. I think it's incumbent upon us to begin the first step: that is, I would argue, to move forward, to embrace the recommendations of the hon. member for Peace River South by way of a compromise in terms of achieving our objectives as a committee.

I've reviewed the amendment to the motion from the member for Peace River South -- that is, Mr. Weisgerber. Again, I would just urge the members, particularly the members on the opposite side of the House, to review that amendment. For those of you that haven't read the amendment, review the amendment, read the amendment and rethink your position in terms of reaching a compromise and resolving the matters that are here before us this evening. Thank you for this opportunity to address this matter. Hopefully, we can resolve it sometime soon.

R. Coleman: I'm pleased to enter into this discussion this afternoon, because I think the needed changes to the act are very important to provide for a higher degree of professionalism and ethics within this House. In reviewing the conflict-of-interest guidelines, in reviewing the act, and being one that has had to deal with the act on one occasion and who knows some of the weaknesses within the legislation, I find it somewhat impractical that the committee cannot deal with the fact that some of the guidelines need to be changed at the same time as we go along a parallel course to select a new commissioner.

[5:00]

Considering the current widespread negativism about the performance of elected representatives, he was pleased that that highlight was a significant achievement. He also believed that the legislation was working positively, giving members a yardstick by which to measure their conduct concerning conflict of interest. The overwhelming majority were hon. members who would never knowingly conduct themselves in a manner that breached the act. He recommended that the federal code principle be placed in the British Columbia statute by way of an amendment and that violation of its provision be subject to sanction and enforcement in the same way as other provisions currently in the Members' Conflict of Interest Act. The principle reads:

"Public office holders shall act with honesty and uphold the highest ethical standards so that public confidence and trust in the integrity, objectivity and impartiality of government are conserved and enhanced."

This particular government has a Premier who, last year on August 13, 1996, made the following statement with regard to the committee of this Legislature. He said:

"With respect to the Legislature itself, we have made some modest progress. I've indicated, as the Leader of the Opposition knows, that I anticipate three committees meeting off-session, which will certainly be a record in British Columbia. One is the Aboriginal Affairs Committee, which is, I think, significant work -- I hope that it is significant work. The second is the committee not just to appoint a new conflict-of-interest commissioner but to review the legislation surrounding that and ways which we can move -- and I think that is important work."

The other thing is that the Premier made an interesting comment at the same time. He said that this was an interim step, that in future he might see a lot more committees working. Here we are debating something that's been in a committee for 11 months, with the inability of the committee to come to any progress whatsoever, in a House where, if we had more standing committees of the House meeting, we wouldn't even 

[ Page 4755 ]

be taking as much time in estimates as we do. We'd be doing the business of this House on a year-round basis instead of wasting the time of the members of the Legislature.

When I started to deal with looking at the conflict-of-interest issues, I thought I'd go back and look at the debates on the Members' Conflict of Interest Act of 1990, which I found to be rather interesting. The member for Esquimalt-Metchosin, for instance, got into a number of principles with regard to conflict of interest in his discussions in the Legislature. He said:

"I want to go to the first principle. The public ought to be able, in an open and free society and the kind of democracy that we cherish as Canadians, to take action if a minister is engaged in a conflict of interest."

"Surely, if someone enters into a contract with government and then realizes that a cabinet minister is benefiting as a consequence of that contract, the public ought to be able to complain."

Further on in the debate, the same member said:

"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 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."

In addition to that, the same member said:

"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."

I would like to also go to some quotes from the now Minister of Small Business and Tourism. I want to deal with this from the same discussion with regard to the same legislation. The member said:

"I too rise in opposition to this bill. As other members have said, the government has had four years to introduce conflict-of-interest legislation."

"It has promised legislation in this House and to the people of British Columbia, and here we are on this very last day of the session, and we have this bill dropped unannounced into our laps."

It's interesting that this government has refused to even accept what it has done, to apologize or especially to bring in legislation with this kind of thing. They're just guidelines, guidelines that have been broken, and they have no teeth. Yet that comment comes from a minister of this government, and this legislation still hasn't been changed since the time those comments were made. Moreover -- and more importantly, from the same member -- the bill doesn't provide in any way for a process that ensures that members are informed about what conflict of interest means or what their ethical and statutory obligations are.

