[ Page 4763 ]

The House resumed at 6:35 p.m.

[The Speaker in the chair.]

Motions on Notice

CONFLICT-OF-INTEREST COMMISSIONER
AND MEMBERS' CONFLICT OF INTEREST ACT
(continued)

Here we are, debating a conflict commissioner.

Interjection.

D. Jarvis: The House Leader for the NDP is trying to tell me that we're not interested in getting a conflict commissioner. We certainly are. We have been asking this government to do so since almost 1995, when Mr. Hughes, the previous commissioner, decided that he was going to resign.

I know what the House Leader is sort of alluding to: a member of the Liberal caucus who unfortunately was in a state of conflict in trying to deal with people's property rights. How do you compare someone dealing with private property rights versus someone who reportedly has, or is perceived to have, stolen from nuns? How do you compare with someone that's dealing with the people's business -- the people out there, his constituents -- and may be in conflict? How do you give that perception in relationship to the NDP Party, which is clearly in conflict in the fact that they loaned out their committee headquarters or their constituency office against the rules of the previous Speaker and of the conflict-of-interest commissioner? How do you compare it? It's like apples and oranges.

This government is, as I say, driven by its own ego and without any respect for the people in this province. And here we have a Premier who is trying to bail himself out of his ideological mistakes and all his misrepresentations, like the budgets: two balanced budgets not balanced -- a clear misrepresentation. We do not hear that it's a conflict of opinion.

Now we have a Premier that has backed off from no-fault after saying that he wanted no-fault. Now they're trying to spin the tale that it wasn't him that wanted to have no-fault put in there. Yet here is the Premier that froze the premiums of the policy holders of ICBC for two years on the premise that he was going to save them money. Clearly it was not about saving the people of B.C. money; it was about this Premier, who made such a poor job of balancing the books, first when he was the Finance minister and now when he's the Premier. He basically forces his. . . . We know for a fact that his Finance minister wouldn't be silly enough to do what he did, but they did. They ignored the advice of the bureaucrats that we were having problems with money in this province.

Hon. J. MacPhail: We know why you don't want one.

D. Jarvis: I hear the House Leader singing again, Mr. Speaker. I thought it was against House rules to sing in the House. She's doing her best to try and disrupt my train of thought.

We know that when the Premier said he was interested in saving the people of this province money by freezing the rates for ICBC, he interfered with the basic rights of the basic insurance company. Instead of an actuarial basis, the Premier interfered and has caused a financial hardship to ICBC. Now he says that what we need is no-fault in there to preserve the premium at a reasonable cost to the people of British Columbia, when we know that it wasn't about saving the money. It was about putting forward his ideology with regards to no-fault and taking away the rights of the people in British Columbia with respect to them having any type of a serious accident. . . .

Hon. J. MacPhail: Point of order, hon. Speaker. It is a wide-ranging debate, and there have been many events that have occurred recently to affect this debate -- as recently as today -- but no-fault isn't one of them. It's not relevant to the topic here; it's not relevant to anything that's being debated. I can understand why the opposition wants to avoid the debate on appointing a conflict-of-interest commissioner. I can understand that from recent events, but clearly no-fault is not one of the issues that can be debated on this matter, so I would ask you to hold the member accountable to be relevant.

The Speaker: I thank the member for her intervention, and would just ask all members to please review standing order 40 and the rules that govern debate in this place. Relevancy is indeed listed there. I would ask all members to please be guided by that particular admonition.

D. Jarvis: After I was rudely interrupted, I would like to mention the fact that the House Leader is exactly correct. This is a debate on whether we should have a conflict-of-interest commissioner.

Now, on that basis I would like to discuss that aspect and quote the Premier. On Tuesday, August 13, 1996, at 10 a.m., this gentleman, the Premier, 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 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."

An Hon. Member: Did he keep that promise?

D. Jarvis: No, he didn't keep that promise. And that's what I alluded to when I was referring to the Premier's intention with regard to no-fault insurance. He was. . . .

[ Page 4764 ]

An Hon. Member: Has he broken any other promises?

D. Jarvis: He has broken. . . . He was actually lying to the people of British Columbia in the sense that he could. . . . I know -- he misrepresented himself to the people of British Columbia.

Interjections.

D. Jarvis: On making that comment, I see that the red light is on and my time is up. So on that basis, I will have to sit down, because the poor House Leader for the NDP, whose fault it is that we're here right now -- because of her lack of organization -- has refused to even consider bringing in a calendar of events in this government so that we can do the people's business when we should be and when we shouldn't be. Now we are forced to stay late at night and continue. . . .

[6:45]

I. Waddell: I rise to speak just briefly on the motion. I'll speak briefly, because I don't have to go on all night on this. You know, I don't know if the member has had a chance to look at the evening news tonight, but the evening news has a matter on the polls. It shows that the. . . .

Interjections.

I. Waddell: Well, if the members let me get it out, I'll try and get it out.

Not that polls mean all that much, although politicians tend to slavishly follow them. The fact is that the Liberals have gone down a bit in the polls, and one of the reasons is. . . .

The Speaker: Excuse me, Vancouver-Fraserview. North Vancouver-Seymour has a point of order.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, please, members. I want to hear this.

D. Jarvis: Mr. Speaker, I don't think that discussing polls that were on the 6 o'clock news has any relationship to the discussion we were having with regards to picking a conflict-of-interest commissioner.

An Hon. Member: You don't see any relevance?

The Speaker: Thank you, member. I am sure that the member will demonstrate to us the relevancy of his remarks momentarily.

I. Waddell: It must be awkward for the opposition party to be raising this matter of conflict. If they had watched the news tonight, not only would they have seen their difficulties in the polls, but they would also have seen the member for West Vancouver-Capilano, their own member, basically being accused of a very serious conflict of interest. What an awkward time to hold up the House and to bring up such a debate.

In the scrum that happened outside the House, which was on the news, the member basically was asked by the press: why did he lobby on MLA letterhead for a corporation that involved his wife and involved $5 million, I believe, from a heritage fund?

Interjection.

I. Waddell: Well, I don't know how much it was. It was a sizable amount of money.

Interjection.

I. Waddell: If the hon. member would listen to me, it was lobbying for an amount of money for his wife, which has a serious possibility of conflict. That's why we have to have a conflict-of-interest commissioner. I would think, if I were a member of the Liberal Party here in the House tonight, I'd be rather embarrassed about this, and I'd end this debate pretty quickly.

I'm a member of this committee, and I see the hon. member across the way, the leader of the Reform Party, the member for Peace River South, who, I might say -- and I speak for myself on this -- has tried, in the committee and otherwise, to bring resolution to a very awkward matter for this House. And it is a very awkward matter. We should be choosing a conflict-of-interest commissioner. I mean, the prestige of this House and the prestige of all of us is involved in this matter.

Just to explain to people who may have flipped from the evening news to this broadcast, as I was saying, it must be awkward for the Liberals to be raising a conflict-of-interest matter at the very moment when they have one of their own members now in trouble with a potential conflict of interest. This is the second one in this House, the first one being the member for Richmond, the second one now being the member for West Vancouver.

So I say -- and I hope the Liberal members listen -- get on the ball. Get your eyes on the ball and get back to solving this problem. We have passed a procedure in this House which is a good procedure, and that is: a conflict-of-interest commissioner has to be chosen by two-thirds of the House, because the conflict-of-interest commissioner should have the support and the confidence of the people of this House.

The committee has gone out and asked a lot of very. . . .

Interjections.

I. Waddell: Mr. Speaker, I'm used to. . . . I wonder if the members. . . . I could speak and they could reply after me.

An Hon. Member: No.

I. Waddell: Well, if they want to keep heckling me. . . . If they could just listen and reply.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members, there does seem to be an ambient noise level that is rather high. I believe that North Vancouver-Seymour was given relative quiet to make his remarks, and perhaps we could extend the same courtesy.

I. Waddell: What I've been saying is that we have a procedure that we use. We have a committee that's set up. I can understand that the opposition wants to have further 

[ Page 4765 ]

matters debated or dealt with by the committee, or further matters dealt with by the committee on conflict of interest. That's their right, if they want.

How broadly should the law be amended? The previous conflict-of-interest commissioner, Mr. Hughes, recommended some changes. I think we should consider that.

Interjection.

I. Waddell: Some of them, not all of them. But I would like to look into it. I'm a member of the committee. I think the committee should look into it.

So what is the big problem in this House? Can't we, as adults, get together a position so that we don't call upon some distinguished people to submit their names and then leave them hanging and then appoint another distinguished person. . . ?

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members, please. I recognize. . . .

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members, the two House Leaders are not exactly setting the example we want in this chamber at the moment. Please let us allow those members who have the floor the opportunity to be heard.

I. Waddell: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. We have a procedure, and we should follow the procedure.

I got some notes from my friend from Burnaby, quoting the Opposition House Leader, the member for Vancouver-Little Mountain. I don't have the complete Hansard text, but the quotes that he thought were said are:

"But until the legislation passes the House, we're not going to make a recommendation on a commissioner or vote in favour of a recommendation of any commissioner, regardless of how good they are, because we think the act needs to be dealt with. Until such time as the act is amended, we're not prepared to support the resolution of the appointment of a commissioner. It's the only way to ensure that the act actually gets changed."

I would think that this is going to rebound on the Liberal Party, unless they get their act together and work with us and with all the members of the House. The member for Peace River South had some good suggestions on this, and we should listen to him.

An Hon. Member: And you voted against us.

I. Waddell: I regret that. I'm honest about that; I regret that.

An Hon. Member: Are you going to change your vote?

I. Waddell: I would if I could. And I regret that.

The member made some suggestions in committee that could be followed up. There are lots of ways the House Leaders could get together and solve this problem, instead of making this Legislature look silly. And I think that we should do that.

I see the Opposition House Leader, and I ask him for once to put that kind of partisan chip aside and look at the matter, and also to consider the fact that he's got one of his own members on the evening news tonight, clearly accused of conflict of interest.

I'd end this debate if I were them. I'd get some compromises going here. I don't know what they. . . . I think we could do it on the floor of the House. Perhaps the Opposition House Leader could suggest some way that the government could give an indication to him that we will consider. . . . I'm on the committee. We're prepared. . . .

Interjections.

I. Waddell: Take my word for it, then. We're prepared to consider amendments and changes and witnesses on the committee. But first you've got to have a conflict-of-interest commissioner, or else you're blackmailing the House. You can't do that. It's not a proper parliamentary tradition. It's also not very good politics, quite frankly, when you've already had one of your members in conflict this session and now you've got another one before the conflict. . . . You should come to this with clean hands.

So that's my suggestion, and I've tried to make it a positive one. I think it's a way this Legislature could shine, rather than looking like some sort of backwoods, nineteenth-century irrelevancy. We could face this, and face it in a grown-up way.

The Speaker: On what point, Vancouver-Little Mountain? There is no amendment on the floor; there's a main motion on the floor.

G. Farrell-Collins: There is an amendment.

The Speaker: No, there is not an amendment on the floor, member; I'm sorry.

An Hon. Member: They turned it down?

The Speaker: Members, there's only one person speaking, and that's the individual recognized. Okanagan East, please.

J. Weisbeck: I'm proud to stand here to speak to this motion, and I think it's my democratic right to be able to do that. I think that we have the right to speak to any motion that comes before us. So to say that we're making a sham of this House. . . . I'm appalled by that comment.

Interjection.

J. Weisbeck: Well, as I said, I think I have the right to speak to it. So, Mr. Speaker, I thank you for that opportunity.

I have been listening with great interest to the various speakers here this evening and this afternoon. The previous speaker, on the opposite side, said that it was unfortunate that we should be here speaking to this issue. . . . I think that it's something that should obviously have been dealt with a long time ago.

This motion deals with the appointment of a conflict-of-interest commissioner. And it states:

[ Page 4766 ]

"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. . .the committee is authorized to examine, iinquire into and make recommendations on the matter of the Members' Conflict of Interest Act."

So how did we arrive at this point? On July 19, 1996, there was a press release where Premier Clark said that Ted Hughes had agreed to resume the position of acting conflict-of-interest commissioner until a successor is found. And it also states: "An all-party committee of the Legislature has been given responsibility for finding a new commissioner. The committee's mandate also includes looking at the process for selecting a commissioner and the duties and powers of the office." Well, they've had since last July 19 to get this job done, and it appears that it hasn't been done. So now we sit this evening, debating this issue.

