A motion by City of Powell River mayor Ron Woznow to adopt a revised definition of conflict of interest has failed.
At the May 22 city council meeting, Woznow brought forward a motion that stated: whereas the Supreme Court of Canada has defined conflict of interest as what a reasonable person would deem a conflict of interest, as opposed to whether the individual who is being questioned believe they are in conflict, therefore, be it resolved that the City of Powell River adopt the Supreme Court of Canada’s definition of conflict of interest.
Woznow said that since the last civic election, there has been much discussion about conflict of interest as it relates to elected officials.
“At present, there is uncertainty as to what could lead to a costly challenge in the courts if there was an issue of significance and we had not adhered to what the supreme court and provincial government have suggested; it could tie everything up for a long time,” said Woznow. “I noted that in October 2024, the BC public service stated to its staff, that if you have a personal or financial interest that would cause a reasonable person to question your neutrality, you might be in a real or perceived or potential conflict of interest.”
Woznow said he believed in the long run, it would simplify discussions on issues and assure the public that the city is adhering to approaches other federal and provincial agencies have taken.
Councillor Jim Palm said he supports clarity in terms of public process. He said the motion gives residents a level of comfort if anyone was questioned.
Councillor George Doubt said he had looked for definitions by the Supreme Court of Canada for what conflict of interest is and found the Conflict of Interest Act.
“What that says is different from what the mayor has quoted in his resolution,” said Doubt.
He added that under the Conflict of Interest Act, it states in the purpose of the act that a public officeholder is in a conflict of interest when he or she exercises an official power, duty or function that provides an opportunity to further his or her private interest, or those of his or her relatives or friends, to improperly further another person’s interest.
“That’s the definition the Supreme Court of Canada has,” said Doubt.
He said city council works under the Community Charter of British Columbia, which has a conflict of interest regulation. He said it is copied in the city’s code of conduct bylaw.
“We have a definition already,” said Doubt. “If anyone believes we have a conflict of interest happening on council, they have an opportunity to get together under the legislation and make a complaint. Individuals can do that and council can do that. We don’t need another definition, and frankly, that would confuse things, more than cause clarity.”
Councillor Rob Southcott said he appreciated the mayor’s intentions to simplify council’s business. He said council has acquired a code of conduct that probably addresses concerns in the community.
“We have that tool,” said Southcott. “I am not aware of any other local governments that have changed their language and I respect that our bylaws and all of our governance stems from the Community Charter. Before I support this, I would need to see a legal opinion, which I have deep reservations about.”
Councillor Earl Almeida said he agreed with Doubt and Southcott and doesn’t believe the definition adds further clarity.
“In fact, in some ways, it might add more confusion,” said Almeida. “I appreciate the effort in this case but I don’t believe this is the way to get to it.”
When it came time to vote, Woznow and Palm supported the motion, with the rest of council opposed, so the motion was defeated.
Last year, Meta censored Canadian news from its feeds, so we built our own social platform: syrupsocial.com – a newsfeed powered by Canadian journalists. Join the Peak on Syrup for the latest news from the Sunshine Coast and beyond, and add the Peak's email list for the top headlines right in your inbox Monday to Friday.