Further on in the legislation. . . . I wonder if the Chairman of this committee, on behalf of the government, ever received a copy of Bill M223. Bill M223 was presented by this government when they were in opposition, and it was called the Conflict of Interest Act. If you go back into some of that, you'll have to wonder why the inability exists for them to come forward and discuss this legislation and improve it with us, when we've offered to do on a number of occasions exactly what they proposed to do when they were in our position. The interesting thing about this is that these members now will sit there self-righteously and vote not to have this information come forward.

So I want to make sure that the people of British Columbia know what it is we're talking about today. It's a summary of recommendations, a broadening of the act. Basically, what we want to do is broaden the scope of the act to do a number of things. One is to broaden it to cover ethical conduct that would require members to "act with honesty and uphold the highest ethical standards, so that public confidence and trust in the integrity, objectivity and impartiality of government are conserved and enhanced." That's not a bad tenet. It's not a bad tenet, according to the Minister of Small Business and Tourism in her debates in 1990. I agree with her that the ethical standards of this House are important. What I can't understand is why their committee can't bring that forward and sit down with us in a parallel conversation and make that happen as we go through that process and then select the conflict-of-interest commissioner, who can act within the guidelines that we provide, that make sense, before they're hired.

The other interesting thing is that we said we wanted to embrace senior officials within the requirements of the act. Deputy ministers and senior ministers of government have a huge moral and ethical responsibility to the taxpayers that they serve. There's no reason whatsoever why we shouldn't have them included in this act as far as their behaviour and their actions with regards to conflict of interest. . . . That's the reason that we're standing here today.

We also want to extend some of the conflict-in-interest and ethical-conduct legislation to municipal government. This is a discussion that's ongoing. If you watch some of the behaviours and some of the things that come out of some municipal governments, they would, I'm sure, be very happy if we would assist them in setting down some reasonable guidelines for their performance.

We also want to revise some of the other things: the commissioner's term of office and miscellaneous minutes previously identified in the 1993 annual report. That's an interesting thing in itself. In two successive annual reports, in 1994 and 1995 -- and 1996, as a matter of fact -- the conflict-of-interest commissioners made the same recommendations. And we keep ignoring the recommendations of the individual who has the most experience in dealing with conflict of interest in the history of the province by not bringing forward changes to the legislation to meet his criteria.

I would like the Chairman and the committee to recognize this and move ahead. I would like to see this House not go ahead with this particular motion today and get back to the committee, get this act fixed, get it straightened around and fix it in such a way that it meets the tenets and the thoughts and the process that we're identifying to you today. Go back to your own debates, go back to your own acts that you've used in the past, and realize that you're being hypocrites. There's a 

[ Page 4756 ]

lot of hypocrisy in this chamber today with regards to the fact that the government does not want to move forward on ethics with regards to conflict of interest, because they're afraid they're going to get caught in their own bear trap and fall into their own problems.

A. Sanders: I rise to speak concerning Motion 63 and to express concern about the implications of the Select Standing Committee on Parliamentary Reform, Ethical Conduct, Standing Orders and Private Bills.

Specifically, I try to look at this as members of the gallery and members of my constituency might look at it when they listen to the debates and the tirades that come from both sides of the House. And what I wonder is whether they see a slow circling of the moral drain of once promising people, using sappy and desperate beliefs that we're going to sell to the public, and whether we in this group, with this government, have any degree of personal honesty. I'm looking for the open, honest government that was elected in 1991 when I lived in Quesnel. This government is still here, but I see no remnants or vestiges of any such creature. I think this is basically another NDP euphemism, a dream displaced, made up of splinter groups that have hung onto the old ways.

I say shame on the member for New Westminster, who as Chair of this committee will not review the act or with his party accept amendments to the legislation in order to review the position that we have and owe to the public in terms of them being able to critically evaluate us.

There are two key items: one is examining and improving the Conflict of Interest Act, and I think there is no one from either side of the House who does not think that is the right thing to do. The other is the selection of the new conflict-of-interest commissioner. Those two pathways were parallel and given to the committee as a job to do, for a very good reason. The very good reason was so that the act would be changed, and a parallel process would allow the commissioner to come in at the same time that the act itself was tightened in terms of its mandate. Mr. Hughes asked us to tighten this act, and he asked us to do that to protect the taxpayer, and in some ways to protect some of the politicians in this House from themselves.