I guess when we first heard the news that Mr. Hughes would stay on as commissioner. . . . Certainly I was quite thrilled. Having known him and knowing what a fine man he is and what a great job he did as commissioner, I was thrilled to see him in place. But the fact of the matter is that this government did not do the job it was put in the position of doing and had to ask Mr. Hughes to stay on. There has been ample time for an appointment. So why the stall? I have to wonder why this issue was so unimportant to this government that they just put it on the back burner and didn't resolve the issue. Did they simply forget? Or is this simply a lack of agenda, a lack of direction? We've seen this in so many cases. It seems to be that the whole process is quite dysfunctional. Was there something to hide? Certainly it's easier to avoid the embarrassment of some of the events that have happened over the past while, and certainly the selection of a commissioner might bring this to light.

But whatever the reason is, we're here this evening to debate this issue. The act states that. . . . It's actually 14(1): "There must be appointed a commissioner who is an officer of the Legislative Assembly." Well, I would submit that since they have not appointed this commissioner, this government is in breach of this act.

Section 14(2) says: "On the motion of the Premier in the Legislative Assembly and on the recommendation of two-thirds of the members present, the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council must appoint the person so recommended to the office of commissioner." I think the important point to note in subsection (2) is the fact that there is a requirement for two-thirds of the members present. It would certainly indicate that there is a very important issue at hand, and it shows the importance that all parties agree to the appointment of this commissioner. By disregarding this rule, it just shows the contempt of this government for the rules of this House.

[7:00]

The first recommendation is: "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."

Mr. Hughes has stated further in his recommendations that this is probably the most important part of his recommendations. The second recommendation is: "Renaming the statute and the office of the commissioner to reflect the extended scope of the act." I think that very statement further recommends. . . . My suggestion is that we should review the act first, before the commissioner is appointed -- or at least concurrently.

The third recommendation is: "Embracing senior officials within requirements of the act." I cannot understand why the government doesn't support this part of the recommendation. Certainly there's no reason in the world why senior officials should not be under the same rules as the rest of us.

Recommendation 4: "Extending some form of conflict-of-interest and ethical-conduct legislation to municipal government." I think that all of us, all levels of government, must be accountable to the public.

Recommendation 5: "Revising the Society Act to accommodate recommendations made to the government by the Law Reform Commission of British Columbia and also the consultants retained by government." And No. 6 is: "The commissioner's term of office."

There appear to be a number of different options on the timing of whether to deal with the actual act or the selection of the commissioner. I guess I look at option one: you can select the commissioner and then review the act, which is what has been suggested by this motion. I see a number of dangers in that. I think that as we've seen so many times before in the history of this government, once they sort of have their way in things they forget the issue at hand. It would no longer be necessary to change the act, because if they have their commissioner in place, then that would be that.

Option two can run both concurrently, but as I stated before, it doesn't address some of the concerns. Option three is to review the act and then select the commissioner. My personal preference would be option three, although I think option two is very workable.

I think the selection of the commissioner is a very difficult one. So many times throughout the act, it talks about ethics. There are some very difficult ethical concerns, certainly ones that are currently under review. As we've stated this evening on the evening news, this is one that will have to be dealt with. I certainly don't think the members opposite should forget the number of ethical issues that they've had to deal with and will be dealing with in the very near future. I mean, whatever happened to the Nanaimo Commonwealth scandal and the most current issue, when the member for Cowichan-Ladysmith used her constituency office to run a federal campaign? Those are certainly ethical issues that must be dealt with.

It would appear that we've never been given any criteria for the selection of a commissioner. I would contend that the selection should involve some sort of training in the field of ethics. I read a very interesting little article here. It's written by Steven McShane, from Canadian Organizational Behaviour. He wrote a book and it talks about utilitarianism. Utilitarianism is a moral principle stating that decision-makers should seek the greatest good for the greatest number of people when choosing among alternatives. It is one of the oldest moral principles. 

[ Page 4767 ]

It has advised us to seek the greatest good for the greatest number of people. This dictum requires a cost-benefit analysis of each decision alternative and a measure of the degree of satisfaction that a decision provides to those affected.

One problem is that utilitarianism judges morality by the results but not necessarily the means of obtaining those results. There are many actions, however, that people consider immoral even though doing them would bring about the greatest good. For example, utilitarianism must indicate that stealing from a few people is acceptable as long as it benefits many others.

So I think this whole question of selection of a commissioner, as I say, is a very difficult one. I certainly cannot support this motion. I think there are some issues that must be dealt with before the selection process is made.

C. Clark: I have to admit that I'm a little bit disturbed that I have to rise and speak to this, because this is a promise that the government made when they said to British Columbians that they would not only appoint a new conflict-of-interest commissioner but they would address the deficiencies that were pointed out in the act by Ted Hughes, probably one of the most respected people associated with this Legislature.

The Premier himself made that promise. The Premier said in this House, in July last year, that it would happen. But guess what: the Premier broke his promise. For anyone watching this on television, I'm sure there's not a great deal of shock with that. But, you know, it's about time that the Premier stopped breaking his promises.

We on this side of the House are not going to let him continue to break his promises. We intent to fight this fight until the NDP decide that they are going to meet the deficiencies in the act, that the NDP are going to do as Ted Hughes asked and to do what the Premier promised, which is to ensure that the Members' Conflict of Interest Act in this province is updated to ensure that it meets all the modern standards, based on the experience that we've had with the act -- it's not an old, old piece of legislation -- to enact the changes that need to be made, because now we can see where the act isn't meeting its aims.

That's not very much to ask. It's not very much to ask, certainly, to ask the Premier to live up to his promises. It's not very much to ask, to ask the chairman of this committee to do what his committee was charged with doing in the first place. I don't think that's very much to ask. I think it's a basic tenet of respecting this Legislature and the rules of this House, something that this government is woefully incapable of doing.

I want to refer a little bit, just before I go on, to some of the comments that were made by the member for Vancouver-Fraserview who, sadly, has left the chamber. He talked about the difference between the folks on this side of the House, the Liberals, and the people on that side of the House who represent the New Democratic Party. He said he would turn and run from this debate if he was us. Well, you know what? He's got it wrong, because he is the one who should be turning in shame and running from this debate.

The difference between our party and that party is that when the member for Richmond-Steveston suspected that he might be in a conflict -- do you know what he did? -- he went and asked. He sought out that advice himself. He didn't wait until some freedom-of-information request had proven that he was in a conflict. He didn't wait until he got caught. He didn't wait until there was an investigation. He didn't wait until he was forced to resign by the Premier, like some members on that side have been forced to do. He didn't wait to do any of that stuff. When he suspected that he might be in a conflict position, he went and asked. And that's what the act is intended to do. At its best, the act is intended to guide every member of this House in his or her actions, and each of us should be expected to refer to that act on a regular basis and ensure that we are not in a conflict. That's the basic responsibility that every member has. And certainly the member for Richmond-Steveston, who has received numerous compliments from the Chairman of the committee and also from the member for Vancouver-Fraserview for his skill and his integrity -- that's what he did. That's what the Members' Conflict of Interest Act is intended to do. But failing that, if you don't have a member who's got as much integrity as the member for Richmond-Steveston and if you don't have a member who's as vigilant and cares as much about the traditions of this House as he does, that's why you need the act.

[W. Hartley in the chair.]

That's why we need the strict rules and the strict penalties that are contained in that act. And that's why today we need to consider acting on the recommendations of Ted Hughes, the former commissioner, who has pointed out the deficiencies in the act, who said: "We now recognize there are some holes in this act. There are some loopholes that we don't want people to get through. Let's close those loopholes up." Any responsible member of this House should want to do that.

We can assume that everyone in this House has as much integrity as the member for Richmond-Steveston. But I think it's incumbent upon us to ensure, in cases where that doesn't happen, and in cases where a member hasn't paid attention to the rules, that the recourse is there and that the recourse is tough -- it's hard to get around, and it's something that members really feel they have to live by. That's the duty of every member of this House.

With the events today and with the member from West Vancouver, what happened? The leader acted quickly. The leader asked him to resign from his critic portfolio. The leader took decisive action. What happens on that side of the House when members are found in conflict? The members have to be, in some cases, forced to resign. They have to be forced to resign by the Premier himself. Not only do they not go and find out on their own if they're in a conflict, but when they suspect they are in a conflict, when everybody finds out they're in a conflict, when it's on the front page of the Vancouver Province and the Vancouver Sun, then they get shoved out of cabinet.

But then again, maybe not for long. You know, sometimes they come back. Gee, something happens, you know. You push them down over here. . . . It's like that game you play at the PNE: you push them down over here, and they pop up over there. It's that little gopher you can hit with the club at the PNE. That's what's happened with the cabinet over there. They go in, they go out, and, I understand, they're on their way back in. Maybe we'll have a new Minister of Fisheries.

You know, maybe the NDP doesn't particularly want to toughen the act. Maybe they're worried about what future cabinet ministers might get into. Maybe they look at the track record of this government, and they say: "Boy, you know I'd sure hate to have to live up to even tougher standards. We've had a tough time so far. We've had a tough time with all the shenanigans that went on in Nanaimo, with the Commonwealth Holding Society and with the bingo."

An Hon. Member: That's not over yet, either.

[ Page 4768 ]

C. Clark: And you know, that's not even over yet. Goodness knows what will happen as a result of that investigation when it's finally finished. Maybe the members on that side of the House don't want to have to live up to tougher standards. Maybe they know, given their track record, that it might be hard to stand up to the scrutiny of tougher standards and to put those into the cold, hard light of day.

What about the member from Victoria? I didn't see any action from the government when the member from Victoria was accused of being in conflict. I didn't see any action there. I didn't see an apology. I didn't even see her say: "I am sorry." What did she do? She said: "Oh, there was no problem there; it was no conflict at all, just another holding society -- just another issue with another holding society."

I didn't see any action on any of these issues. I want to talk a little bit, too, about some other comments that the member for Vancouver-Fraserview made. He pointed out that we should behave like adults in this Legislature, that we should be grownups about what we do, that we should work. We should work cooperatively, and we should hold out our hands. You know what that means? I think being grown-up means keeping your promises. I think that's one of the first things about being grown-up. I suspect that anyone who is a parent might tell that to their children, that that's what grownups do. They tell the truth; they try and keep their promises; they try and live up to what they say they're going to do. That's one aspect of being grown-up.

[7:15]

The essence of my complaint today about the way the government has dealt with this is not that we should not appoint a conflict-of-interest commissioner. Of course we should. We need to get on with that process. We need a conflict-of-interest commissioner. We want someone looking over the actions of that Premier and that cabinet, making sure that they aren't breaking the rules. That's what the conflict-of-interest commissioner is there to do. The public wants a conflict-of-interest commissioner there.

But do you know what this committee did? They said: "Well, we want the conflict-of-interest commissioner. But we'll think about actually making the act tougher at some future date; we'll do that sometime in the future."

Our members, the Liberal members on that committee, have asked again and again for that committee to consider that issue. The Premier promised that it would be considered. We have asked again and again for it to be considered. The former commissioner, then the former acting commissioner and then the former acting, acting commissioner -- who graciously agreed to stay on during all these months of indecision -- has recommended that we do this, that we tighten up the act, that we make sure that every single loophole is closed, and make sure that every single member of this House has to live up to the strictest possible standards based on what we know about the way the act has been administered in the past. All these people have said we should do this.

The committee has consistently put off dealing with this. I have a great deal of concern -- and I know my colleagues on this side of the House share that concern -- that if a conflict-of-interest commissioner is appointed today, this government will never act on those commitments. We have a duty to force this government to live up to those commitments, because the people of British Columbia deserve it. They deserve to know that their elected representatives are operating under the toughest possible standards, the highest standards, and meeting them. That's our job. I'm not going to let the government walk away from that commitment. I'm not prepared to say: "Okay, just keep half your promise." No. Keep all your promises -- or at least keep all of that promise.

I mean, it's too late for the balanced-budget promise; it's too late for the second balanced-budget promise and the first. It's too late for the won't-raid-the-FRBC promise; it's too late for that. It's too late for the no-massive-expansion-of-gambling promise. It's too late for that, I guess. That's sort of. . . .

But maybe it's not too late for any of these promises. Maybe the government can actually go ahead and say: "You know, we were wrong." Why doesn't the government just say: "You know, we've listened, we've heard, and we were wrong"? They could start today with this Conflict of Interest Act, with their refusal, their stonewalling and their backtracking on these promises to change the act. Why doesn't the government just say: "Okay, we were wrong. We are prepared to move ahead and make these changes and force politicians to live up to tough standards"?

Earlier in my comments, I might have and I hope I raised some thoughts in people's minds about why, perhaps, this government isn't prepared to make those changes. Maybe some of the scrutiny that this government might be forced to act under would be too great. I hope that's not the problem, because I don't think British Columbians can take any more of this from their public officials. I don't want to hear any more politicians who go around and break the rules consistently, never say they're sorry and then only be forced under the most dire circumstances -- when it hits the front page of the newspaper -- to do what's right.

