In a career spanning six decades, Ted Hughes gained renown as a formidable ethics commissioner and overseer of prominent public inquiries across Western sa国际传媒. In this excerpt from his biography of Hughes, Craig McInnes traces the path by which Hughes laid the groundwork for his future role while serving as sa国际传媒鈥檚 deputy attorney general from 1980-1990, a particularly a wild period in sa国际传媒 politics. Hughes at age 92.
Ted Hughes became a national figure in 1991 as the man who brought down a premier. William (Bill) Vander Zalm realized he had to resign after Hughes issued his finding that the premier used his public office for personal gain. Vander Zalm鈥檚 conclusion was based partly on the sometimes bizarre facts of the case brought out in Hughes鈥� report, but it was also based on the reputation of the author.
There was no point in attacking Hughes. He was unassailable.
Hughes had been a judge for 18 years when he arrived in Victoria in 1980, but taking down a premier required more than just a comprehensive knowledge of the law and sound judgment. To tackle Vander Zalm, Hughes needed the stature he had earned while putting out political fires in the provincial government. By the 1990s, he had emerged in the public eye in British Columbia as the go-to guy for pulling the government out of ethical and legal quagmires.
Crisis management is part of the daily fare of deputy ministers. For Hughes it was no different. Over the previous decade he had navigated an increasingly difficult series of challenges, often exacerbated by the natural state of tension between the government and its opposition in the legislature. Along the way, he slowly added to his own skills and reputation. That reputation gave him more freedom to operate independently, to the point that by the time Vander Zalm asked him to look into the allegations he faced, Hughes had the stature, the judgment and the skills to pull it off.
I think that鈥檚 how I got the opportunities,鈥� says Hughes. 鈥淧eople would know that I would say it as it was and there鈥檇 be no element of bias that would come into it. It would be what should be done in the circumstances. I鈥檇 say it with forcefulness and without fear of what the consequences may be 鈥� if, in my judgment, it was the right thing.鈥�
In one of the many letters of appreciation Ted received when he resigned in 1995 as sa国际传媒鈥檚 first conflict-of-interest commissioner for the legislature, a Victoria lawyer, John D. Waddell, QC, wrote: 鈥淚 have often thought that it must be satisfying to be considered the most credible man in British Columbia. You simply can鈥檛 gain that reputation without earning it completely.鈥�
Hughes鈥� reputation was earned, but not without help. He had Vander Zalm to thank for much of what he had achieved to that point. While the job of deputy attorney general has always been difficult, Vander Zalm鈥檚 style of governing, the supporting cast of characters he chose to surround him and the string of crises into which they stumbled created the challenges that propelled Hughes into an increasingly public role.
Part of what Hughes brought to the Vander Zalm decision was the work that he and others had done previously on the thorny issue of conflict of interest. For Hughes, that work began under Bill Bennett, and it multiplied in the fertile political environment produced by Vander Zalm鈥檚 leadership after he took over as premier in 1986.
Conflict of interest was a serious problem for governments in the 1980s. There was no legal definition of a conflict beyond the prohibition in the Constitution Act against ministers of the Crown doing business directly with a government in which they served, and the breach-of-trust provisions in the Criminal Code.
Allegations of conflict of interest were usually made by opposition members who suggested that cabinet ministers were using their powers to feather their own nests rather than strictly looking after the public interest. The opposition politicians would seize on any apparent conflict and demand the resignation of whatever minister was involved. On a couple of occasions, ministers threatened to sue their accusers for libel, although none of those cases went to court. There was no politically neutral way to assess such allegations. The reaction from government was essentially a political assessment; dumping ministers regardless of the merits of the case against them was often easier than dealing with the public fallout of having the allegations linger.
Two ministers resigned over conflict allegations while Hughes was deputy attorney general and Bennett was premier. Forests minister Tom Waterland and health minister Stephen Rogers both stepped aside over shares they owned in a forestry company. Waterland resigned over what was an obvious conflict with his role as forests minister. Bennett said Rogers was not in conflict, but Hughes was asked to look into whether he had done anything illegal by failing to report that he had control over the forestry shares. Rogers subsequently resigned after pleading guilty to a violation of the Financial Disclosure Act.
Both men were later brought back into cabinet in different roles. In one of his first conflict inquiries, Hughes was asked to look into an allegation against Waterland that came up after he left government and took a job as president of the Mining Association of British Columbia. Waterland was in discussions with the mining association about the job while he was still in cabinet as minister of agriculture. During that time, he attended a cabinet meeting at which a break in electricity rates for a member of the mining association was approved. Waterland had previously been on record as supporting such a benefit, but Hughes accepted his assurance that while he was present at the meeting, he had not taken part in the discussion about electricity rates after he was in negotiations with the mining association. That meant he had not been in an actual conflict of interest.
Nonetheless, in a finding that became part of the basis for later legislation, Hughes said there was an appearance of conflict that was problematic. 鈥淚n future instances the appearance of conflict, as well as conflict in fact, is to be avoided if today鈥檚 high level of public confidence in the honour and integrity of those who offer themselves for the very high and prestigious position of elected office is to be maintained,鈥� he wrote in the opinion he gave to attorney general Brian Smith in January 1987.
By then, Vander Zalm had taken over as premier.
Excerpted from The Mighty Hughes: From Prairie Lawyer to Western sa国际传媒鈥檚 Moral Compass, 漏 Craig McInnes, Heritage House Publishing, 2017