In conflict of interest, we have what might be a form of equal opportunity armed combat. Usually, the government has all of the weapons and all of the money to hide them. A tight act in terms of conflict of interest at least gives the public its own weapon, so that the playing field is slightly more even. The public, via the act, can participate in the conflict with an appropriate weapon in order to have some skills and ability to fight back on their behalf.

Why do we need to move forward? Why do we need to have the act tightened at the same time that the commissioner is appointed? I think the first and most important reason is because Mr. Hughes, our former conflict-of-interest commissioner, asked us to. I think it's respectful and necessary for someone who filled that role with as much dignity as Mr. Hughes did that we accept that as a given. I think this government needs protection against itself. And I think a tighter Conflict of Interest Act would provide them with the skills and self-control that they themselves do not have. I think the third reason we need a tighter Conflict of Interest Act and to move forward now is because the public wants us to. I truly believe the public wants to have respect for the integrity of the elected individuals they send forward to Victoria -- whether they come from Vernon or from Skeena or from West Vancouver-Capilano. All of us need to be judged by the public equally and strictly, and there is no one who should come out from under that umbrella.

[5:15]

I think it's because they're afraid. Furthermore, when I look at this act and the need to tighten it, along with getting a new commissioner in place, I think about what British Columbians must think of what we do here. One of the things that really concerns me is that it's unconscionable to live in an area where government is continually on the block for criminal activity. I think if we have a tight Conflict of Interest Act, there is the potential for people to be protected from themselves in the role of government on a much more reasonable basis.

I think it's also unconscionable that in my constituency I can't find a single adult who hasn't heard about Bingogate. I can't find a single adult constituent who hasn't heard about Hydrogate. I think it's unconscionable that 75 percent of the people in British Columbia do not believe that our Premier told the truth. We have a 39 percent Premier, and 75 percent of the constituents think that the Premier of this government is not able to put a few words together and come up with a truthful statement. That is disgusting. This government has gutted the credibility of elected office. They've done a slow, steady, continuous drain since 1991. Now this is the culmination, where they will not even tighten up the Conflict of Interest Act in order to try and keep things aboveboard.

Why are they afraid, hon. Speaker? I think it's because they have lots to hide. What criminal investigations, conflicts of interest, etc., are there that we would uncover if the rules were tightened? If you weren't afraid, you'd do the right thing. That's what most people in the communities think.

Interjection.

A. Sanders: The hon. member for Skeena again mentions the member for West Vancouver-Capilano. I'm happy to say to this member, who blusters most of the time on the back bench in infrequent spasms, that I am quite happy to have any member on this side judged in the same way that you would be judged under circumstances. And so be it for all of us that we should offer that to the people who have elected us and put us in this House to do their business.

You know, if you're not guilty, you get a warm feeling when you see a policeman in a car. If you have a trunkful of political skeletons and you're driving around, you don't feel warm and fuzzy when the policemen come to call. What is in the NDP's trunk? What is it that we don't know about in terms of constituency offices, partisan use of offices, patronage, political funds, criminal investigations? What else is there that this government is afraid of, so that they do not want us to bring in a tighter act for a commissioner to use? What are the highest ethical standards, and why is that so scary to this government here?

I look forward to the appointment -- and the expeditious appointment -- of a conflict-of-interest commissioner. I understand why it should be done in parallel, but I think he's going 

[ Page 4757 ]

to have his hands full with this government. I look forward to when that person -- he or she -- is here to do their duty and get busy.

So what is the message the public gets from this debate? I think the message comes back to the same basic distillate -- that we've got a Premier leading this group who's afraid of being aboveboard; that we've got a Premier who cannot be trusted; that we've got a Premier who says one thing and does the other; that we've got a Premier who breaks promises. I know that he's broken a promise, because on Tuesday, August 13, 1996, at 10 a.m. in volume 2, No. 20, of the official transcript of this House, the Premier said:

"The second is the committee not just to appoint a new conflict-of-interest commissioner but to review the legislation surrounding that and ways which we can move -- and I think that's important work. A third, I've suggested to the Leader of the Opposition -- I apologize, because we were having this discussion privately. . . ."

Specifically, this Premier told us one year ago in this House that he would improve and tighten the act under the jurisdiction of the member for New Westminster, who is the Chair of the committee. That Premier has gutted that committee and gutted that Chair. He has not allowed them to do their work and has had them come into this House to do the work that they should have been doing over the past year when they were sitting around doing something.