That's the difference between the people on that side of the House and the people on this side of the House. The people on this side of the House are prepared to do what's right. The member for West Vancouver-Capilano is prepared to say. . . . He's prepared to take the tough medicine that the leader will mete out to him.

Do you think the Premier will mete out any tough medicine? Well, we'll see who the new Minister of Fisheries is going to be -- you know, what a reward. Gee, that's really going into the penalty box for a long time, isn't it? In, out, in, out; maybe back in. Well, maybe that's one too many ins and outs, but I don't know what the future will hold in that respect.

This government has no credibility when it talks so highly and so self-importantly about issues of ethics -- no credibility at all. Look at where this government has been on ethical issues. Look at where this government has come from on these issues. Think about the Nanaimo Commonwealth Holding Society scandal. Think about the scandal at B.C. Hydro with this government's hand-picked employees.

Let's think about the promises that the Premier made or that the government made, that they would ask their senior officials to live up to the highest standards. What do we know? Well, luxury cars, part-time jobs that pay 120 grand a year. . . . I mean, is that the ethical standard that this government's asking people to live up to? If that's where the govern-

[ Page 4769 ]

ment's going to set the bar, if that's their standard of ethics, most British Columbians are going to say that's not enough, and that's why we need to tighten the act.

I suspect that there are people on that side of the House who say: "You know, this really isn't good enough. We've got to ask better from public officials. We've got to have the rules in place that are tight, that are tough" -- the rules that have been recommended by none other than Ted Hughes.

I noticed how seriously everybody took it when the Minister of Small Business, Tourism and Culture misspoke herself and was forced to apologize when she talked about the conflict-of-interest commissioner, when she claimed that she had the explicit approval of the conflict-of-interest commissioner when indeed she didn't. In many circumstances people might not think that's a big deal, I suppose. I don't know -- maybe not on that side of the House. I think it probably always is a big deal. But in some circumstances maybe that wouldn't have been such a big issue if she hadn't been talking about Ted Hughes, a man for whom we all have a great deal of respect, a man whose opinion we should hold in high regard and not shuffle off his ideas, shuffle off the opinions that he holds -- he's probably the most capable person to form opinions about the act; he's the person who's been administering it -- put them on the shelf and let them gather dust. That's what this government intends to do unless we force them to do otherwise, unless we force them to keep their promise on this act and do what they say they're going to do.

I'm sure that if the member for everything -- the member for Esquimalt-Metchosin -- was here, he would probably be able to tell us word for word what he proposed when he introduced his act in 1990. Now, I guess that was before he was on the government side of the House, but he did say -- and I'll just read this out. . . . In the explanatory note at the beginning of the act it says that the Conflict of Interest Act should clearly set out "the nature of the direct and indirect interests to which conflict and disclosure provisions apply." They should require cabinet ministers and other members of the assembly to withdraw from participating in any decision, process or proceeding when a conflict of interest arises, and to disclose publicly the nature of that conflict. And it says:

". . .(c): provides a legal process that may be initiated by any member of the public to investigate alleged violations of the act, (d) requires that all cabinet ministers undergo a seminar to acquaint themselves with this act and other legislation concerning their ethical duties and obligations, and (e) makes similar orientation available to all other interested Members of the Legislative Assembly."

You know, maybe five years from now, after we've learned from the experience, after we've seen how the new rules work, we might want to adjust them again. But that's the nature of legislation; that's the nature of the game. We need to be regularly looking at these rules and deciding whether they meet the current needs of this Legislature. That's all the former conflict-of-interest commissioner was trying to accomplish. I don't know why this government seems to be so afraid of doing that. I don't know why they want to put it on the shelf and let it sit, and maybe think about it some other day.

Maybe they'll start thinking about it when they're in opposition again. Maybe that would be an appropriate time for them to start thinking about it. You know, they thought a lot about it when they were in opposition; then they got into government, and things kind of changed. They appear to have stopped thinking about it quite so much. But maybe when they're back in opposition, they will start thinking about it again. Maybe it will be more important to them then. I don't know.

But you know, I hate to think that their principles suddenly changed when they went from opposition to government. Gee, I'd hate to think that. What a terrible thing. I'd hate to think that the members on that side of the House strayed from their original goals and their original principles when they got to that side of the House. I'd hate to think that when they said they wanted a balanced budget, they didn't mean it; or that they said they wanted to protect health care and education and didn't mean it. But I don't think they did mean it. I think the people of British Columbia know they didn't mean it. I think that's obvious to anybody who wants to go and examine the record.

But maybe on this one the government could say: "We do mean it." Maybe this is something that we can all get together on and say: "You know, ethics in public life is important enough to all of us that we're going to move this issue forward." I'm not going to sit here and allow the government to just shunt these issues aside and say: "Oh well, we don't feel like dealing with it today." After all, the NDP have a majority. They don't have to deal with it all the time. They don't have to deal with anything that makes them uncomfortable or that puts the cold light of day on some of the things that go on in government.

That's where we, as public officials in British Columbia, need to start. We need to restore people's faith in our institution, and shunting away the former conflict-of-interest commissioner's guidelines and suggestions for change isn't the way to start that process. That's not where we should begin, and that's certainly not a way for the members on that side of the House to build up any credibility again.

If the members on that side of the House want to revive or create some credibility for themselves and for their party, they can start today. They can start today rebuilding what they've lost in the public's mind. If they did that, they wouldn't be doing it just for them. They'd be doing it for everybody in public life in British Columbia, whether they are at the provincial level, the municipal level or the federal level. Wherever they are in public life in British Columbia, it would do a good turn for us all. We do need to restore people's belief in the ethics of government and the ethics of public officials.

I want to end by commenting on something that a constituent pointed out to me. It is from the obviously well-read book which I got out of the library today: 1984, by George Orwell. In the book, he talks about how the way we use language can change the meaning of what we're saying -- not by changing the words that we use but by subtly changing the meaning of the words so that truth becomes lies and lies become truth. In the words of the book: "ignorance is strength, freedom is slavery, war is peace."

[7:30]

[ Page 4770 ]

elected by misleading the public about where you're going with your legislative agenda is democracy; and refusing to tighten up, refusing to act on the changes to the Conflict of Interest Act that were suggested by the former commissioner somehow equals the highest standards of ethical behaviour. Somehow that's going to meet the high standard that this government sets for itself.

I think the government believes that if they repeat their new definitions for words often enough, people will start to believe them. If they say to people that they've created lots of jobs, they believe that people will believe it. Well, you know, when somebody's standing in the unemployment line or can't meet his or her mortgage because they've been chucked out of work, they're not going to believe the words of this government.

When they see cabinet ministers being forced to apologize on a regular basis or being forced to resign, or when they see members failing even to apologize for the things they do wrong because the act isn't strong enough, they're going to know that this government isn't meeting its ethical obligation -- no matter how much the government wants people to believe that it is acting ethically or that it is meeting the highest standards. People will look to this government's actions, not just its words.

People will look behind the press releases, and they will see that this government is not doing what it said it was going to do. They can't hope that just by saying that they're doing it, people are going to believe it's happening -- because they're not and because they don't. Seventy-five percent of British Columbians don't believe a thing this government says.

A third of those who voted NDP would have voted differently if only they had known the truth before they cast their ballots. That's a pretty damning indictment of how this government has operated and the standard to which this government has lowered itself in the public's eyes. Today is the day we can all do something to try and improve that image, to try and restore some of people's faith in our objectives as people in public life. I would ask the government to do that.

The member for Vancouver-Fraserview sits there and says he regrets that he can't accept the amendment offered by the member for Peace River South. He regrets it, but I don't see him offering a similar amendment. "Gee, I'm really sorry I can't support your amendment. I really would have liked to, but you know, I'm not going to do what I think I should do." That's what he's saying. He's saying he's not going to do what he thinks he should be doing.

He's not going to do what he thinks is right, and that's the problem with this government. There are too many people sitting on that side of the House who are prepared to do what they don't think is right because this Premier tells them they have to. That's the problem with the people on that side of the House. They're not prepared to stand up and say, "I will do what I think is right," just like the member for Vancouver-Fraserview failed to do and admitted that he failed to do. I would challenge him -- or I would challenge any member on that side of the House who agrees with him -- to offer a similar amendment.

If they're worried about the protocol of accepting an amendment from an opposition member, do it yourself. That's what the member from Victoria did when she decided that she liked the Donation of Food Act. She went and did it herself. That's great. The member for Burnaby-Edmonds got together with the member for Richmond Centre to work on an act.

If you're worried about the protocol, do it yourself. I'm sure he'll share the wording with you. He's probably got a fast photocopier down in the office. If you want to do what's right and if you agree with the member for Vancouver-Fraserview that the amendment that was offered was right but you didn't think you could support it, then bring your own forward. I guarantee you that we on this side of the House will support that amendment.

I guarantee you that we will support that amendment if you are prepared to bring it forward -- if you are prepared to do what you think is right. I don't think members of government are going to have that many more chances. I don't think the public is endlessly prepared to continue to believe what politicians say and have faith in their public officials unless we act to make some changes.

With that, I'll end my comments -- with an offer, of course, to the members opposite to find a solution to all this. They should stand up for what they believe in; they should do what they think is right. They should support the amendment from the member for Peace River South, and they should do something to finally restore some of the public's lost faith in what we do as public officials.

L. Stephens: I'm pleased to rise this evening and speak to the amendment. I intend to put some comments. . .

Some Hon. Members: No amendment.

L. Stephens: No amendment.

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Through the Chair, please, members.

L. Stephens: On the government's Motion 63, I'd like to put my comments on the record and to reiterate what many members of the opposition have been saying. What the government has done with this motion is a direct conflict to what the mandate of the standing committee has authorized -- a direct conflict. I think that when we look at the history of this particular government, that's probably to be expected. It's not that surprising that a motion such as this would come forward at this time, when there has been tremendous conflict around appointing a conflict-of-interest commissioner.

I just want to go through a little bit of what has happened. There has been a standing committee authorized to look at two mandates, and I'm just going to read them:

". . .this House 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 or commissioners of conflict of interest pursuant to the committee's final report on the matter of the Members' Conflict of Interest Act."

[ Page 4771 ]

We thought that we were moving down that path rather nicely when the Premier gave his support and the House Leader established the committee. The committee was struck, with their clear mandate. And what has happened? Very little. Members on our side of the House have continually tried to move the committee meetings forward to resolve both of these issues at the same time. It was clear from the government side that that wasn't something that they wanted to do; it's obvious now that we have Motion 63 before us.

What were some of the recommendations that the conflict-of-interest commissioner was making? His very first one, I think, is extremely significant. What he said was that he believes that 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. . . .

We've heard tonight a litany of transgressions on the part of government ministers and other government members -- government actions -- over these past six years. I'm not going to go into any of those; members have done so. But I do want to say that we understand and really appreciate on this side of the House the absolute importance of the review of the legislation for the conflict-of-interest commissioner and of having a permanent conflict-of-interest commissioner in place. I think the Liberal opposition has been more than accommodating, as far as the committee is concerned, in trying to move forward on both of these issues.

But again, what has happened? No meetings. It's been very difficult to get the government members to call the meetings. Again, what does that say? What kind of a message does that deliver? Does it give people confidence that this government is interested in preserving the integrity of the parliamentary process and certainly the process of government? I don't think so. Otherwise they would adhere to the mandate of the committee, and that's clearly not what they're doing. Why? What's the reason? That's what we would all like to know.

Members have talked about the number of individuals that have applied for the conflict-of-interest position and the fact that these individuals who have applied from across Canada are now in limbo. They're just hung out to dry, waiting for this government to make some kind of decision and act. It's not a very encouraging way to do business, and I'm sure all members of this House recognize that.

The conflict-of-interest commissioner also talked about constituency offices and how members spent their money. That's an issue that is still not resolved. There are other issues that haven't been resolved by this government, particularly with the type of behaviour or conduct. That's why members on this side of the House encourage members opposite to do what they can -- all members opposite, backbenchers and cabinet ministers -- and to move forward on making sure that this committee reconvenes, pays attention to and does the business of this House, and particularly follows the recommendations of the conflict-of-interest commissioner in broadening the scope of the act and bringing the act into conformity with other acts that are currently around the country.

