We would like to see clause 104 deleted. Voting against it, I guess, is how we'd accomplish that.
Clause 104 essentially creates a new clause that allows.... Previously, an officer or employee of a municipality mentioned in the letters patent was prevented from being appointed to the board. Now there's an attempt, with this particular clause, to allow them to be appointed if they're not found to be in a conflict of interest.
I'm not sure who this is for or why this is being proposed. I think there are plenty of candidates who could be appointed and who do not, through their employment, have a built-in conflict of interest. You're an employee of, let's say, the District of North Vancouver, and you're on the board of the Port of Vancouver. You're paid by one. You're supposed to act in the interest of the other. I don't know how you can separate out and choose which issues that are raised result in a conflict of interest.
It's cleaner to have it removed, to not include this new provision to allow municipal...and members of the legislature, etc., to get around this provision. We think it's a clause that actually creates more conflicts of interest, as opposed to removing them.
I don't know why it's in there. We couldn't really get an answer to that. It seems to me that it's creating more conflict of interests than it is preventing. We just think the clause should be negatived.