You know, this government and this Premier continually expand my comprehension of the word "oxymoron." There are so many oxymorons that occur in terms of this government. During this session, one that I have really enjoyed and have seen used over and over again is NDP consultation. They've had consultation in this government with every group, and that truly is an oxymoron in British Columbia. With this particular inability to add to and tighten the act, we now have the oxymoron of NDP ethics. What are the other oxymorons that we would add with respect to this particular motion? I would suggest the following: credible Premier, independent commissioner -- and toothless legislation.

F. Gingell: Hon. Speaker, I thought I would bring a little sense of time to this issue. We've heard a lot of statements made about what was said, when and to whom. I'd like to get on to the record some facts. On October 26, 1995, the then Speaker, Emery Barnes, wrote to all members of the House to advise that the term of conflict-of-interest commissioner Ted Hughes was drawing to a close and that we should prepare ourselves to move forward on that issue. Within 20 days -- the mail is slow, so including postage time -- I wrote a letter to Premier Mike Harcourt, dated November 14, 1995. I'd like to read it into the record:

"Dear Premier:

"Re: Conflict of Interest Commissioner.

"A quick review of the legislation tells me that the appointment to replace retiring conflict-of-interest commissioner Ted Hughes is within the purview of your office. Notwithstanding the legislated procedure, I'm sure both your caucus and mine would agree this is not an appropriate way to determine and appoint a new commissioner. I suggest a members' committee be struck to recommend to you a suitable candidate. I would support a committee that was not dominated by any particular political party -- comprising, perhaps, five members: the Speaker, one NDP, one Liberal, one Reform, and one member to be nominated by the independent members of the Legislature."

"The Leader of the Official Opposition has asked me to speak for our caucus on this issue, and I await your response."

Mr. Hughes was somewhat embarrassed, because he had been contacted by Mr. Harcourt and asked to speak to me on the issue. He wasn't quite sure whether that was an appropriate way to move forward the process that needed to be entered into to find a replacement. In any case, Mr. Hughes came and we had quite a long meeting. I used it as an opportunity to explore all kinds of issues related to the way in which the provincial legislation and the Members' Conflict of Interest Act works.

I had for some time, in my own mind, questioned the way that the process and procedures are set up by this act. It seemed to me -- and I had the opportunity to talk to Mr. Hughes -- that before a new conflict-of-interest commissioner was appointed, it was appropriate to have a look at the act -- the act was more than five years old -- and to consider whether any changes were appropriate.

As a result of my discussion with Mr. Hughes, I subsequently received a telephone call from Mr. Doug McArthur, deputy minister to the Premier. Mr. McArthur invited me to Victoria to have lunch, at government expense, to have a discussion about all the issues surrounding the Members' Conflict of Interest Act. That gave us an opportunity to talk about different types of quasi-judicial, administrative-type tribunals that could be set up. I was able to discuss the conflicts that I see of members going to the conflict-of-interest commissioner for advice on personal financial matters and then having the conflict-of-interest commissioner be judge and jury in dealing with the issues.

I received what I can only describe as a warm and supportive response from Mr. McArthur and was hopeful that the government would have a thorough review of the act prior to the appointment of a new commissioner. I don't keep a diary, but my recollection is that that was in January. It was certainly prior to the leadership convention of the NDP, and Mr. Harcourt was still the Premier. A month went by and I heard no more. A second month went by, and Mr. Hughes's term expired.

On March 26, 1996 -- some couple of months after my discussion -- we had a new Premier, Mr. Glen Clark. I got a letter in an envelope that was most impressive; I had never had one before. It had stamped on it: "For your eyes only. Strictly confidential. Rush." I turned it over to the back: "For your eyes only. Strictly confidential." It wasn't mailed, so there is no date on it, but I can assure members, and you, Mr. Speaker, that it is dated March 26, and that was the day I received it.

What I received was a letter from the Premier thanking me for my letter of November 14 -- my letter of four and a half months earlier -- "addressed to my predecessor." We'd had an agreement -- it wasn't written down; I didn't think that it needed to be -- that there would be communication between Mr. McArthur and myself, or someone in government and myself, on the issue of the appointment of a conflict-of-interest commissioner, because as I had advised Mr. McArthur and Premier Harcourt, I was speaking at that time for the official opposition on this matter.