I just want to talk a little bit about the Roundtable on Ethics and Conflict of Interest. This was a special Joint Committee on Code of Conduct for Parliamentarians. There were five different provincial officials attending this in October of 1995, and Ted Hughes, our former conflict-of-interest commissioner, was one of them. I want to read a little quote here from Gregory Evans, who is the integrity commissioner in Ontario. What he said was:

"Members, whether appointed to the Senate or elected to the Commons [or legislatures], are in a position of trust. They represent the public and should expect to be held accountable for their actions. Accountability requires openness, and with it the right to investigate and to recommend penalties for violations of the public trust."

Deputy Speaker: I recognize the hon. member for Parksville-Qualicum.

P. Reitsma: Thank you, hon. Speaker. I noticed a little bit of hesitation in that, but it is indeed Parksville-Qualicum on Vancouver Island, including Lantzville and a portion of Nanaimo, but certainly not Ladysmith and Cowichan. Although I must say, through some unfortunate circumstances, I've had a lot of calls from Ladysmith and Cowichan, represented by the Minister of Small Business and Tourism. But I'll get to that later, actually.

[7:45]

The way this government is attempting to ramrod this through reminds me, really, of the three or four series of Rambo films. That's how it was done: shoot a lot, kill first, ask questions later.

As far as I'm concerned -- and I've not chosen these words lightly -- here we have another example of a dishonest approach to legislation. I know that in the past the Premier of today -- on April 23 of 1990, when he was not Premier; he was one of the opposition members -- quite often used that approach. Here we have another example of a dishonest approach to bookkeeping. Of course, the bookkeeping that we are used to here is part of the IAA system, which is the intravenous accounting approach. It helps the body, I suppose, to survive, but they're unconscious, because they don't know what's going on. That's the type of bookkeeping that has been going on here. However, it is a dishonest piece of legislation.

Yes, we want to have a say in it. Who is appointed. . . . I think it's extremely important that all parties indeed unanimously endorse the position of conflict-of-interest commissioner, which is an extremely important position. No, we don't 

[ Page 4772 ]

want any friends and insiders to be appointed, because that's a one-way street. With a one-way street, of course, there's no turning around at all.

I would like to go back to last year or the year before, when in this Rambo-style approach -- pushing through legislation and not caring about anybody's feelings or what the consequences are -- a former member of this House, who for reasons that we may not know really didn't survive in this Liberal Party for too long, was attempted to be promoted as a conflict-of-interest commissioner. Can you imagine a person like David Mitchell, of course, who certainly knew everybody in the Liberal Party. . . ? To have to go to a person like that. . . . One wonders what criteria were being used, what ethical approach was taken, what ethics were followed in order to quickly usurp a person like Ted Hughes -- who's universally well liked in terms of his ability to be impartial, whose integrity, of course, is beyond reproach -- to have a person like that particular person quickly sworn in. He was sworn in; he was sworn out. He was sworn at, for that matter, by many people, as well.

Thank goodness that under the current legislation two-thirds of the House, the Legislature, have to give approval for a new commissioner of conflict of interest. Can you just imagine for a moment if the government side would have had the two-thirds -- plus one, just in case one particular person couldn't make it? Suffice it to say that the words mentioned by the Forests minister, "The government can do anything it wishes to do," would have been put into practice.

How horrid, how horrible, how dangerous that would have been to have had a person such as David Mitchell to be the conflict-of-interest commissioner. How could one possibly confide in a person like that?

As we have seen with the former commissioner, Mr. Hughes, a conflict-of-interest commissioner has to have the highest pedigree of trust and integrity, has to be ethically beyond reproach and above suspicion and, above all, respected by everyone in this House. Only when you respect a person can you trust a person: someone who treats confidentiality as it should be treated -- confidentially -- a person we can talk to without fearing political or personal repercussions because of political appointment. Many of us are in two, three, four or five businesses. We have personnel matters, land matters, transactions. . . . There's an incredible amount of detailed information, and one has to open his or her books -- almost his whole life -- in order to try to be squeaky-clean in terms of being able to sit in this House. So all one's confidential information, all one's financial information, obligations, loans, mortgages, etc., are subjected to perusal and interpretation by a person.

Let me assure you that as a person who is involved in four or five businesses and who does have mortgages and obligations, not for a moment would I have felt comfortable with a person such as David Mitchell or any other person that would just smack of a shadow of a political, opportunistic appointment. Therefore it is important.

As I mentioned, thank goodness that two-thirds of the Legislature are not NDP members. This way, they are forced to deal with the issue as they are dealing with it now. At times, of course, I would feel comfortable in knowing that the person I am going to talk to -- the conflict-of-interest commissioner. . . . If I have problems or concerns of a personal nature with constituents. . . . A lot of those are of a personal, property or legal nature, as well. One can imagine that if the person that has been appointed is purely a political person, there is no trust. There is no opportunity, and there is no comfort in talking to a person like that.

I have always been pretty strong on tradition and heritage and customs. That's important, and that's bestowed on the office of the conflict-of-interest commissioner, as well. What we have to do is refine the act, update the act and modernize the act first. That has to be done so that whoever we are going to appoint -- as elected by the House -- knows the parameters, knows the act, knows what is in the act and can accordingly act like that, as well. Once we have done that, I think it is proper to advertise the position for the new commissioner and to acquire the best person possible.

Some of our colleagues have referred to that, but it is so important that I would like to refer to it again. In front of me in Hansard of August 13, 1996, extrapolated from the big book of Hansard, volume 2, No. 20, at 10 o'clock in the morning, the Premier is quoted as saying:

"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. . . . The second" -- I come to the crux of the matter here -- "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."

But then, should we be surprised? Lots of promises were made in terms of the FRBC. We've had lots of promises made in terms of jobs for youth and in terms of numbers. And what about the promises made for balanced budgets and no deficits? We've had an NDP government for six years now -- six budgets and they're all unbalanced.

I go back to my time in municipal politics -- a council member in Port Alberni in 1980, the mayor of Port Alberni from '81 to '83 and the mayor of Parksville from 1987 to the end of 1996. Lo and behold, under the thumb, under the pressure, under the edict of the provincial government, the Ministry of Municipal Affairs -- I'm glad the minister is here tonight, as well -- we were told, as you know, Mr. Speaker. . . . As a matter of fact, you were the mayor of a local municipality, as well. We've seen one another many a time at the UBCMs.

But we always talked about the fact that this government and the previous government. . . . Under the Municipal Act the municipalities had to come up with a balanced budget. I guess both governments, this one and the previous one. . . . It's so easy to preach, and it is so difficult to practise. We ain't seen a balanced budget from this government yet, and there have been six of them. The deficit has gone up -- almost double in six years. I wasn't allowed to do that in my municipality. I cannot do that in my businesses. I can't even do that in my personal home budget, because we'd be on corporate welfare or social assistance.

So how can we believe what the Premier says and what the government says? How can we believe that? As I've mentioned in the past, so many promises were made; so many contracts were signed; so many hands were shaken, particularly just before the election; and so many pictures were taken on the strength and the promise of fulfilling a promise.

Deputy Speaker: Perhaps while the member is having a drink of water I could bring a caution to the House that we are discussing the motion before us and that relevancy is a major aspect of the standing orders.

P. Reitsma: I was just coming around the corner back to the motion leading up to this.

[ Page 4773 ]

Why have they refused, the government, for one year. . . ? Why? What are they afraid of? How much more wriggle room does this Premier and this government need? Wriggle away from what? Are they afraid? Are there a lot of things to hide? Well, I guess so. My riding is in Nanaimo. Should I, dare I, must I mention bingo? That should be investigated. We have a conflict-of-interest commissioner. It's a perfect opportunity for that person, he or she, to get to the bottom of that.

[8:00]

Ethical conduct. Why is it not extended to senior officials within the requirements of the act? I'm going to give a couple of points in terms of a summary of recommendations given by the now-retired conflict-of-interest commissioner -- a former judge, a person held in extremely high esteem by everyone, a person who is, as I mentioned before, beyond reproach, who is indeed respected by all.

One of his recommendations -- and I think it's worthwhile to mention it -- is: "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." A lot of words, but if you peel off the words you come down to the essence. It comes down to the integrity, the objectivity and, above all, the impartiality of a government. I think this is something that this particular government should take out, blow up, frame and give to each member and senior political staff as a Christmas present. I think everybody will be served well by that.

He also suggested we rename the statute for the office of the commissioner to reflect the standard scope of the act. As I mentioned earlier, his suggestion was to embrace senior officials within requirements of the act and, of course, also the commissioner's term of office. I believe those recommendations are indeed extremely, extremely important.

In terms of conflict of interest, if it extends to senior officials or people that have not been returned, either voluntarily or involuntarily, after the next election, I think it should apply to people like a former Health minister. I think her name is E. Cull. I know lots of people in my riding who would like to write a report for $32 per word. Apparently we got a report -- nine pages, flimsy, thin -- that doesn't say anything. As a matter of fact, my daughter could have written it, and she's in grade 11. I'm certain that political science students up at a couple of the universities could have written it, as well, or no doubt those in communication courses offered in grade 12. I think lots of that money -- almost $70,000, I guess -- could have gone to better purposes.

It's unbelievable that a person who has been rightfully defeated could just end up a couple of months later landing such a rich, rich contract -- not even, as this government tries to pride itself, having gone to tender but simply given to the old category: a clique of friends and insiders. Do I mention Mr. Corrigan? Do I mention Mr. Laxton? Do I mention Connie Munro? All those people with an incredible amount of settlement -- so many -- and it's on the backs of the poor people, those that cannot afford it, those that are struggling and wonder why.

Is it any wonder that so many people have difficulties with the government, with politicians, with bureaucrats? Is it any wonder there is no believability? We cannot trust them. We cannot believe them. And why should we? We've seen -- since the time I've been here, since May of last year -- plenty of evidence as to why we cannot, should not and must not believe this government and this Premier.

Let me talk for just a minute in a side comment. Somebody gave me a nice description of what politicians, bureaucrats and citizens are really about. If you'll give me a moment, hon. Speaker, I'll mention it. Politicians are people who know very little about a great deal and keep knowing less and less about more and more until they know practically nothing about everything. Now, that's a politician. In terms of the bureaucrats, bureaucrats are people who know a great deal about very little and go along knowing more and more about less and less, until they know practically everything about nothing. That's a bureaucrat. Then, of course, you have the poor citizen. Citizens start out knowing everything about everything, but eventually reach a point where they know nothing about anything, due to the advice they receive from politicians and bureaucrats. I thought that was a good one for people to remember and to keep.

Indeed, I go to the former commissioner's letter of March 26. There was yet another request for positive change. He said: ". . .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." I think it's very important to note the sentiments of the recommendation and indeed the sentiments expressed by the former commissioner.

In the act, we and the conflict-of-interest commissioner should have an opportunity to question the appointments. Why are certain appointments made? If it's done for political reasons, I think there should be an escape clause for us in this House opposing it; but knowing that, indeed, we don't have a majority, it is somewhat academic.

I keep on coming back. Why did it take so long? What are they trying to hide? Do they know something that we do not know, that British Columbians do not know? What is there to hide? Why are the NDP against British Columbians having the highest ethical standards for their elected officials?

There was another recommendation by Ted Hughes, as I mentioned earlier. Indeed, it's worthwhile mentioning again: "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 integrity, objectivity and impartiality of government are conserved and enhanced." This is so that in their hearts people know, and they know up front, that when they talk to a senior bureaucrat or when they talk to an elected official, they can 

[ Page 4774 ]

trust that person, because they know those people are subject to the scrutiny of an honest, impartial commissioner of conflict of interest, a commissioner that is known to all of us and has been endorsed by all of us unanimously. So there is no fear of any political reprisals or repercussions. There's no fear in going to the commissioner and submitting to him a concern of either oneself or a family member. Even mayors and council members and school trustees would have an opportunity to go to the conflict-of-interest commissioner without any fear.

As I mentioned, or as has been mentioned earlier, honesty, ethical conduct. . . . Is this now another broken promise by the Premier, who earlier stated that as one of his priorities he wanted to see the act looked at, wanted a new conflict-of-interest commissioner? As I mentioned earlier, we, the Liberal Party, think it is extremely important. No, we are not pious. We are not condescending about that, but I think it's extremely important. That's why we wanted to support the amendment by the member for Peace River South, which I think was a proper amendment, a proper attempt to bring some sense into the proceedings, the debate and, of course, the legislation as well. It should be noted that it was ruled out of order. It's too bad we couldn't even vote on it. But what we wanted -- what we still want -- is parallel: the selection of the new commissioner after the new Conflict of Interest Act has been examined, inquired into and recommendations have been made.

The committee's mandate also includes looking at the process for electing a commissioner, and the duties and the power of the office. Is that another broken promise, or is it just the Premier saying one thing and doing another? Keep your word, Mr. Premier, and keep your promises instead of breaking them. Let's all agree to join together to review the act and agree to change this and indeed hire a new commissioner.