Anyway, the Premier's letter finishes: "I will also announce, later today" -- it wasn't later today; it was before 

[ Page 4758 ]

I got the letter -- "that Mr. David Mitchell will be appointed as the new conflict-of-interest commissioner. Like his predecessor, Mr. Ted Hughes, QC, David Mitchell has earned the respect of all MLAs, and I hope you will join me in supporting him in his new endeavours."

[5:30]

His contempt for the House in a total new league,
He tinkered with process -- such callous intrigue.
So sure was our Glen that he just couldn't lose,
That he tested his power by dumping Ted Hughes.
In a cynical fashion he led the attack:
Hughes is out, Mitchell's in, Mitchell's out, Hughes is back.
And throughout the whole mess Glen stood solidly by,
And said: "See, I am so a take-charge kind of guy."

An Hon. Member: Is there more?

F. Gingell: Yes. There are four pages and 86 verses. But it really does pinpoint the absolute contempt that this Premier has for this House. The suggestion that they would take an independent member of this House -- who had left the official opposition under somewhat questionable circumstances -- and appoint him conflict-of-interest commissioner is a silly, spiteful joke, and it came back, of course, in the Premier's face. The Premier had to back down. The Premier had to break another promise -- this time, one that he'd made to David Mitchell.

So we came back in the House in the end of April after the election. I entered into discussions with the Government House Leader about the issues surrounding the standing committee that, she was suggesting, would be given the task of making a recommendation. So they had taken my first recommendation. I heard the member for New Westminster suggesting that it was the Premier's idea that this would go to a committee. But I appreciate that you. . . .

Interjection.

F. Gingell: Yes, true enough -- the Premier's decision, but a recommendation that came from the opposition. Who cares?

The real issue, though, in my discussion with the Government House Leader was that it was inappropriate to appoint a new conflict-of-interest commissioner, I felt, without having a good look at the act and the way it presently proceeds. There were the issues of other bodies -- municipal councils, school boards, regional districts. And perhaps we could save them a great deal of time, money, effort and energy by setting up some kind of process.

I'm not comfortable with the proposition that the person from whom you seek advice and with whom you file your financial statements is the same person that becomes judge, jury and prosecutor if an issue comes up. I don't believe that it's necessary. Let me put it differently. I think there are alternatives that would perhaps work better than having us file our financial statements with the conflict-of-interest commissioner. I was wondering if perhaps they could be filed with the Clerk of the House. The Clerk and other Clerks are trained in the law. They would be perfectly capable of advising members on conflict-of-interest matters, which would leave the conflict-of-interest commissioner free, unbiased and unprejudiced to deal with specific issues that came up.

I also felt and have certain feelings of discomfort about a single commissioner. You can get into a big-man -- or big-person, I guess we say in this day and age -- attitude. I sat for some years on a quasi-judicial triumvirate called the board of reference, which is a body under the School Act that deals with teacher dismissals. I found that type of an arrangement worked well. One person from B.C. School Trustees, one from the B.C. Teachers Federation and a chairman, who was always a lawyer to keep us straight, were appointed by the Chief Justice. A different group, a different time, was set up for each particular case.

So I envisage that perhaps it was appropriate for the committee to look at that kind of an arrangement, where the conflict-of-interest commissioner would perhaps determine on the basis of a complaint that there was indeed something that should be dealt with. The commissioner would then have a list of people to draw from. They wouldn't necessarily. . . . People from all walks of life, all geographic areas, with different backgrounds would sit on such a tribunal to deal with the case that the conflict-of-interest commissioner felt should move forward. These were suggestions I made to the. . . . I wrote and put them in a letter to the Chairman of the committee in August of 1996, when his committee was struck.

My own feeling is that this committee could have been struck back in May when the House first came back. We knew there was a vacancy, an impermanent arrangement in the conflict-of-interest commissioner's office. But this government is one thing: it is undisciplined. It simply doesn't deal with these kinds of issues that need to be dealt with. You deal with them on time, everything moves along and government works smoothly. You leave it, you don't look after your knitting, things don't happen and we get into problems. And it's my belief that we have a problem now.