Referring to a letter of July 19, 1996, from the office of the Premier, regarding Ted Hughes resuming the position of acting conflict-of-interest commissioner, the release stated: "An all-party committee of the Legislature has been given responsibility for finding a new commissioner. The committee's mandate also includes looking at the process for selecting a commissioner and the duties and power of the office." That was July 19, 1996. Of course, it's almost a year later, and sadly -- I must say unfortunately -- that promise has been broken again.

The performance of this government, really, is quite unbelievable. When you talk to the people on the street -- go to the coffee shops, talk to them after church, see them on the streets or in various organizations -- they just shake their heads. They cannot believe the amount of broken promises and the spinning that's going on, as well.

Why did the government say that the 1995-96 budget was balanced when it wasn't? Why did they say that the 1996-97 one was balanced when it wasn't? Why did they say that their debt management plan was so good, but indeed they had to cancel it after two years? Why did they say the forest renewal fund would not be raided, when, of course, it has been?

I notice my time is almost gone. However, once again, as I mentioned, I wish I could relate some of the minutes of the meeting on December 10, 1996, when government members forced their will upon the committee at all times. Before I'm going to have to sit down because the red light is coming on, I just want to quote the motion that was moved by the member for Peace River South.

The red light is on, so I will probably do that another time. I've got what -- one or two sentences? That being the case, hon. Speaker, I shall leave it to one or two sentences. I would suggest to the members across there: stand up and speak out. Do what is philosophically right, not what is politically right.

[8:15]

Interjection.

Hon. M. Farnworth: And I'd remind the hon. member that he really should heckle from his own seat.

[The Speaker in the chair.]

It hasn't been a pleasure. In fact, in this debate we have been subjected to, I think, some of the most sanctimonious piety from the opposition that I've heard in quite some time. We have just listened to a lecture from the member for Parksville-Qualicum on ethics and personal standards and integrity, the member whose extracurricular activities include poaching eggs on B.C. ferries, or poaching salmon or poaching halibut or any other number of food dishes.

You know, we listened to the member for Port Moody-Burnaby Mountain make aspersions, demanding that the member for Victoria-Beacon Hill apologize. Apologize for what? React to allegations completely without substance made by members of the opposition? In fact, they're so sure of them that they did not have the courage to send them to the conflict-of-interest commissioner. No, instead they run off to the RCMP, hoping that they're buried somewhere, but just in time to make a story, to slander with impunity -- the way the member for Parksville-Qualicum did during his speech to slander a member of this House who's no longer here, David Mitchell, to cast aspersions on his character and his integrity when he's not here to defend himself.

It's been the record of that opposition over the last number of years to impugn the integrity of people who cannot speak for themselves -- whether they be bureaucrats or members -- and to make unfounded allegations. And now they stand up. . . . They have stymied, fought and blackmailed this government and the committee into how the new conflict-of-interest commissioner should be chosen. They have said, "It doesn't matter who you propose or who we interview," because they participated in an interview process that saw 200 applicants whittled down to ten. They said: "Unless you deal with our demands, we're not prepared to agree with the new conflict-of-interest commissioner."

So this motion says that the committee shall hire a new conflict-of-interest commissioner and then it shall look at the act. You know what?

Interjection.

Hon. M. Farnworth: Oh, I hear the member for West Vancouver-Garibaldi heckling.

You know, hon. Speaker, maybe this is the right point to point out why it's so important that we hire a conflict-of-interest commissioner and why the opposition should follow the advice of the editorial in the Vancouver Sun a number of months ago, which was to stop playing games, to stop trying to stymie the work of the committee and to get on with hiring 

[ Page 4775 ]

a conflict-of-interest commissioner. Maybe we need to look at that, because we've heard all kinds of unfounded allegations or allegations that are later borne out not to be true from the opposition.

But let's look at why we need a conflict-of-interest commissioner. There's a letter from the member for West Vancouver-Capilano that appeared today on the news in response. . . .

Interjection.

Hon. M. Farnworth: The opposition party, hon. member -- the Liberal opposition.

Apparently the member became aware that there was an archaeological investigation on a piece of property in the interior. You know what? The archaeology branch has a concern about an archaeological site, a historic site, perhaps, in British Columbia -- you know, the history of this province. In fact, the member for Burnaby-Edmonds underwent something similar a few years ago when archaeological remains were discovered on his property. An archaeological consultant came in and did the proper investigation, which is the law of this province. But instead, it seems that the member for West Vancouver-Capilano had a problem with that. On June 20 he wrote:

"Dear Mr. Powell:

"I spoke with Milt Wright yesterday. I presume he has told you I am angry. Questions regarding your June 18 letter to my father-in-law" -- this is really interesting.
"1. Land 'reportedly' owned? This is deeded land of which my wife is a one-third owner.
"2. 'Engage an archeological consultant.'? Why should a landowner who is minding his own business do that?
"3. Why is Don Wise the only one copied on your letter? Why not Zirnhelt, Cashore, John Harper? This whole deal was cooked up by Wise."

"I spoke to Wise yesterday. They plan to claim a heritage site from Alexandria south to Sheep Creek along the Fraser, and up Sheep Creek Hill. Absolute nonsense! As I said to him, that's a healthy price tag. Also, five Chilcotin chiefs are in Victoria on Monday, meeting with cabinet. This is on the agenda."

"Milt Wright told me an archeologist looked at the field dealt with in your June 18 letter, so why did Wise send the map to you? This is an outrageous assault on private property. I would appreciate answers a.s.a.p. Note I am c.c. to Zirnhelt, Cashore and Harper. Also, the number for Wise in your letter is out of service. . . ."

I have never seen a letter like this. It is handwritten. This is why we need a conflict-of-interest commissioner -- to know what the member was trying to do, interfering on behalf of his wife in a property transaction, interfering with the laws of this province as they relate to archaeological sites.

Interjections.

Hon. M. Farnworth: I listen to the howling of the opposition. It is such a joy to hear. After listening to their righteous indignation on purity and ethics, and how self-righteous they are, when confronted with handwritten letters that clearly. . . .

Interjections.

Hon. M. Farnworth: Oh, I hear the member for Port Moody-Burnaby Mountain saying that immediate action was taken. Yet I hear the member for West Vancouver-Garibaldi saying: "Nothing wrong was done." Then either justice has been done or justice has been denied, or they cover up on the inside. It's a cover-up.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Excuse me, minister. I'm going to ask you to take your seat. I want to make a point here. What's happening here, quite frankly, is not acceptable. We have a level on both sides that simply is not acceptable. I'm going to ask all members to please observe the basic rules regarding decorum and civility in this chamber, and conduct themselves accordingly. Minister, please resume.

Hon. M. Farnworth: Anyway, back to standing order 69. The reason we are debating this is because we need a conflict-of-interest commissioner to debate allegations, to ensure that all members have someone to turn to, and to make sure that the rules and decorum expected of all members are observed. However, we've been subject to stymying by the opposition. It's time for them to put their own partisan agenda behind them and to recognize that if we are to get a conflict-of-interest commissioner, that should be our priority. If they have concerns around the act, they only have to read the notice of motion which says that they will be addressed -- that the committee is empowered to look at those and to go forward.

Interjection.

Hon. M. Farnworth: The hon. member made some comment that I don't think is in keeping with the image he tries to project. It was this government that brought in the toughest conflict-of-interest guidelines in all of North America. It is this government that has consistently strengthened conflict-of-interest guidelines, and we intend to continue that standard. So I would urge the members opposite to support this motion.

K. Whittred: It's my pleasure to rise and speak to this particular resolution. I noticed with interest the remarks of the minister speaking before to me. He said some things which I wholeheartedly agree with. I agree that the reason we're debating this resolution is that we do need a conflict-of-interest commissioner. I happen to sit on that committee, and we have been at this job for a year now, and as the House knows we have made no progress. So I think it befits the occasion to examine the reasons for that.

First of all, I would like to go back to our mandate. What is the mandate of this committee? Well, actually it's very simple. The mandate of this committee is two things. One would think that a committee of legislators could handle a simple task like that in a year. The mandate is to select a commissioner, and the mandate is to act on the recommendations of the former commissioner that there be a broader definition than conflict of interest and perhaps that the guidelines of this act should extend beyond simply the members of this House.

I think that all members of this House on both sides would agree that those are very necessary criteria. The need for a conflict-of-interest commissioner protects all of us. It protects members on this side of the House, and it protects members on that side of the House by simply providing guidelines that define the kind of conduct that is acceptable from members in this parliament. Secondly, it protects us because it protects the reputation of caucus, and that is true no matter which side of the House we are on. Therefore I think that there are certain fundamentals about this resolution on which both sides of the House can agree.

[ Page 4776 ]

I would go back a little bit to simply try to illustrate to you a couple of things that have, I think, made the job very difficult for the people on the committee. And that is what I will call the terms of reference. First of all, on July 18 of 1996, this House was charged with an almost identical resolution to the one we have today. It stated:

"That this House authorize the Select Standing Committee on Parliamentary Reform, Ethical Conduct, Standing Orders and Private Bills to examine, inquire into and make recommendations on the matter of the Members' Conflict of Interest Act with particular reference to the process of selection of the commissioner and the duties and powers of the office pursuant to Section 10 of the Act."

[8:30]

"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 or Commissioners of Conflict of Interest pursuant to the Committee's Final Report on the matter of the Members' Conflict of Interest Act."

But today we get Resolution 63, and once again we have our third set of rules in less than 11 months. It says:

"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, skipping along -- ". . .the Committee is authorized to examine into and make recommendations on the matter of the Members' Conflict of Interest Act. . . ."

Sometime between August 14 and today, June 24, the terms of reference of this committee changed. My question is: how is a committee to do its work effectively, if they never quite know what the mandate is? The resolution that was given to this House today is not the same resolution that was given less than 11 months ago.

I would like to walk through just a few of the events that have gone on with this committee over the past year. Because, as I've already stated, it is my belief that several good legislators should have been able to accomplish this task, and this task has not been accomplished.

The previous speaker talked about "sanctimonious piety." And he talked about the obstructionism of the members opposite -- he talked about how this committee could not do its job because the opposition members were obstructionist. I take issue with that; I do not think that has been the case.

If we look at a news release by the Premier on July 19, 1996, we see that the Premier said:

"An all-party committee of the Legislature has been given responsibility for finding a new commissioner. The committee's mandate also includes looking at the process for selecting a commissioner, and the duties and powers of the office."

Who has the responsibility for this? Well, the Legislature does; the Legislature appoints the committee. It is an all-party committee made up of five opposition members and six government members, and is chaired by a government member. Yet the speaker previous suggested that it was the opposition who were holding up this particular committee. I suggest that five people will never out-vote six people. That is the reality of that particular committee.

So why has there been no progress? Why has this committee seemingly been frustrated? Why have 12 good members of this House not been able to accomplish two very simple tasks?

On that, I think we have to examine some of the issues that represent the government's attitude toward this particular responsibility. First of all, we have the several resignations of the previous conflict-of-interest commissioner, Mr. Hughes. Mr. Hughes served the office good and well, and when it came time for him to want to leave the position, he resigned. The government abrogated its responsibility by never putting in process the machinery to find a replacement. As a result of that, probably out of the goodness of his heart and his own sense of responsibility, Mr. Hughes continued to serve in an interim capacity. Then we had the debacle of a year ago when the government tried to bypass the process altogether and appointed a person to the position who was clearly not a non-partisan person; this person was clearly a political person. He had been a member of this House. As a result of that, there was -- and quite rightly -- an enormous public outcry, and the government was forced to back off.

I would suggest that this pattern of behaviour -- this pattern of not really taking the commitment very seriously; this pattern of three changes in the mandate of the committee in less than 11 months -- shows less than a serious attitude toward this particular task on the part of the government. I would suggest that this dithering that has gone on month after month shows that the government really doesn't care very much whether or not there is a conflict-of-interest commissioner. I suggest that the changing of the mandate in this resolution that we are debating tonight, as opposed to the wording of the previous two resolutions, indicates that the government is even less interested in reviewing the guidelines of the act itself.

I suggest that the work of this committee -- or the lack of it -- in the past year is a microcosm of what this government has been up to. It shows a government that is disorganized, that does not seem to have its priorities in order and does not have its business at hand. We are now three months into this legislative session, and only this week are we getting the important and contentious legislation. The work of this committee -- or lack of it -- over the past year shows again that this government is really asking us and the public at large to accept their commitment on nothing more than a wing and a prayer. Now they are saying: "If you appoint the commissioner, then we will examine the act."