I really do not believe it's appropriate for us to move forward with the appointment of a commissioner at this time without going through the process of reviewing the act. I don't know what the answers are. The suggestions I made to the member for New Westminster, who chairs the committee, are purely suggestions that I thought would be worthwhile for the committee to look at. There is experience in other parts of this county, in other parts of the democratic world, with tribunals and bodies, where this kind of legislation has been enacted. And it's sensible for us to do a review. As I understand it, that is exactly what this committee has done. And that's all they have done. Well, they've advertised, they've got down to a shortlist, and they've made an agglomeration that details the legislation that's in other parts of the country. That's not enough. If they'd had some discipline, if they'd got down to work, if they'd done what they were paid for, we'd have this matter dealt with. We wouldn't be here today with government members wondering what's going on. This is an important issue. Again, it's been left to the last minute. And that is, to me, an unsatisfactory way of doing things.

The member for New Westminster, in referring to some of the statements that have been made, used the word "sanctimonious." I thought that was kind of different. Because if there's anybody who's been sanctimonious about this, it's a committee that refuses to get down to its responsibilities and get on with its work and uses its one-person majority to block process in this task. All they have done is bring the art of procrastination to its highest point. Clearly, enough issues 

[ Page 4759 ]

have come in front of this House that will cause the committee to think about the expansion of the rules. There's the issue of the $1,000 a day for Elizabeth Cull. There's the issue of the use of constituency offices that obviously needs to be clarified. There were some issues, I seem to remember, about a senior person, not appointed under the Public Service Act but put into a position of some responsibility, who purchased some land that was related to the Duke Point connector for the new ferry.

There has been a whole series of issues that have dealt with B.C. Hydro and the action of people in somewhat similar positions sitting on the board of directors who have acted in a manner that is rife with conflict of interest. And here we have an opportunity to do something about it: bring some common sense, move the process along. This government has used their one-person majority on that committee to thwart the work. I'm surprised that they have the gall to stand up in this House and suggest that members of the committee and speakers on this side of the House are sanctimonious. I think that's sanctimony of the highest order.

We have referred back to many of the issues that came from Mr. Hughes's recommendations. I appreciate that there were seven of them, but if you were to pick out three that could be dealt with quickly, I would suggest they are the three that we are dealing with. The others are, perhaps, items that would come second.

I think this whole set of circumstances is another failure by this government. It's their failure to recognize that they have responsibilities and should go about fulfilling their duties and doing the work of this committee in a sensible, thoughtful manner in the interests of British Columbians, and not spend their time throwing blocks in the way. I hope this opportunity to speak to this issue will bring members on the other side of the House to recognize that there is an opportunity to do this properly, do it quickly, get on with our work and bring into place one of the important offices of this Legislature, which this Legislature is the weaker for not having.

G. Abbott: Just as a point of procedure, could we get some advice from the government side as to whether we propose to recess for the reception at Government House, which I believe all members have been invited to?

The Speaker: I understand that the matter, as the British say, is going through usual channels. I suspect that the two caucuses will be advised accordingly fairly shortly.

D. Jarvis: Needless to say, I am not pleased with this motion, either. The House Leader for the New Democratic Party, who has just entered the House floor, has proceeded to put forward a motion to have the Select Standing Committee for Parliamentary Reform, Ethical Conduct. . . .

Interjection.

D. Jarvis: Again, Mr. Speaker, while I'm trying to speak, the House Leader for the NDP Party, who proposes this motion that I'm standing up to debate, is trying to interject and suggesting that I retire and go watch the news.

Interjection.

D. Jarvis: She feels that it may be relevant. Well, it's not relevant. The reason we're here debating this motion is the fact that this government, over the past years, has vacillated on everything they are supposed to have done with regards to forming proper government. They have failed to consider that if we had had a parliamentary calendar right from the start, back in '92, we could have proceeded with the operations of government in what you'd call a proper way of handling government and doing the people's business. But no, this government has not, and consequently we see a motion on the floor here that really isn't acceptable to the majority of the people on the floor.

[5:45]

He's signalling me to sit down, like the House Leader tried to get me to sit down, but I again refuse.

We might as well burn out the clock, although I was passed a motion that the debate recess until 7 p.m. So I'll move that. . . .

Interjection.

D. Jarvis: Now the House Leader of the NDP Party is saying, when I start. . . .

Interjection.