[ Page 4777 ]

Well, I'm sorry, Mr. Speaker. I haven't been here that long, but I've been here long enough to learn that I'm not going to fall for that particular ruse. Given the history of this government, does anyone really believe that the guidelines of the Conflict of Interest Act will be reviewed after the appointment of a commissioner? I don't, and as I said, I refuse to accept that on a wing and a prayer.

R. Masi: I'm very happy tonight to take part in this debate, and I would like to comment a bit to begin with on the importance of institutions to our society -- the importance of parliament. I'd like to begin with a quote from Mr. Justice Isadore Grotsky: "A legislative assembly comprised of members committed to the principles of honesty and integrity is fundamental to a democratic society as Canadians understand that term."

I think these are the fundamentals we have to get back to when we engage in a debate of this sort. We, as the people of a nation and of a province, depend upon the integrity and the highest level of ethical conduct by our politicians. It is essential that words such as "integrity," "ethics" and "conflict of interest" are not merely trumpeted but are clearly enunciated and consistently practised by elected representatives and the senior officials of government.

All organizations have a need for ethical direction. We can call it a code of conduct, an integrity act, a conflict-of-interest act, or we could just call it guidelines of conduct. However, there is an expectation and a demand today that elected officials exhibit the highest standards of ethical conduct in their approach to public policy.

If we recall our history and look back to the days of John A. Macdonald, and if we think about the railway scandals and about the days when money changed hands and when politics was seen as a means to wealth, then, of course, we had different times. We don't see that today. However, in those days we had a largely uninformed and uneducated public. Expectations were lower for politicians. Communication was slower. News outlets were highly subjective, and we saw then the beginnings of yellow journalism -- which we obviously don't have today, they say. Then later during this period, along came the CCF and along came the NDP, and of course, they changed the world. They became the epitome of sanctimonious self-righteousness, and so here we are today.

[8:45]

"It is my view that a nation is no stronger than its ethical and moral principles, and the ultimate strength of those ethical and moral principles is in the hands of those citizens democratically elected to lead our country, the provinces, the territories and the municipalities. The cornerstone that underpins sound moral and ethical principles and values is the integrity, honour and trustworthiness of our democratically elected officials at all levels of government."

I don't think that's too much to ask, and I think it's time some of us reflect on this.

"Renaming the statute and the office of the commissioner to reflect the extended scope of the act." Maybe we should call it an integrity act; perhaps conflict of interest doesn't extend far enough.

"Embracing senior officials within the requirements of the act." Senior officials, of course, are not immune to the manipulations of politicians.

"Extending some form of conflict-of-interest and ethical conduct legislation to municipal government." This is a very essential thing where we have land deals going on. There's almost more opportunity for corruption at that level than there is at any other level of government. It's time we put teeth and rigour in the responsibility of the office of municipal officials.

The commissioner's term of office -- make it a finite term. Make that into the job description, which should be part of this whole process.

And, of course, there are some miscellaneous amendments that he puts forward, identified in the '93-94 report.

So where are we today? Actually, we're debating an issue here that has no business being debated. I ask: is it beyond the capacity of a group of reasonably intelligent elected members of this Legislature to cover only two key items, to be able to do only two things at once? The two things are (1) to make recommendations on the matter of a conflict-of-interest act, and (2) to select a new commissioner. Even the Premier thought it could be done. In his July 19 statement he said: "The committee's mandate also includes looking at the process for selecting a commissioner and the duties and powers of office." To me that's not a hard thing to do -- to do two things at once in terms of this. I believe we should be looking at it from that perspective.

I guess the question boils down to: why has the NDP stalled this review? Is there some conflict out there that we don't know about? Is there something that we're hiding here? What is there to hide? I guess we have to ask that question.

The public is fed up with game-playing by politicians. They're fed up with subterfuge. They can see through it. They don't appreciate wasted hours, wasted time, disorganization, lack of planning and all the things that we observe in this House. They just want some good old-fashioned, good-playing, honest government, well organized and well planned, like any multimillion-dollar organization should be able to put forward.

Getting back to the issue again, it seems to me that when we look at this motion, we cannot have one part without the other. If I were a candidate for this job, I would withdraw my application, not knowing what the expectations and conditions of employment are. I have never seen the like of any proposal put forward without a job description first.

I know that the Chair of the committee, the member for New Westminster, is a very bright, very intelligent, very capable young man. In fact, he's so capable it's my understanding that he will probably be the next leader of the NDP following their defeat after the next election.

But what I'd like to say is: let's stop the nonsense. Let's live up to our responsibility. Why not support the motion from the member for Peace River South to deal with this in a parallel way? Let's live up, as I said before, to our responsibilities, and let's get on with the job.

[ Page 4778 ]

J. van Dongen: I'm pleased to participate in this debate today on Resolution 63. I'd like to speak against this motion. The government wants to name a conflict-of-interest commissioner now. Then, after that, they want to have the committee review the Conflict of Interest Act.

I want to register my disappointment that we're even considering this motion, particularly when you consider the history of the issue and the actions of the committee. There have been lots of specific comments by members of the committee about the history of the current situation. There have been a number of reports, letters and comments recommending changes in the Conflict of Interest Act.

The committee of this House was asked on July 18, 1996, to review this matter. The terms of reference set out the dual responsibilities of finding a new commissioner -- setting out a process for that, advising on that -- and advising on changes in the act. The committee had a number of meetings. After that we saw a lot of letters between the Chair and the Deputy Chair of the committee, a lot of non-productive activity.

The term of the conflict-of-interest commissioner had expired. Subsequent to that, we saw the unilateral appointment by the Premier of a former member of this House to the position, a totally inappropriate appointment when you consider the history of that member in the opposition party and his relationship with the Leader of the Opposition. The Premier thought he was being clever. In the process of doing so, he showed absolutely no respect for the former conflict-of-interest commissioner, Ted Hughes. This move by the Premier was also indicative of the lack of respect that the Premier had for the position, the conflict-of-interest law and the process of appointing someone of stature and credibility to the position of commissioner.

[T. Stevenson in the chair.]

On July 19, 1996, Mr. Hughes resumed the position of acting conflict-of-interest commissioner. Six months later, when his acting appointment expired, he wrote a letter to the members of the press gallery, indicating that his appointment as acting commissioner ". . .expires at midnight tonight." He took the time to write this letter, I think, because he had lost faith in the process in this Legislature. He had lost faith in the members of the Legislature to deal with this issue.

As we know, he made a number of recommendations. He said in his letter: "It is my belief that our conflict-of-interest legislation has been a success." But he added:

"This is not to say that I leave office with a view that all is well. 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. . .will, in my judgment, result in substantial dividends to the people of this province. Not only will members strive mightily to conduct themselves within the requirements of the act; I believe that an accompanying benefit will be that the unacceptable acrimony of the present will substantially decrease, with the result that the business of the House will be conducted in the orderly and civil manner which British Columbians are entitled to expect of their elected representatives."

"As I am unaware of a response from our elected representatives to my recommendations on this subject, I believe it to be an appropriate matter for me to comment upon to the members of the gallery for your consideration, as you report to the public on the conduct and functioning of the Legislative Assembly."

Clearly a review of the act should be done; a review of the act must be done. I agree with the member for Delta South that the priority should be a review of the act -- an all-encompassing review that looks at all the options and all of the scope of the recommendations that have been made.

Clearly the previous commissioner -- a former judge well respected throughout the legal community and throughout the populace generally -- felt strongly that changes are required. So why does the government resist? Why is the government's attitude so different now when they are in government compared to when they were in opposition?

I'm reminded of the saying that we all know, hear and think about: power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. The people of B.C. have had a clear example of the level of integrity of the Premier. We had a lesson just over a year ago in how far the Premier of this province was prepared to go to secure re-election. We saw the misrepresentation of two budgets by this government. We saw some serious questions being raised in freedom-of-information materials -- things like: the day after the Premier became leader of the NDP, a significant upward revision in revenue projections.

We saw evidence of Mr. Gunton, the Premier's main political fixer, on March 12 -- weeks before the election -- meeting with three senior Ministry of Finance staff in Vancouver for lunch. Mr. Gunton was the Deputy Minister of Environment at the time. There is no doubt that the public's understanding that the budget was balanced influenced their decision in the election. What we are faced with now, however, is a voting public where 75 percent of the people of British Columbia feel that they were lied to about the budget.

So why is the government resisting an initiative that clearly has as its sole purpose higher standards of integrity and ethics? I find it very interesting that a respected member of my community, someone who is totally non-partisan, is convinced that there are still serious problems to be exposed and dealt with with respect to the Nanaimo Commonwealth Holding Society. Obviously there is something wrong, given the length of the investigation that is still going on.

Integrity and ethics are very important fundamental issues. The public has high expectations, and rightly so. In summary, what we are faced with here is a well-respected individual, a former commissioner who has an impeccable reputation and has made recommendations for change in the conflict-of-interest law. We have a government that acknowledges that the act should be reviewed. We have a government that has demonstrated, however, by its actions to date that it has absolutely no intention of actually reviewing and changing the act.

In closing, I will vote against this motion by the government. I think it is critical that the law be properly revised before a new, permanent conflict-of-interest commissioner is named.

[9:00]

[ Page 4779 ]

Interjection.

B. Penner: I'd like to thank the Government House Leader for that encouragement. Certainly I will take heed of her endorsement. . .

An Hon. Member: As she leaves.

B. Penner: . . .as she leaves this Legislature.

For the benefit of those members of this assembly who may have just entered the chamber and for the benefit of those people across British Columbia who may have just tuned in to this debate, I would like to go back over exactly what it is that we are debating here.

We are debating Motion 63, and the stated intent of the motion is as follows:

"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. . . ."

In summary, what this motion would purport to do is authorize the committee, first of all, to find a conflict-of-interest commissioner on a full-time basis and then to look at making changes to the act. Now, what could be wrong with that? I'm sure that people watching in British Columbia are wondering what could possibly be wrong with that.

I'll tell you what's wrong with that. There is one party that has a majority on that committee, and over the past year to year and a half, and indeed longer than that, they have shown that they have no inclination to actually effect those changes to the act which the former conflict-of-interest commissioner has recommended. So basically they're saying in this motion: "Trust us; appoint a new conflict-of-interest commissioner, and then we'll look at changing the act. Trust us. We'll allow our majority members on that committee to actually do what we're saying they will do -- and that is, to make the changes to the Conflict of Interest Act which the government has refused to make over the past number of years."

The committee, over the past year or so that we're talking about, has met. And it's our view that during those meetings they did have the authority to go ahead and make changes to the act. But that committee did not make those changes to the act. Why didn't they? Was there no attempt from any members of that committee to make changes to that act?

Well, in fact, there were efforts from certain members of that committee to make changes to the Conflict of Interest Act that were recommended by the conflict-of-interest commissioner. What happened to those efforts of those certain members? Those efforts were defeated on votes conducted by the committee. How was it that those votes were defeated? How was it that that effort was stymied? The government used its majority of members on that committee to thwart any attempt by opposition members of that committee to bring the statute into line with the recommendations of Ted Hughes, QC, then the conflict-of-interest commissioner.

I just want to go over the number of opportunities that the committee had to do the right thing. They met on Wednesday, July 24; they met on Wednesday, August 7 -- this is 1996, of course -- they met on Wednesday, August 14; they met on Wednesday, October 9; they met on Thursday, October 31; they met on Thursday, November 14; they met on Tuesday, December 10; and, in the new year, they've met numerous times. There's been much correspondence between the Chair of the committee and the member for Okanagan-Penticton, representing the members of the opposition on that committee.

All of the result has been that the committee has not done what it had the authority to do and what I think it had the responsibility to do, and that was to recommend and draft changes to the Conflict of Interest Act to fill in the gaps, to fill in the loopholes, to really toughen up that act the way that the conflict-of-interest commissioner said it should be toughened up.

Now, is it just me making this up -- that that's what the conflict-of-interest commissioner wanted? Well, I don't think so. I have in my possession a letter that other members have referred to certain parts of, earlier this evening during debate. This is a letter of the then conflict-of-interest commissioner, Ted Hughes, QC, dated March 26, 1997. And was it written to a certain private individual, a member of the opposition or a member of government? No. It was a document intended to be made public; it was written to members of the press gallery, to the provincial media.

You have to ask yourself the question: why would the conflict-of-interest commissioner feel that he had to go to the media directly, instead of speaking through one of the Members of the Legislative Assembly? Well, I think, hon. Speaker and hon. members assembled here tonight, that the public would be well served to hear directly from the conflict-of-interest commissioner himself, in the entirety of his letter, as to why he felt he was taking this action, and why he felt it was necessary.