D. Jarvis: Mr. Speaker, I'm on the floor. Would you tell the minister to be quiet while I tell her what we're going to do? The House Leader came in several minutes ago, as I mentioned to you, and interjected in my speech: "Why don't you adjourn and go and watch the 6 o'clock news?"

Hon. J. MacPhail: No, I said: "Give us the motion."

D. Jarvis: Give us the motion. So now I'm prepared to give a motion to that effect, and now she says that we don't have an agreement to do that. So I will read a motion that the House recess till 7 p.m.

The Speaker: I'm sorry, member. Our rules do not allow a member to move a recess motion. That's the prerogative of the Government House Leader. However, you may wish to continue with your remarks.

D. Jarvis: Over the past six years this government has not been a good government, in the sense that they have ignored the people's wishes to have the people's business run in a proper manner. As I said, they have vacillated in every aspect. They've become a very undisciplined party when it comes to respect for the people's business. For years, the NDP has basically been using this House to put forward an ideology, and damn the people's business. Their ideology is first and utmost, and they will not give any consideration to how this House should be run properly, as it was in previous years and as would be done in the future, should we be the government.

I find that it is rather interesting that we should be debating this conflict of interest, when this is the government that 

[ Page 4760 ]

has been the epitome of a government that requires a conflict-of-interest commissioner. Every six months, a conflict arrives, whether it is the Nanaimo Commonwealth Holding Society, or the man from Metchosin, or the minister from Ladysmith. Every time we look around, this government is the one that really needs the conflict-of-interest commissioner. Yet when they are found to be wrong, or conceivably they are wrong, they are the last ones to even acknowledge the fact that they may have been in a conflict, whereas we know that under most governments and most parties where there is a conflict of interest and they are found to have a conflict of interest or the perception of it, it is the duty of the individual who is involved to resign, or they are asked to resign. But not in this government.

This Premier has changed this party's direction, without question. We see it has changed. It's a party of conflict and misrepresentation, debt, denial and deception. We really know now that we cannot believe anything that this government says. The Premier, since his narrow election win over a year ago. . . . Since his election, this government has gone downhill.

I am shocked that this motion would come forward from the House Leader of the government. I always thought that this socialist party had respect for parliamentary ways, that it was a pragmatic party that had respect for the people. But no, this people's party, the B.C. New Democratic Party, which is probably a euphemism for the Communist Party of British Columbia -- no one looked up on that one -- have given the feeling that all they are here for is for the Premier's ideology. That is a travesty. It is a travesty of this House and of this Legislature.

A crass, unconcerned, partisan government has done so many things that are in conflict with the conflict-of-interest commissioner's rules and regulations. We know that the member for Cowichan-Ladysmith actually loaned her office to the federal NDP. She closed it down and loaned it to them. Now, that was in direct conflict to the previous conflict-of-interest commissioner's attitude and the rules and regulations that he laid down. Nothing happened. Well, we know that the perception out there by the public is that most people should be -- what's the expression? -- purer than Caesar's wife. That was clearly not done by the member for Cowichan-Ladysmith.

So I am concerned that we are here again almost wasting time on this very important matter, debating a motion that this government could have gone forward with six months or a year ago. I think the past conflict-of-interest commissioner, Mr. Hughes, gave notice somewhere back in 1995 that he was leaving. This government has made no effort whatsoever to try to correct that situation by going ahead and holding committee meetings to investigate and decide who will take his position.

So we sit here in the House, like we did last week on a Wednesday evening to debate the Premier's road show up in the interior of British Columbia. He said that it was to be the most momentous decision on job creation in the history of Canada, which was just an unbelievable statement. I wonder if he has ever heard of Pierre Berton's The Last Spike or of the CPR. Has he ever heard of the St. Lawrence Seaway? They created jobs. All this Premier did was not create jobs. He suggested that he would create close to 40,000 jobs by the year 2001. We know that his record along that line is completely out of order, in the sense that he's never accomplished anything he has said before with regard to jobs. We know that last year he said: "I'll create 21,000 jobs." He failed in the sense that the forest industry lost 5,500 jobs. So now we're back to: what will we do? The Premier has suggested that we create all these jobs in the forest industry, and the Forests minister has no idea what's happening anyway. He's completely in the fog about it. He just sits over there shaking his head and wondering what's happening, waiting for the Premier to give him the word as to what he's going to do in the future.