I will now read what the conflict-of-interest commissioner actually said himself, so you don't just have to take my word for it or my version of what it was that he felt he had to do.

"To Members of the Press Gallery:

"Several of you have inquired recently about matters pertaining to this office. It is appropriate and timely that I communicate with you today.

"Since the first of the year I have held an individual meeting with each of the 75 members of the Assembly as required by. . .the Members' Conflict of Interest Act. Today I have filed with the Clerk of the Legislative Assembly, as required by [the same act], a public disclosure statement pertaining to each of the 75 members.

"My appointment as acting commissioner expires at midnight tonight. I wish to express my sincere appreciation to members of the gallery for the courtesy that has been afforded to me over the years and, also, for the respect shown for this important and significant office.

"I will close out my service in this position in one of my favourite capacities that goes with the job -- lecturing this afternoon to political science students at UBC on acceptable and expected ethical standards of those serving in public elected office.

"It is my belief that our conflict-of-interest legislation has been a success. Members have, over time, come to appreciate what is expected of them, and it is my opinion that future instances of infractions will be minimal. That is not to say that I leave office with the view that all is well.

"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. . .will, in my judgment, result in substantial dividends to the people of 

[ Page 4780 ]

this province. Not only will members strive mightily to conduct themselves within the requirements of the act, I believe that an accompanying benefit will be that the unacceptable acrimony of the present will substantially decrease, with the result that the business of the House will be conducted in an orderly and civil manner, which British Columbians are entitled to expect of their elected representatives.

"As I am unaware of a response from our elected representatives to my recommendations on this subject, I believe it to be an appropriate matter for me to comment upon to the members of the gallery, for your consideration as you report to the public on the conduct and functioning of the Legislative Assembly. I am today sending to each member of the Legislature a copy of his or her public disclosure statement along with a note of my thanks for the opportunity to serve since 1990 in this office. I will also enclose to each of them a copy of this memorandum." -- which I have just read.

I'll refer to further documentation to support my case. It's a letter dated February 3, 1997, from the member for Okanagan-Penticton, who, as I've said, represented the opposition on this committee:

"As we have stated several times, the opposition committee members are committed to discharging their responsibilities as established by the Legislative Assembly by means of the July 18, 1996, resolution. B.C. Liberal committee members want to complete the assigned task" -- and here's what we were charged to do -- "to examine, inquire into and make recommendations on the matter of the Members' Conflict of Interest Act."

What happened when those meeting weren't called? Well, votes were held; a motion was put forward to get the committee to move in the proper direction that the conflict-of-interest commissioner, Ted Hughes, wanted the committee to move in.

On Tuesday, December 10, 1996, a specific motion was put forward at the committee hearing, which would have accomplished the goals set out by Ted Hughes, QC. However, the motion was defeated by a vote of six to five, with every single government member that was present voting against the motion that would have complied with the concerns expressed by Ted Hughes, the conflict-of-interest commissioner at that time.

An Hon. Member: Who's the Chair of that committee?

B. Penner: The Chair of that committee, who led the charge in opposition to these changes, is the member for New Westminster. So that's a bit of the history.

The government today is saying with this motion: "Accept our word for it that now, suddenly, we've seen the light and that we will actually and eventually, if you trust us and give us some time and if we ever get around to it, make the changes that Ted Hughes has been calling for very explicitly for a considerable period of time."

This brings up the whole question of trustworthiness. If they say, "Trust us," we have to ask: "Are they worthy of trust?" Trust is not something that is automatically bestowed. In today's society, people are very often skeptical, and quite rightly so. So you have to look at the track record -- whether it's of an individual or a group or an organization. What is the track record? Is this a group of individuals that the public of British Columbia can say: "Yes, we'll place our trust in them, despite the fact that they haven't lived up to their commitment or taken the opportunity to change this act over the last year"?

Look at the government's record in other areas. The people in British Columbia were told repeatedly that the government had balanced the budget not just once but twice, and not just balanced but with a surplus. What did we find out shortly after the election? We found out that all along senior officials in the Ministry of Finance knew that in fact we were heading for a cumulative deficit of $1 billion. Instead of two balanced or surplus budgets, we actually had -- when you put those two budgets together -- a deficit of over $1 billion.

That's part of the track record, but that's not all. There are other things to consider -- that is, the conduct of people in the Legislature. We've had issues come up to do with constituency offices, questionable conduct, offices being closed so that members can assist federal counterparts in election campaigns. That's clearly not something that people on this side of the House or, I think, the majority of British Columbians think is significant enough to justify closing an office.

That's where we get to the whole issue of the expansion of the act that Ted Hughes, the conflict-of-interest commissioner, was calling for. When a Member of the Legislative Assembly from the government side, the MLA for Cowichan-Ladysmith, was asked in this House about closing her constituency office so that she could aid her federal counterpart during an election campaign -- to the detriment of her constituents, who may need to access her office and get hold of her for her help with the government -- she said to this Legislature that she had the explicit approval of the conflict-of-interest commissioner. That is what she told this Legislative Assembly.

Now, if that statement wasn't true, I think members of the public would quite rightly think that there must be some process to discipline that MLA. Is there something on the books? Is there something in the Conflict of Interest Act that disciplines a member of this House for not telling the truth when they get up here and make a statement? I was asked that question by constituents in my riding, and I had to tell them that no, at the present time the Conflict of Interest Act has a gap. It says certain things about acting in your own private interest, but it does not speak to ethical conduct.

So at this juncture, I'd like to refer to an earlier report by the conflict-of-interest commissioner for 1995 to 1996, where he's commenting on this gap in the legislation. He notes that under section 122 of the Criminal Code, there are criminal sanctions for conduct that amounts to a breach of trust. Certainly there are in the history of Canada, sadly, incidents where elected officials have been prosecuted and convicted under section 122 of the Criminal Code for confusing their private interests with the public's trust in such a way that they violated the Criminal Code. However, this is what Mr. Hughes had to say:

"There is. . .a whole range of unethical conduct that can be, and at times has been, participated in by elected officials that has nothing whatever to do with either conflict of interest" -- such as is encompassed in our present act -- "or criminality, and for which no prohibition is anywhere stipulated and no sanctions are in place."

[9:15]

[ Page 4781 ]

made a comment to the House, which was misleading at best, that she had the explicit prior approval of the conflict-of-interest commissioner to close her office to help her federal counterpart in an election campaign, to the detriment of her constituents.

Conflict of interest is a matter of ethics, but not all matters of ethics relate to conflict of interest. Principles of honest and integrity include those pertaining to conflict of interest, but those principles also embrace a spectrum of ethical conduct that is much wider than just a conflict of interest.

"It is my considered opinion that the time has come to fill the void between the distant poles of conflict of interest at one end and criminal conduct at the other end of the spectrum. Let me explain how that could be done and then why that should be done. I can best convey how that should be done by repeating what I said in Ottawa on October 24, 1995. . . ."

". . .what I have come to realize, as I have performed this job over a five-year period, is that conflict of interest is only one aspect -- one component, if you like -- of honour, trust and integrity, and morality in public service. What I believe should occur is for existing legislation, at least in British Columbia, to embrace the wider gamut of honour, trust and integrity in public service in the same way as legislation has embraced the concept of conflict of interest.

"It is my present expectation to file my 1996 annual report early in the new year and to recommend -- as I have alluded to modestly in the past but will do so more forcefully in the next report -- the inclusion in our statute of sections that are now statutory in some other parts of the country. For example, in the conflict-of-interest legislation of the Northwest Territories -- a commission on which my colleague the Hon. Greg Evans and I have the honour to serve -- there is a provision that says that each member shall: 'Perform his or her duties of office and arrange his or her private affairs in such a manner as to maintain public confidence and trust in the integrity, objectivity and impartiality of the member.'

"Then, of course, the federal code, which is administered by federal ethics counsellor Wilson at the request of the Prime Minister, has the opening provision that: '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.' "

So these concepts are not foreign to large organizations in our province. Here in the Legislature it's actually a fairly small organization of members. There are 75 elected representatives in British Columbia. What we've been suggesting is that we move forward with adopting those same kinds of standards that we impose on 7,000 or more lawyers in British Columbia, and impose them on the elected representatives who, after all, do not just practise law but actually make the laws in British Columbia. If we expect those people who practise law to have the highest personal ethics and integrity, we should expect the very same for those who make the laws here in this chamber and who are serving the public in that way.

There are other parts of Canada, as I understand it, that have similar provisions to the ones we are advocating here tonight. I'm referring again to Mr. Hughes's 1995-96 report, at page 10:

"It should be noted that at the time of the passage of its conflict-of-interest legislation, the Saskatchewan Legislature adopted a code of ethical conduct. It is also a very commendable document that includes a commitment by members to act honestly and with integrity in public life."

I don't think that's asking too much. Frankly, based on the track record of this government that says one thing and does another, I think we have to say that we can't just extend our open trust to the government members on that committee and say: "We'll let you get around to this whenever you feel like it." They haven't gotten around to it when they've had the opportunity. That's the track record. I have to register my opposition to this motion, which is essentially a blank cheque to the government, and say I don't trust them. I just don't trust them with that blank cheque.

I've just been reminded of a remark made earlier by the member for Vancouver-Fraserview, who sits on the committee. He's a government member, and when he had an opportunity to vote in favour of a motion last December that would have authorized the committee to go ahead and do a parallel process -- that is, at the same time as finding a new commissioner, to work to fill in this gap in the law that the conflict-of-interest commissioner is worried about -- he voted against it.

He voted against that opportunity, and yet earlier tonight, shortly before I spoke, he was here in the House saying that that's exactly the kind of thing he thinks should happen. That's another example of saying one thing and doing another. Here tonight he's saying that he would support a parallel process, and yet in December 1996, he voted against it.

After looking at all that history and all that track record, I'll conclude by saying that I don't think we can afford to give this government a blank cheque, because we know that at the end of the day, it's the taxpayers of British Columbia who end up paying for it.

V. Anderson: I rise, as others have, to speak not in favour of Motion 63, which we are discussing at this moment, because I am in favour of the original motion that empowered the committee over a year ago to undertake a process they have not fulfilled as yet and which therefore should be continued until it is fulfilled.

That's a process that goes back to the very efficient and effective leadership that was given to us by the Hon. Ted Hughes, QC, when he was for five years the conflict-of-interest commissioner here in British Columbia. He began for us a very important and necessary process so that we might be able to present ourselves as legislators in an honest, fair and ethical way before the people of the province.

[The Speaker in the chair.]

The Hon. Ted Hughes presented his last major report -- 1995-96 -- and in that report he quoted Mr. Justice Isadore 

[ Page 4782 ]

Grotsky about what he considered to be the summation of his five years of work and the essence of what we're talking about this evening: "A Legislative Assembly comprised of members committed to the principles of honesty and integrity is fundamental to a democratic society as Canadians understand that term."

I'll pause for a moment because one of my colleagues wishes to make an introduction.

The Speaker: The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food on. . . ?

Hon. C. Evans: Permission to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

Hon. C. Evans: Thank you, hon. Speaker, and thank you, hon. member, for allowing me to get to my feet in the midst of your speech. I just want to draw members' attention to a fairly historic occasion. Tonight was the very first meeting of British Columbia -- represented by myself -- and the Aboriginal Fisheries Commission council, to engage the government. Meeting in the precincts tonight, and visiting us, are: Byron Louis, Hubert Haldane, Larry Grant, Don Ryan -- I think Don has gone home -- Chris Barnes, Edwin Newman, Pat Alfred, Larry Baird, Arnie Narcisse, Fred Fortier, Christine Hunt -- and I think maybe Kenn McLaren is there somewhere. Will members please make these folks welcome and give them the feeling that they're welcome back here so we can carry on this process in future.

The Speaker: Thank you, minister; and thank you, Vancouver-Langara, for allowing the interruption. Please proceed.

V. Anderson: It's a privilege to have our guests here tonight. It would be too bad to have them here without being welcomed and introduced, and without getting their name officially in Hansard, because it is a very auspicious occasion and a very important one for which they are gathered tonight. We're glad and delighted that they're able to be here. Of course, we sat late all evening just so they would have this opportunity after they had had all of their other work.

I will repeat what I was saying a moment ago about the nature of the assembly that these august persons are visiting this evening, the quote that the hon. Mr. Hughes has used about the Legislative Assembly: "A Legislative Assembly comprised of members committed to the principles of honesty and integrity is fundamental to a democratic society as Canadians understand that term." I think that description is important not only to members of this assembly, but for all of us in our community life. People within our community who have elected us to this Legislature would expect no less.

But unfortunately, we know over the years that legislatures, like other people, are human. And consciously or unconsciously, we tend to make mistakes. We need to be accountable for those mistakes. We need to be reminded periodically of the responsibility that we bear. And because we in the Legislature have authority to make legislation, we have to understand that the privilege of that decision-making, of that ability to use that power -- for lack of a better word -- must be taken very seriously. We are aware that even in the history of our province, there has developed a certain questioning and cynicism about the people of the Legislature.

When Ted Hughes came and spent five years with us, as he reflected back on that, he found there were both good and bad in his view. It was his own view he shared as he spoke in a report in eastern Canada:

"It is my view that a nation is no stronger than its ethical and moral principles. And the ultimate strength of those ethical and moral principles is in the hands of those citizens democratically elected to lead our country, the provinces, the territories and the municipalities. The cornerstone that underpins sound moral and ethical principles and values is the integrity, honour and trustworthiness of our democratically elected officials at all levels of government."

[9:30]

But, as he reviewed his time here, he discovered that whereas he had hoped at the beginning of the five years to help to overcome the cynicism and uncertainty that the public had about legislatures and their ethical conduct, at the end of the five years this had not changed in any substantial way. So he was concerned. What might be done to improve the picture and make it so that in the years to come, there would be a very effective change in the public's view of the things happening within this building? I quote him again: "The fact is that something must be done, because cynicism is an insidious attitude which, if left to grow and fester, will gnaw away and weaken the very structure of democratic society in our form of government."

It's interesting that even as we discuss this very important issue this evening, both sides are trying to say that they're doing what is right and ethically just and moral and most effective in the Legislature. But in the very process of doing it, we are committing some of the unethical things that we are railing against.

Hon. Speaker, I have always found in group and committee work that one of the things I liked to have, and usually didn't have, was the opportunity to meet in a room of mirrors, so that when one person was speaking to another you could see yourself and see and understand what the other person was seeing and hearing.

When Mr. Hughes looked about for a model, to bring into place what he felt was the addition that needed to come to the Conflict of Interest Act, he found a model -- which has already been quoted from in part this evening -- in the federal code of the federal Parliament. It was this provision in their code, again: "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." The recommendation he made was that this federal principle be placed within the British Columbia statute by way of amendments and additions to its provisions.

One of his greatest disappointments in his term of office here, I think, was to bring recommendations -- others and particularly that one -- to the all-party committee responsible for reviewing the act and bringing forth recommendations, and to find that they were unwilling to consider the recommendations or bring them forward. So he repeated those recommendations in his final report, urging that what they 

[ Page 4783 ]

were not willing to do while he was present, they would certainly, he trusted, be willing to do when he left. Indeed, he gave a summary of recommendations -- and I'd like to share the seven of those -- that might be considered by the committee as what he considered to be very effective and meaningful additions to the present act -- the present act being, in his opinion, even as it was, one of the best acts that we have in Canada.

He has highlighted in detail these seven principles, and I'd like to share them. One was: "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." He considered this to be the most significant, I believe, and most important, because if we had that basis there to go along with the others, he felt we would have covered what was a vacuum and a gap in the act as it now exists. He also indicated as a simple outcome of doing that that it would involve renaming the statute and the office of the commissioner to reflect the extended scope of the act.

He also felt that it was very important to look at the senior officials of government who worked closely with the legislative members. I think he believed also, as he looked at the feelings and heard the feelings of the people in our community, that if they were skeptical about legislators, they were equally skeptical about senior officials, many of whom were negatively regarded as political appointees. So he believed that if the standards and ethical requirements that were placed upon legislators were equally placed upon the senior officials within government, then this would give some security and some promise to the people of the community. So he recommended that it should embrace senior officials within the requirements of the act.

He also believed that not only did provincial legislative members have responsibilities to the community but so did federal members. As we've indicated, they are already covered by their own act.

It was his desire and wish that the requirement should be extended also to cover municipal authorities. So he said we should extend some form of conflict-of-interest and ethical-conduct legislation to municipal government. He said that that should be done by the provincial government, which has authority over municipal government, partly because of convenience. Rather than requiring each municipal government to do that independently, it would be simpler for them if the same standard prevailed for all of them.

But it's interesting that he took his concerns even further afield, and probably even many within our Legislature may not realize that, since we have been talking about the possible effect upon ourselves. It was felt that there are many people in the community who take on and are given responsibility which affects directly the lives of millions of other people. He recommended that there be revision of the Society Act, the act under which all of our non-profit societies who are registered operate, to accommodate recommendations made to the government by the Law Reform Commission of British Columbia and also by the consultants retained by government. In previous studies by the Law Reform Commission and by consultants to the government it had been recommended that there are certain ethical standards which should be clear and expected of those who undertake to be directors of non-profit societies, even though they do it as volunteers throughout the province. He had a feeling that right through the whole process of governing -- whether it's in the local community volunteer society, the municipal government, the provincial government or the federal government -- this same process of ethical standards should be clear and available to all.

He also had a couple of other amendments so that there would be a clarification of the commissioner's term of office, which currently is five years. He has suggestions that it might be longer and that it might only be for one term rather than being repeated. Then there are the miscellaneous amendments that he suggested, which come out from his experience with the act.

Hon. Speaker, I think it goes without saying that all members of the Legislature respected very highly the decisions of the Hon. Mr. Hughes. They may not always have agreed with the decision, but they respected the decisions that he made. It's part of that respect that's being, in a sense, discussed here this evening, because we're discussing on one hand the replacement of Mr. Hughes on a permanent basis, and we're discussing, on the other hand, putting into legislation his recommendations.

Perhaps we have two points of view here. The point of view of the opposition is that these recommendations should be enacted immediately and effectively, because they in a sense then set out the terms of reference not only of the activities of the Legislature but also for the commissioner himself or herself, when that person is appointed. So it seems much more effective to have those new standards in place before that person comes into the office, because that person will have enough on his or her platter as they begin this very important undertaking and become aware of the members of the Legislature and of the concerns they have.

But on the other hand, the members of the government seem to say: "Appoint the commissioner first, and perhaps we'll get around to the other activities later." Perhaps normally this may not seem to be a big concern -- whether you do A and B, or B first and then A -- except it has been a whole year, because it was in 1994 that Mr. Hughes first began to make these recommendations. The committee of the Legislature has had full time. If they wished, they could have brought these actions into place and made these recommendations. So there's a concern: if they did not do it last year, how will they do it in the coming year unless they do it first, before they appoint the new commissioner?

[9:45]

"Because of my initial six months in the acting capacity, I have now had the privilege of serving for a full five years. It is my considered opinion that the next occupant of this position ought to have time to become familiar with the responsibilities of office before the busy time of 1996 arrives. In order to allow that to occur, but also to provide ample lead time for selection of the next person to this office, I now submit my resignation, effective three months from today -- namely, January 26, 1996."

[ Page 4784 ]

tonight: "Why has this happened?" We can only reflect that perhaps we have been not acting ethically in our own undertaking to deal with the needs of the ethical commissioner.

There are many people who consider that sloth, inactivity and not acting are as much ethical considerations as false acting. It's difficult to impute motives to other people, but we must ask ourselves why this is allowed to take place. This is a very important consideration; it's one that we must take very seriously. I reflect tonight that we on our side of the House feel the original mandate of this committee can be fulfilled, should be fulfilled and must be fulfilled. Therefore there is no reason to change that mandate, and therefore we cannot accept the motion now before us.

M. Coell: I rise to offer some comments on Motion 63. I also rise in opposition to the motion. This debate tonight is about trust. It's about trust in government, trust in opposition and trust in our senior bureaucrats and officials. We're here tonight to debate how we can restore that trust that the people of British Columbia want to see in government.

For years now, the people of B.C. have told legislators -- whether they're at the federal, provincial or municipal level -- that they want to watch them closely. They want to believe that they are honest, but they want to watch them closely. That comes from a number of mistakes that government members, opposition members and bureaucrats have made that have caused the people of B.C. to lose trust in many of the things we do. So for me, the motion that we're debating here is whether we put trust back in government or whether we try to hide from the people of British Columbia who want so desperately to trust us and want so desperately to know that government works for all. It doesn't just work for the friends of government; it doesn't just work for people who happen to know the inside workings of government; it works for all British Columbians.

The conflict-of-interest guidelines, the commission and Ted Hughes helped to restore that trust in government. It helped to restore the decency that people demanded of government. I for one believe that people who serve in public office are decent, kind and thoughtful individuals. I think we all strive to serve our constituents in an honest and open manner, no matter whether you're a member of the government or the opposition. But some people over the years have destroyed that trust in government -- I say to you, a very few, a small number. But what they did was destroy the trust in all of us. And what's more, they destroyed the trust in government. People are demanding that we as their elected officials restore that trust and restore it in such a way that they can oversee the workings of government and be assured that government is working for them.

Ted Hughes, I believe, is a fine and honourable British Columbian. His presence in this Legislature, his presence as the conflict-of-interest commissioner, went a long way to helping the people of British Columbia have faith in us. But not just for what he did. It was his ability to tell the people in an unbiased and independent way that, yes, your public officials are doing a good job; yes, they're honest; and yes, government is working for you.

I think that if we pass this motion tonight, Motion 63, we will be turning back the clock on the good work that he did and the good work that the opposition and the government did in jointly appointing him and in helping him to make recommendations. When he left us, as my colleague from Vancouver-Langara said, he left some recommendations that furthered the work that he had done. It would have put more trust in government. It would have put government, in the eyes of the people, in a positive and forthright manner.

If this motion passes tonight, people are going to wonder what the government is trying to hide. Now, if the government isn't trying to hide anything, they don't and shouldn't have a problem with the amendment put forward by the member for Peace River South. The member put forward a recommendation that guarantees the certainty of both objectives of this motion. They would work in tandem -- we would have a review of the act; we would implement the recommendations that Ted Hughes made to this assembly on his resignation -- and help to return trust. This motion is all about trust.

As the member for Saanich North and the Islands, I want the people in my riding to know that they can trust me in my actions. But I also want them to know that there is a great big, heavy hand over myself that will watch to make sure that I'm representing them in a fair, open and honest manner. This motion makes sure that that doesn't happen; this motion, if it passes, will let the government hide. What it does is turn back the clock on the good work that has been done. I don't think the government wants to do that, but I also don't understand why the government doesn't want to review the act and strengthen it. Why wouldn't members want to see a stronger, reworked act that would allow us the ability to know that the citizens of British Columbia can trust us?

Reviewing this act will do a number of things besides restoring trust. It will allow members of the opposition to know that they can hold the government accountable, and it will allow the government to know that the opposition must act in an honest and forthright manner. I don't see a problem with government dealing with the review of this act and the appointment of the commissioner at one time. The commissioner, to me, is one of the most important people that we can appoint to oversee this Legislature. That commissioner must have a legislative mandate, an act, that is all-encompassing, an act that we cannot hide behind and the government cannot hide behind.

I think this government, whether it realizes it or not, by moving this motion tonight, is sowing the seeds of its own destruction. People are going to realize that they have something to hide. By not strengthening the act, by not doing that first, you are sending a message to the citizens of British Columbia that, yes, the government does not wish to be open, and yes, the government does not want to continue to restore trust.

Mr. Speaker, I believe you've had speakers tonight who have expressed similar comments to mine, and I thank you for the opportunity of sharing some of my thoughts on this motion as it stands before us.

The Speaker: Seeing no further speakers, the member for Shuswap.

G. Abbott: That concludes the comments from the opposition side of the House with respect to this motion.

[ Page 4785 ]

[10:00]

Motion 63 approved on the following division:

YEAS -- 37
Evans	Zirnhelt	McGregor
Boone	Hammell	Streifel
Pullinger	Farnworth	Kwan
Waddell	Calendino	Stevenson
Bowbrick	Goodacre	Giesbrecht
Walsh	Kasper	Orcherton
Hartley	Priddy	Petter
Miller	Dosanjh	MacPhail
Cashore	Ramsey	Brewin
Sihota	Randall	Sawicki
Lali	Doyle	Gillespie
Robertson	Smallwood	Janssen
	G. Wilson
NAYS -- 31
Dalton	Gingell	Campbell
Farrell-Collins	Plant	Sanders
Stephens	de Jong	Coell
Anderson	Nebbeling	Whittred
van Dongen	Thorpe	Penner
J. Wilson	Reitsma	Hansen
C. Clark	Symons	Hawkins
Abbott	Jarvis	Weisbeck
Chong	Coleman	Nettleton
Masi	McKinnon	Krueger
	Barisoff

Hon. J. MacPhail: I have some good news. We will be sitting tomorrow, and I know all the members look forward to it. It is with regret -- absolute regret -- that I move that the House do now adjourn.

Hon. J. MacPhail moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 10:05 p.m.

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