We are in a bad state in this Legislature when instead of being here to do the people's work, we are here to do the Premier's bidding, and it comes down to his ideology and what he feels should be done. Clearly the NDP has lost all sight of the fact of where they are going and where their party principles are. The only principle they have is the Premier's principle: hold onto office, don't make statements that will be of benefit to the people of British Columbia and make promises that you know you can't keep. That is what the Premier is doing.

I'll read to you, Mr. Speaker, a couple of statements that were made by the Premier. He said after he was elected by a narrow majority on May 28, as I said, that he was going to balance the budget again. The Attorney General at the end of April of this year said: "The Premier speaks for the government. He is the government." And yet the papers say that after a year of having this Premier as the Premier of the province. . . . They say, "365 Days of Distrust"; and the headlines in the Vancouver Province say: "They Don't Believe You, Glen" -- the people don't believe you.

"The provincial debt burden will continue to climb," says a Standard and Poor's news release in May of 1997. Our local newspaper humorist, Vaughn Palmer, if you read his column today, stated back in early March, when we should have been sitting in this House -- instead we were at home looking after our constituents. . . . He said: "Scanning the Clark government's press releases has become an exercise in uncovering deception, a game of spot-the-lie."

Well, that's a poor reflection on the people of British Columbia when we have a Premier that is considered to act like that and have a reputation like that by nearly everyone in this province. We see that this NDP government professes to be the government of choice, as long as that choice is theirs -- there again, as long as that choice is the Premier's. He feels that he is part of the anointed few that should give proper government to the people of British Columbia.

Back about a year ago, just after the Premier was elected leader of the NDP Party and, of course, Premier of this province: "Seventy-five percent of British Columbians believe that the Premier and the NDP lied about their budget." That came out of the Vancouver Province paper on October 29. This is rather disturbing.

Now the House Leader brings forward a motion to say that they want to discuss the appointment of a conflict-of-interest commissioner. I agree that we should do that, but why is this debate now being held at this time, when there really is no necessity for it? It could have been done six months to a year ago.

[6:00]

[ Page 4761 ]

wanted to do, so he squashed it right in. There we were, standing here in this House at the opening of it late in March -- March 24, 1997 -- which left about five days to debate the throne speech and the budget speech. Of course, there wasn't time to do the proper debating, so we were required to go to a supply motion, and we debated that half the evening -- a waste of time again.

Now I understand that tomorrow night we will probably debate supply again, because this government has not had a proper calendar, if you want to call it that, or because their business has been handled so badly by the House Leader that it's necessary for us to go and debate supply again. We know that as of Monday, supply will run out. They'll have no money; they'll be, ostensibly, broke again.

I was just passed a note saying that noting the hour, we should move adjournment of the debate. I'm not too sure whether I want to do that. Is that a debatable motion, Mr. Speaker?

The Speaker: That is a motion that would be in order, member. If you say it again, I will accept it.

D. Jarvis: I'll think about it.

I don't know whether it is advisable for us to be sitting for all hours, debating something that could have been handled months ago -- years ago. As I said, supply runs out on June 30, so we're probably going to have to spend hours and hours and days and days debating supply. It's an unfortunate situation, and I am greatly disturbed by the fact that this government has no concern for the people's business.

Interjections.

D. Jarvis: Everyone wants me to stop talking.

Interjection.

D. Jarvis: What I want to talk about is the fact that this Premier does not discuss the truth about what is going on in this province. We all know that what he's been doing in the past in running this government is basically a sham. He's practising his sham politics. He should be governing, not ruling -- for he's now the king of the forest, king of the fishers, king of no-fault, king of FRBC, king of gambling, king of budgets, king of employment and king of lies and deception. In a minute, I intend to discuss each one of the items as to why he's the king of all the lies and deceptions.

Everyone is hungry and wants to adjourn for a while. So noting the hour, I move adjournment of this debate until 7 p.m.

The Speaker: All you can move is adjournment of the debate. Is that your wish, member?

D. Jarvis: Yes, it is.

Motion approved.

Hon. J. MacPhail: I move that the House rise and stand recessed until 6:35 p.m., and thereafter sit until adjournment.

Motion approved.

The House recessed at 6:05 p.m.

Copyright © 1997: Queen's Printer, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada