[ Page 4523 ]

The House met at 2:06 p.m.

Hon. C. McGregor: It's my pleasure to introduce today an international visitor who's with us from Basel, Switzerland: Mr. Chris Perret. He's the uncle of my administrative assistant, Rachel Bourne.

J. Weisgerber: In the gallery behind me is my good friend David Marley. David worked closely with Bill Bennett's government here in British Columbia and with Bob Stanfield's government in Ottawa. He was most recently campaign chairman for Reform B.C. Would you please give him a warm welcome.

P. Reitsma: In the gallery behind me today, we have visiting 26 grade 8 students and seven adults and teachers from Oceanside Middle School in my constituency. They're touring the Legislature, of course. Would the House please make them welcome.

G. Campbell: I would like to introduce members from the Saskatchewan Liberal caucus in the Legislature, who are visiting with us in British Columbia today: June Draude, the MLA for Kelvington-Wadena, is the caucus chair; Bob Bjornerud, MLA for Saltcoats and deputy Whip; Harvey McLane, MLA for Arm River and caucus Whip; and Rod Gantefoer, MLA for Melfort-Tisdale and House Leader. I'd ask our House to make representatives of their House welcome.

Hon. J. Pullinger: I have the delightful opportunity today to introduce two young men to the House. One is M. Romain Viennois, who is here from Paris, France. He's a student of political science who was here on an exchange earlier and has come back to British Columbia to be here during the federal election and to visit this province. The other is Mr. Dan McHardie, who is a student of Canadian studies and journalism at Carleton University in Ottawa. He's from my riding; he's studying in Ottawa and is back here today. I had a wonderful lunch with both of them, and I would ask the House to make them very welcome indeed.

R. Thorpe: It's with pleasure today that I introduce two constituents from Penticton visiting the precincts, Marianne and Brent Monks. Would the House please make them feel welcome.

Hon. C. Evans: Joining us in the gallery today, and joining us earlier on a farm with 4-H young people, are Sheila Tung, the president of 4-H; Colleen Lepik, executive director; and Ron Sera, from my ministry. They joined the Premier, the Minister of Finance and myself this morning with gumboots on, in honour of 4-H kids. They're here, and these are wonderful people. Please give them a hand.

Introduction of Bills

BUILDING OFFICIALS' ASSOCIATION ACT

Hon. M. Farnworth: I am pleased to present the Building Officials' Association Act. This bill will give new recognition to a group of professionals who are as important to the building industry and to public safety as are architects or engineers.

Bill 39 will provide statutory recognition to the Building Officials' Association of British Columbia, which represents 90 percent of local government building officials in the province. The association will now be authorized to govern its members, set qualifications for membership, conduct training and education, and set standards of conduct. These professionals, once approved, will have the protected right to use the titles "registered building official" and "registered building inspector."

The Building Officials' Association Act recognizes the work done every day by a group of highly skilled professionals and will contribute, in a substantial way, to public confidence in the building industry.

Bill 39 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

TRAFFIC SAFETY STATUTES
AMENDMENT ACT, 1997

Hon. A. Petter: Last Thursday, joined by a wide range of stakeholders, I had the pleasure of announcing that B.C. will be undertaking the most aggressive road safety program ever, aimed at making B.C. roads safer, reducing auto theft and fraud, and keeping auto insurance rates affordable.

Today I am pleased to present the legislation to implement this road safety program. This program will help to reduce accidents, save lives and keep insurance premiums affordable. We are committed to making bad drivers public enemy number one and saving lives priority number one in this province.

The concerns this package. . . .

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members, this is first reading.

Hon. A. Petter: Hon. Speaker, I would hope the members opposite would be interested in a serious initiative to undertake a challenge to bad driving, because the problems of bad driving should be well known to every member of this House. British Columbia has the highest accident rate in the country -- 25 percent higher than the national average. Every year almost 500 British Columbians die in motor vehicle accidents and almost 50,000 are injured. We're taking action to reduce this carnage, and that's why we're making road safety a priority.

This legislation is targeted at those whose driving behaviour must be changed for their own safety and for the safety of others through the implementation of a crackdown on impaired driving, mandatory retraining for bad drivers and tougher driving tests. We also plan to ensure that new drivers have proper skills to be safe drivers with a proposed graduated licensing system. So that fines and penalty points 

[ Page 4524 ]

mirror more closely the severity of speeding offences, the faster one drives, the more one pays will also be a principle within this legislation.

The legislation also envisages the creation of a new road safety commissioner to monitor the success and progress of road safety programs and to provide advice to government on an ongoing basis.

The legislation also takes aim at auto crime and fraud, which are. . . .

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, members. Minister, can I ask you to wrap it up very quickly and move the motion. Your time has indeed expired.

Hon. A. Petter: The time has only expired because of the heckling across the way, hon. Speaker.

The legislation sees major improvements in the insurance system, and I would hope it is an initiative that will enjoy the support of all members of this House in terms of its focus on saving lives and keeping auto insurance premiums reasonable.

[2:15]

MOTOR VEHICLE
AMENDMENT ACT (No. 2), 1997

Hon. L. Boone: On November 18, 1996, phase 1 of the Motor Vehicle-ICBC merger was successfully completed with the transfer to ICBC of several important functions. We remain committed to the merger and introduce for first reading a bill that will complete phase 2 of the merger. Bill 40 assigns to ICBC direct authority for programs now with the MVB, including vehicle standards and inspections, commercial transport regulations, weigh scales, vehicle weights and dimensions, staff support for motor carrier licensing and regulation, and enforcement of commercial transport vehicle standards.

Our objective has been to place two organizations with similar commitments to road safety and customer service under a single administrative umbrella. We remain confident that this merger will be a positive and enduring benefit to British Columbia drivers.

Bill 40 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Oral Questions

FOREST SECTOR JOBS

My question is to the Minister of Forests. Is the minister going to stand up for the communities he represents and demand that the Premier meet his target and his promise of 21,000 additional and new direct forest industry jobs? Or is he simply going to sit back and let the publicity spin doctors take over once again?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: I don't know where the opposition get their statistics. But some days they quote unemployment statistics and other days they use other statistics. The commitment to the communities of British Columbia to create 21,000 more jobs stands, hon. Speaker.

G. Campbell: So that the Minister of Forests knows, we got our statistics from both Stats Canada and the directors and the board of Forest Renewal B.C. The fact is that in the last year we have lost 5,500 jobs in the forest sector. The promise that was made to families and forest communities was 21,000 new, direct forest industry jobs. We now hear from the Vancouver Sun that the spin doctors have been at work, and they have reduced the promise by half.

My question to the Minister of Forests is: does he understand that these 5,500 jobs that have been lost are actually families that have lost their jobs? Does he understand that people in forest-dependent communities expect this government and this Minister of Forests to keep their word and not reduce the number of jobs that was promised but deliver the number of new jobs that was promised? [Applause.]

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: It sounds to me like the opposition wants to get in on a good story.

That opposition over there, the Environment critic in that opposition, will not stand up for British Columbians and join the campaign against Greenpeace -- which is the real threat to jobs in this province.

Interjections.

The Speaker: For a quieter question-and-answer, the Leader of the Opposition.

G. Campbell: I'll try to be very quiet, hon. Speaker. The problem is that the families that have lost their jobs in forest communities don't feel like we should be quiet. In fact, what they want is for us to stand up for them, and we will do that. A promise was made for 21,000 new, direct jobs in the forest industry. People understand that that has an impact on their families. Those communities have said consistently. . . . And we have stood by their side, consistently pointing out that your job-killing taxes and your job-killing regulations have driven jobs from this province. We want to make sure we bring jobs back to the province.

The question to the Minister of Forests is: will he join us and demand that the Premier live up to his commitment of 21,000 new, direct forest industry jobs and that he replace the 5,500 jobs that he's driven from the province in the last year?

Hon. G. Clark: I'm delighted that the opposition is finally asking questions about jobs in the forest industry. I look forward to the Leader of the Opposition turning around, talking to his Environment critic and saying that if people 

[ Page 4525 ]

want to boycott British Columbia, he will stand with the government of British Columbia against those people who threaten jobs in forestry communities. I look forward to Thursday, when we announce the most ambitious package of job creation in the history of Canada. I want to see the Liberals then come onside with the government to create jobs in forestry communities and stand up, for once, for resource communities in this province.

G. Campbell: My question is to the Premier. I've been in Port Alice, and I've seen what his government's policies have done to the families in Port Alice. I was in Golden, and I saw what your government's policies did to the families in Golden. I was in Terrace, and I saw what your government's policies have done to the people of Terrace. The job-killing tax policies of this government have driven 5,500 jobs from the province of British Columbia. The regulatory overload has been identified by this side of the House for the last three years, and this government has ignored it.

So my question is to the Premier: will he live up, for a change, to his promise to make sure that there are 21,000 new, direct forest industry jobs, as well as the 5,000 jobs that you've driven from the province in the last year? And will you join us in making sure that those jobs are there for people in British Columbia?

Hon. G. Clark: In all the time I've been here, the Liberals have not had one single idea to create jobs in the forestry industry, except to cut taxes for big companies. That's what they want. They want to give corporations a tax break every time they stand up. That's their position.

What we've said repeatedly, and what you'll see on Thursday, is: yes, we're prepared to work with business. Yes, we're even prepared to look at all the costs of doing business, including government costs, but only if they make a commitment to resource communities to create jobs, thousands of jobs in British Columbia. That's using government on behalf of people, not using government on behalf of big corporations in the forest sector.

I want to see where they stand on Greenpeace. I want to see where they stand on working with industry to create jobs, instead of siding with them every time, attacking the government even when we're working to create jobs in forestry communities. I look forward to hearing them on Thursday and Friday and next week, coming onside for a change.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Perhaps members on both sides could lower the temperature somewhat, so we can hear both questions and answers.

G. Campbell: The Premier, unfortunately, has never bothered to listen to this side of the House. When we pointed out to the government that their Forest Practices Code was going to create huge additional costs and drive jobs from the province, the government ignored us. When we pointed out to the NDP that Forest Renewal B.C. should include in its provisions community decision-making, the government ignored us and decided to create a bureaucracy instead.

So my question to the Premier once again is: will he live up to his promise of only a year ago and create 21,000 new, direct forest industry jobs, and will he replace the 5,500 jobs that his job-killing taxes and his job-killing regulations have removed from the province in the last year alone?

Hon. G. Clark: Stay tuned is all I say, hon. members. Stay tuned for Thursday.

I've met with mayors of resource communities up and down British Columbia, and they're onside with the government to create jobs. I've met with forestry communities, with unions, with people up and down British Columbia. They're on side to fight the boycott and the misinformation campaign of Greenpeace. It's about time the Liberal Party came onside with the people for a change, instead of big corporations.

LEGAL SERVICES FUNDING
FOR POWELL RIVER

Hon. G. Clark: I make no apology whatsoever for getting out of the Legislature and talking to the people that matter, that build this province up and down B.C., hon. members.

We've spent too much time debating with naysayers from the other side of the House and not enough time building this province, getting out of Victoria and talking to people in Prince George and Quesnel and Williams Lake. That's where we're going, and that's where we should be, to announce jobs in the forests -- working with the mayors, working with the unions, working with the companies in resource communities that provide the riches so that we can come in here and manage a government that's decent and compassionate, hon. members. That's what government is all about. It's not coming in here talking to bureaucrats in Victoria or these naysayers over there; it's about going out and talking to real people.

G. Wilson: This is the chamber in which new initiatives should be announced. This is the chamber which all of us are elected to represent the people of British Columbia in -- not on some highly glitzy media tour that the Premier has decided to undertake.

A question to the Attorney General: if the Premier doesn't care about the fact that legal services to the poor are about to be cut off and is prepared instead to spend money on a glitzy media tour which will not materially change the job creation strategy, will the Attorney General today undertake to go to the Premier and ask that those moneys be put so that the people of Powell River who are poor can have access to legal services?

[ Page 4526 ]

[2:30]

The Legal Services Society board is an independent board; it functions on its own. We give it the budget; we tell it not to accumulate deficits. It's important that we live within the fiscal constraints. I recognize that there may be problems. I sent a directive to the board to make sure, with any reductions that they make, that they not cut the field offices or community law offices across this province -- and particularly poverty law. I'm watching that very carefully and am looking at it.

SOCIAL ASSISTANCE DEDUCTION
FOR THALIDOMIDE VICTIM

My question is for the Minister of Human Resources. Will the minister explain to Ms. Martel and her four children why he has decided to cut her income in half?

Hon. D. Streifel: I thank the member for bringing the situation forward. I would offer to bring forward information for the member. I'll take the question on notice, and if you'd like to bring this forward, hon. member, we would be pleased to have a look at it.

The Speaker: The bell terminates question period.

Hon. L. Boone: I rise today to make a profuse and abject apology to the member for Peace River South. Last Thursday I accused him wrongly -- as you know, hon. Speaker -- of not checking his in-basket. He said to me, "Did you check your out-basket?" and in fact I didn't. I found that the notice that I said he hadn't found hadn't gone out to him, so I would like this House to accept my profuse apologies to the member for ever, ever questioning him.

Tabling Documents

Orders of the Day

In Committee A, I call Committee of Supply. For the information of members, we'll be debating the estimates of the Ministry of Human Resources. In this chamber, I call Committee of Supply. For the information of members, we'll be debating the estimates of the Ministry of Finance.

The House in Committee of Supply B; G. Brewin in the chair.

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF FINANCE AND
CORPORATE RELATIONS AND
MINISTRY RESPONSIBLE FOR
INTERGOVERNMENTAL RELATIONS
(continued)

R. Thorpe: I have a question with respect to the Raiwind B.C. Hydro project and the IPC share offering. It was my understanding that the B.C. Securities Commission was undertaking an investigation into this offering. Could the minister please advise me of the status of that investigation?

Hon. A. Petter: Yes, I understand that's correct; the investigation is ongoing. I can say in advance that for that reason it would obviously be inappropriate for me to comment on it, other than to confirm that there has been an investigation, which is ongoing.

R. Thorpe: Could the minister advise me of how long that investigation has been underway?

Hon. A. Petter: It was in the period immediately following some of the disclosures that gave rise to public concerns, so I'd say it's been since sometime in the February-March window of last year.

R. Thorpe: It's fair to say, then, that at this point in time the investigation has been going on for over a year. I'm just wondering if the minister could answer this: how much money has been spent on this investigation to date?

Hon. A. Petter: I'm not able to provide the member with a specific number at this time. I can try to do so, but it would be easier, presumably, to do so once the investigation concludes. I'm informed that it's not a huge amount. It's certainly less than $100,000.

R. Thorpe: Could the minister say how many inside staff or outside contracted staff are currently working on this investigation?

Hon. A. Petter: It would be one or two inside staff.

R. Thorpe: In looking at the number of different investigations that the Securities Commission may have ongoing at a time, would it be fair to conclude, based on the length of time and the apparently limited financial and human resources, that this particular investigation does not appear to be on the fast track?

Hon. A. Petter: No, I don't think that would be fair to conclude at all. If the member had been listening earlier on in the debate, he'd know that financial resources are not a major consideration right now, because the commission is in a significant surplus position.

As I understand it, the commission's work has been taking place in relation to the investigation undertaken by Mr. Smith, so the investigation's timing has been affected by some of that work. As a result, it has taken the time it has, but it 

[ Page 4527 ]

certainly has not been delayed in any way other than by the circumstances necessitated by the requirements of an orderly and effective investigation.

R. Thorpe: We know that the financial resources of this government are never a top priority and have never been a real concern. I'm pleased that the minister was able to confirm that for me today.

With respect to this particular case, it appears that there have been some other cases that the Securities Commission has undertaken in the past, where the supply of financial and human resources seems to be endless. Would it be fair for British Columbians to expect from this Securities Commission some similar degree of commitment to resolution and to applying some of the financial resources -- which they have in excess, according to the minister -- and more human resources? British Columbians deserve to have this investigation completed and the results made public. Could we get that commitment from the minister?

Hon. A. Petter: I'm not sure what the member is insinuating, hon. Chair, but I want to say right here and now that I have complete and absolute confidence in the Securities Commission and the way it operates -- independent of government interference. If the member is suggesting otherwise, I would ask him to reconsider his thoughts. I believe in the commission and in its capacity to carry out investigations in an orderly and effective way. The commission has done that in this case. I am assured that it is proceeding as rapidly as it can, given the requirements of the investigation.

I would ask the member to consider more carefully the insinuation in his comments before he makes them in respect of this commission or of independent bodies.

R. Thorpe: I did not insinuate anything. I cannot help it if the minister has mistaken any comments that I made. If I offended him, I apologize for that.

Interjection.

R. Thorpe: I unreservedly apologize.

British Columbians want results; they don't want more gobbledegook. Hon. Chair, no one is talking about the independence of this organization; all we're talking about is applying the resources that they apparently have to bring resolution to cases that are outstanding.

Hon. A. Petter: I don't want to prolong this, because frankly, I think it's embarrassing for the member and for the House.

Suffice it to say, the commission has adequate resources. I think that has been established. Despite the member's attempt to make a cheap shot out of that, that is demonstrably the case. The commission is the master of those resources and will employ those resources to carry out its investigations in a way that I am confident is consistent with the policy mandate it has been given. The government does not interfere in respect of that duty, nor would it be appropriate for us to do so.

I'm not quite sure how the member is directing this comment -- whether he's directing it to me or to the commission. But in either case, I would hope that he would simply abandon this line of inquiry, because as I say, I have absolute confidence, and I would hope all members of this House do, in the ability and commitment of this commission to carry out its functions in a way that is beyond reproach.

[2:45]

The Premier appointed a gentleman to replace the fired chair of B.C. Hydro and then asked that person to also, at the same time that he was the chair of B.C. Hydro and reported to the minister, conduct an investigation into the very minister who then became Premier. So for the minister to be a little sensitive on this issue. . . . I guess I understand the reason for it. I think one should also understand the reasons for the opposition to be diligent in its lines of questioning.

Hon. Chair, I want to ask a number of questions with regard to this investigation. I think it is one of several. There is at least one RCMP investigation ongoing. There was a half-hearted whitewash done by B.C. Hydro into this investigation, which we'll examine at greater length in the estimates for B.C. Hydro. There is also this investigation, the Securities Commission investigation, which I think is one that could prove to be fairly interesting as time goes by. We've yet to find out whether or not the Law Society is doing a fourth investigation into this issue, but I suspect that somewhere down the line that may happen. Of course, that will be up to the Law Society to determine.

I want to ask the minister a couple of general questions. First of all, this type of investigation. . . . I know it's a relatively complex issue as to how it was managed. Some of the documents in the offering. . . . I understand there was a search warrant executed a little over a week ago on one of the gentlemen, Richard Coglon, where the RCMP felt that there was additional information.

I'm wondering how closely the Securities Commission is working with the RCMP. This is perhaps just a policy question the minister can answer for me: how closely do they work on these issues? Is it together on the same investigation? Does each conduct their investigation separately, in tandem, or would they do them one after the other once the RCMP have determined their information?

Hon. A. Petter: Let me just say at the outset that I certainly do not begrudge the opposition the opportunity to ask probing questions concerning the diligence of government. But when probing questions become insinuation, that's when I draw the line on behalf of an independent commission that does not have the capacity in this House to answer for itself. I see it as my role to make sure that the independence of that commission is protected -- even from insinuations from opposition members.

Having said that, the search warrant, which I understand the member is referring to, is in respect of a completely separate matter, not this investigation. The investigation being undertaken by the commission is independent of any RCMP investigation. That is not to say that in the course of investigation there might not have been contact between the RCMP and commission members. There may well have been; I do 

[ Page 4528 ]

not know that. The investigation of the commission is independent and separate from any RCMP investigation that may be undertaken into the same matter.

G. Farrell-Collins: I thank the minister for his answer. I do want to come back to his opening comments, though. It's not beyond the ability of this House for the minister to defer to a deputy minister to answer questions. Certainly there is a possibility that if a minister chooses, he can always bring a motion before this House to allow anyone to testify on his behalf.

I think perhaps he should be a little more reticent to jump to the defence and, by his own comments, raise an issue which was not raised by the member opposite. I think the inferences are taking place from the minister, not from the member. If that's the way the minister feels, then that's something he will have to deal with himself.

I'm intrigued to note that these two investigations are separate, because I believe that certainly there will be information that the RCMP glean from their investigation that may in fact be vital to any sort of investigation to be done by the Securities Commission. And I would expect vice versa -- that the opposite could happen, also.

The issue here is how the two investigations can take place separately without an exchange of information and hope to each arrive on their own at a complete and total conclusion and understanding. I'm more than pleased to be enlightened by the minister or his staff as to how that might work.

I know the search warrant that was executed a little over a week ago. . . . If one reads the search warrant -- the allegations that are in it and the statements of the RCMP -- I think it would be exactly the type of information that the Securities Commission would want and, quite frankly, need in order to conduct its investigation and reach a conclusion of fact.

Hon. A. Petter: A number of points are raised by the member's comments. I won't prolong the initial exchange except to say that I don't share the member's view, obviously.

First of all, the search warrant -- if it's the one that we over here understand it to be -- refers to a different matter, but the information certainly will be coming to the commission and will be available to the commission. Frankly, I'm not comfortable speaking on the specifics of an investigation that is ongoing. There may well be exchanges of information; it would not be unusual for there to be exchanges of information amongst investigators. But that does not detract from the point that I was making earlier; namely, the investigations are different investigations operating under different mandates and therefore information may be exchanged. That does not undermine the separateness or independence of the two investigatory processes.

G. Farrell-Collins: I was hoping that's how it would work, and I'm glad that the minister was able to clarify that after a couple of questions. I do believe it's integral to both. . . . Quite frankly, it probably will end up with four investigations, and the information will be shared between the various parties to whatever extent the law allows that to happen. I'm glad to hear that that in fact is the case with regard to the two investigations that we were specifically talking about here.

In looking at the parallels between the two systems and the way these investigations are conducted. . . . When the RCMP are doing an investigation and it reaches a point where they need to recommend charges, or if it goes beyond a certain point, there's a provision under the law, I believe, for the Assistant Deputy Attorney General to appoint a special prosecutor. The minister obviously knows more about this than I do, and he can correct me if I'm wrong.

I'm wondering if there is a parallel process with regard to the Securities Commission, in the event that someone involved in the political process becomes the subject of an expanded investigation that parallels one that may be going on with the RCMP with regard to criminal activity.

Hon. A. Petter: There is no analogous process, and it would be surprising, frankly, if there were, given that the commission does operate as an independent commission, a quasi-judicial-type body, a tribunal.

But let me make a distinction that may help clarify things for the member. During the course of an investigation by the Securities Commission, should matters of a criminal nature get raised, those would obviously be referred through the securities fraud office to the RCMP and would then become the subject of the process that the member has outlined -- with the Attorney General ministry and the prosecutorial practices that pertain to that then applying.

The securities regulatory component takes place under the purview of the Securities Commission, and the Securities Commission certainly has the discretion concerning who would be appointed. I assume, in any case, that they would make sure that those who are involved as counsel or in any investigation would be people who would not be seen as having any conflict, or appearance of conflict of interest, just as a matter of course. But there's no sort of similar process, except insofar as the securities process can lead into the criminal process and then it triggers the prosecutorial discretions and practices that the member is alluding to.

G. Farrell-Collins: The minister raises an interesting process whereby, if the Securities Commission come across something in the process of their investigation that they believe may or may not be a violation of the criminal law, they can pass that on to the RCMP for investigation. I raise the next question because of the comment that the minister made a few minutes ago -- that the search warrant that was executed a little over a week ago was a different matter, and not something the Securities Commission was involved with. My understanding and my. . . .

Interjection.

G. Farrell-Collins: Okay, that's fine -- the minister says: "from the substantive matter."

Let me ask the first of two questions; I'll ask the first one and sit down. Is there a parallel process whereby, if in their investigations the RCMP come across information that may not in fact be criminal but is, in their opinion, a potential violation of the securities regulations. . . . Would they advise the Securities Commission of that?

Hon. A. Petter: Just to clarify the first point that was implicit in the member's comment, the search warrant, if it's the one we think it is, does refer to a securities matter but not to the Raiwind project. In that sense it's different substantively from the issues that are being investigated by the Securities Commission pursuant to the line of questioning that the members have been conducting.

[ Page 4529 ]

Secondly, yes. If, during the course of an RCMP investigation, it were to come to the attention of RCMP officers that conduct might have violated in some ways the provisions of the Securities Act so as to engage the powers of the Securities Commission, then it would not be unusual practice or out of keeping for the RCMP to refer those matters over to the Securities Commission, for it to then proceed to exercise its jurisdiction.

G. Farrell-Collins: Maybe for clarification here, because I do want to ask a few more questions. . . . While I'm not going to get into the specifics of this case, I do think it's important that we are at least talking about the same thing when we discuss the policy and the process by which this will take place.

The warrant I am referring to is one that was issued with regard to a finder's fee on Dusty Mac and Richard Coglon. I wonder if we're dealing with that warrant. Or is there another one that I'm unaware of at this point?

Hon. A. Petter: That is the one that I'm informed we thought the member was referring to, and apparently it is not specifically related to the IPC matter.

[3:00]

Hon. A. Petter: Yes, there is a separate investigation with respect to that matter.

G. Farrell-Collins: I am trying to think of how I can ask this question, because I want it to be both inclusive and exclusive at the same time. Can the minister tell me how many investigations are ongoing by the Securities Commission -- that's the exclusive part -- that may be associated in any way, however distant, with the IPC Raiwind project? That's the inclusive part of the question.

Hon. A. Petter: I must say I'm very reluctant at the best of times to discuss investigations that are underway. I have commented on two because, in the case of one, it's been public knowledge; in the case of the other, there's been a search warrant, so it's evident there is an investigation. But I am certainly not prepared to discuss the other investigatory activities that may or may not be undertaken or that are being pursued at this time by the commission. I don't think it would be appropriate for me to do so.

G. Farrell-Collins: I may want to come back to that in a minute, but for now I'd like to just think about it for a second.

The other question I have with regard to these investigations, or possible investigations, is perhaps one more of just jurisdiction. I understand that the Securities Commission's job is within the boundaries of British Columbia. I wonder to what extent -- and perhaps the minister or his staff can enlighten me -- the commission has the ability to investigate actions taken by people residing here, when the action is taking place outside of British Columbia.

Hon. A. Petter: In the absence of some connection with British Columbia in terms of the transaction, the commission does not have the power to investigate on its own the matters in question. However, as I understand it, the commission does have the power to assist a regulator outside the jurisdiction of the province where there's an investigation going on and someone is located within the province who could assist in the resolution of that investigation in another jurisdiction. The commission does have the power to undertake an investigation, on behalf of the other regulatory jurisdiction, to assist the other jurisdiction in resolving the matter.

G. Farrell-Collins: A general question, then, to the minister: can he tell me if the British Columbia Securities Commission has been asked. . . ? How many times since, say, January or February 1996 -- just to pick a date -- has the Securities Commission been requested by other jurisdictions to participate in investigations that are taking place in their jurisdiction?

Hon. A. Petter: During fiscal '96-97 the compliance and enforcement division received 140 written requests for assistance from other jurisdictions. So this is not an uncommon practice.

G. Farrell-Collins: Can you tell me if any of those requests came from Pakistan?

Hon. A. Petter: A two-part answer. First of all, I don't know the answer; we don't have the information to hand, in any event. But let me just say, again, that given that specific information of this kind could relate to the conduct of current investigations that may still be ongoing in other jurisdictions, I wouldn't be inclined to offer up an answer even if I had one at this stage. If the member wants that kind of information, we could certainly try to provide it to him and therefore make sure that in the process of doing so, we're not compromising any investigations being undertaken by other jurisdictions.

G. Farrell-Collins: I would be pleased to receive that information and more than willing to give my assurances that I would be willing to comply with any requirements of the other jurisdiction, or this jurisdiction, in ensuring that no investigation is harmed. Believe me, I want to get to the bottom of this as fast as, or probably even faster than, the government. I'd be glad to make that undertaking.

I do want to ask a couple of just very quick, general questions, and then I think I'm about finished on this. The investigation that's ongoing in regard to the Raiwind project, as the minister said, probably started in the February-to-March period of 1996. So it's about a year and four months into that investigation. Can the minister tell me, in general terms, the range of the lengths of some of these investigations?

I know that's probably a difficult question to answer, but in one of this complexity and this type, is it something that we can anticipate will take five years or ten months or two years? I don't think it should compromise the investigation itself to get some sort of estimate of when the minister or the commission feels that that investigation may be completed.

Hon. A. Petter: I'm informed that this length -- that is to say, the period that's taken place to date -- is not an unusual period of time for an investigation of this kind. Investigations can take up to, or more than, two years. I'm also informed that it's not expected that this investigation will take many more months before it is complete.

G. Farrell-Collins: Can the minister tell us if the commission usually find other jurisdictions cooperative in helping them in their investigations? Or is it sometimes very difficult? 

[ Page 4530 ]

I expect that you can put places like the Cayman Islands, where they are probably far less than cooperative, in one category. But are other jurisdictions, other nations, that actually have or supposedly have some sort of regulations or laws? Are they generally fairly forthcoming with information in order to assist us when we request their help on issues like this?

Hon. A. Petter: I guess there are two dimensions to this. First, it is true that some jurisdictions are extremely cooperative and some are less so. Then there are some jurisdictions that may be extremely cooperative but for which the constraints and rules around which they operate limit the amount of information they're prepared to share -- notwithstanding their cooperation within those limits. So it's the case that some jurisdictions are less helpful in investigations, either due to a lack of cooperation or due to the restrictions that they place upon the disclosure of information to inquiries from outside their jurisdiction.

G. Farrell-Collins: I guess that means there are those places that are really polite when they answer the phone but won't tell you anything, and then there are those that may not be quite so polite but give you more information. Can the minister tell me where he would fit Pakistan in those categories, in our interactions with them over the years?

Hon. A. Petter: I'm happy to say that I'm not able to determine that. I say I'm happy to say it because I don't want to provoke an international incident by starting to grade companies on this scale. But the fact is that I don't have a clear understanding of where Pakistan, as a jurisdiction, would fit on the scale.

G. Farrell-Collins: Somehow I doubt that the Pakistani foreign ministry is reading the Blues with bated breath, wondering what offensive things you may or may not be saying about them -- but I get the point.

At the time when the Hydro estimates were up last year, we had a fairly detailed and fairly specific debate with the Minister of Employment and Investment and minister responsible for B.C. Hydro with regard to this issue. We also had a very detailed and specific discussion about the prospectus that had been offered in Pakistan in order to raise the shares for the Pakistani portion of the investors in the Raiwind project, and there were some concerns raised at that time.

I'm not familiar with securities legislation or regulation in Pakistan -- whether there is any, what it is, what form it takes. But one of the issues that came up upon looking at the prospectus was that. . . . I believe it was a director. There was someone who was a director or a firm that was a director, and the auditor. . . . I'm trying to think what all. . . . This name popped up in four different places in the prospectus. I think there was also the accountant for the offering.

I do need to ask a specific question, and I don't believe it will be compromising the investigation to do so; but I'll take the minister's lead if he feels it is, because he obviously has more information than I do. I'm wondering specifically whether or not the Securities Commission, in its investigation here in British Columbia, is going to look at the entire scope of this project in order to get an understanding of how it worked. I don't see how one can do an investigation and findings of fact here in British Columbia until you have a good sense of how the entire project was structured -- the players involved, how it was set up. So I will ask a specific question of the minister as to whether or not, in this investigation -- and I don't think I'm doing anything other than what I'm going to do in the Hydro estimates, so I'll ask the question -- the Securities Commission has in its mandate the ability to go to Pakistan and look into the players, the people involved, who may well in fact be involved here. There are certain specific individuals that obviously we have some concerns about.

Hon. A. Petter: I think the member, towards the end of the question, turned it into a general question regarding the mandate of the commission. That's helpful, because I think it does enable me to answer at a more general level.

In terms of what this investigation will in fact look at, I really will not comment. I'll leave that for the. . . . That will become apparent with the investigation. In general terms, as I understand it, the mandate of the commission, as I said earlier, forces it to look at activities that occur within this jurisdiction. To gain an understanding of those activities, it may be desirable, or indeed necessary in certain circumstances, to get a fuller appreciation of how the British Columbia transaction fits within a broader range of transactions, for there to be an understanding of those fuller transactions. In that case, certainly, the commission has the power and ability to take whatever steps it deems necessary in order to gain that fuller understanding of those transactions, subject, of course, to the investigatory powers that it has at its disposal and the resources of its budget -- which we've determined was not a major problem.

I say that in a fairly abstract way because, frankly, I have not inquired, and I do not know what the scope has been in this specific investigation -- nor would it be appropriate for me to do so. But in general terms, I think that describes the way in which the commission could and might conduct its business in circumstances of the kind the member has described.

J. Wilson: I ask leave of the House to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

J. Wilson: Seated in the gallery today are 45 grade 7 students from Bouchie Lake Elementary School in my riding of Cariboo North. They are accompanied by their teacher, Mr. Winthrope, and several parents. Would the House please join me in making them welcome and wishing them a good visit to the city of Victoria.

G. Farrell-Collins: I quite apologize to my colleague. He handed me a note ten minutes ago, and I've been ignoring it all along. I'm sorry about that.

F. Gingell: That's just the way you treat the rest of us.

G. Farrell-Collins: I haven't seen any notes from the Finance critic, but I'll await them.

My question, though, to the minister. The reason I raise this is an important reason. Mr. Smith, in his investigation, was unable to penetrate the veil that extends somewhere over the Pacific between here and Pakistan. He was unable to interview some very key players under oath; he was unable, even during his time in Pakistan, it seems, to get a clear understanding of the structure of the deal, the way it was set up, the players involved -- something I found remarkable, quite frankly, given that we have had an individual on the board of SEPCOL throughout its entirety. It seems to me that it 

[ Page 4531 ]

has been remarkably and, if I may say so, surprisingly difficult for that information to come forward. As I said, we'll discuss that at a later date with a different minister.

[T. Stevenson in the chair.]

The reason I am asking this is because if Mr. Smith is unable, through his abilities and his powers -- however limited or expanded they may be -- to determine issues of fact with regard to this case, then I want to know what opportunities there are for other investigations that may be ongoing to do the same. That's the reason for the line of questioning with regard to our ability to deal successfully with the people in Pakistan. That was the reason for me to ask the question of the minister: what ability do we have to get information. Quite frankly, how cooperative has the Pakistani government been with regard to this investigation? Have we even asked them? Because certainly Mr. Smith. . . . It appeared in his parallel investigation, if you will, that he reached a point where there was information beyond which he could not get. He could not secure information from Pakistan. He could not subpoena individuals there, obviously, and there was no way for him to get the entire picture. At least that's what his report says.

[3:15]

Hon. A. Petter: First, let me say that the investigations undertaken by the securities commissioner are focused on Securities Act violations in the province and are therefore perhaps more tightly constrained. They are nonetheless important but are more tightly constrained than the more broad-ranging inquiry Mr. Smith has been engaged in. I've tried hard to tread the line of providing helpful information without -- I'll use a constitutional term -- trenching into areas of the specific investigation.

All I will say is what I've said before, and that is that should the commission deem it desirable in the course of its investigation to make inquiries about matters outside the province, it can do so. Obviously its ability to do so is conditioned upon the cooperation of other jurisdictions. The extent to which that has been attempted in this case, and the extent to which that cooperation has been provided -- the means that have been used in this case -- I don't know, partly because I don't think it would be appropriate for me to know. For that reason, during the course of the investigation, I don't think it would be appropriate for members of the House to know.

The fact of the matter is that this investigation is somewhat different in the sense that it would be focused on Securities Act violations in the province. I don't think the member's inquiries are inappropriate, but I think they'd be more appropriately raised when this investigation is concluded and we all have an opportunity to evaluate what has or has not been unearthed in the course of that investigation, and what impediments have or have not presented themselves in the course of the investigation.

G. Farrell-Collins: The minister can rest assured that we'll do that when the time comes. I'm sure you can count on me.

I did ask a very specific question at the end of that last round of questions, and perhaps the minister didn't quite hear it. It was: are there any treaties, agreements or memorandums of understanding that set out guidelines back and forth between British Columbia and Pakistan or Canada and Pakistan with regard to what sort of obligations we have to them and what obligations they have to us?

Hon. A. Petter: I'm sorry. I didn't answer that part of the question. The answer is that there is no specific agreement that we're aware of with respect to Pakistan, and the commission therefore would use its offices in the way it would with any other country that it doesn't have a specific agreement for exchange of information with.

F. Gingell: That's the end of the five-minute continuation that we intended in order to complete the Securities Commission. I understand that our jointly agreed agenda next brings in the office of the chief investment officer.

The report that we have available to us to help us through this estimates debate is the annual report of the investments branch for April 1, 1995, to March 31, 1996. This is, of course, the last report that will be issued under the auspices of its present organization as we now move into a new area in the management of the investments that the province is responsible for.

If I may, I would like to first offer my congratulations to the minister on this new organization. I am supportive of it. I think it's the right way to go. It more clearly defines the roles and responsibilities and allows for more appropriate measurement. This report refers to an additional 94 new accounts during the year 1995-96. Is that 94 new pension funds, 94 new customers or a mix of both?

Hon. A. Petter: One of the pleasures of estimates debate is that it gives me a chance to introduce to the House some of the very capable staff I have to assist me and to assist government throughout the year. I feel blessed in this ministry with both the depth and breadth of staff. That applies generally to those who participated to date and who will continue to participate in this estimates process and support me in other ways. So let me start by introducing Doug Pearce, the chief investment officer, who has joined me in this part of the estimates debate.

The amounts referred to are relatively small amounts in the '94 accounts, I'm told -- mostly sinking funds, some WCB pensions and some other small accounts. But they are generally small sinking fund accounts.

F. Gingell: When you mention WCB funds. . . .

Interjection.

[ Page 4532 ]

F. Gingell: Oh, WCB pension funds. I have to remind myself that the Workers Compensation Board is one of the organizations that this investment officer doesn't have administration of. Is that correct?

Hon. A. Petter: No. In fact, as I understand it, most of the fixed income is done by WCB. The WCB equity funds are invested through the chief investment office -- not all, but most.

F. Gingell: Just to recap that, the Workers Compensation Board fund -- which, from memory, is in the region of $3 billion -- is partially administered, invested and managed by this office, and there is a certain portion that is managed outside this office.

Hon. A. Petter: Yes. I'm informed that the total is closer to $5 billion, of which about $2 billion is invested through the office of the chief investment officer and about $3 billion is invested directly by WCB.

F. Gingell: So the funds that are invested outside the office of the chief investment officer are in equities. I wonder if the minister has any knowledge of the rate of return they earned on their investment portfolio in '95-96 in relation to the rates of return that were earned through the office of the chief investment officer. If you have numbers for '97, that would be helpful, too.

Hon. A. Petter: In fact, it's the other way around. It's the equities that are invested through provincial treasury. I said earlier that it was most, not all, but I wish to correct myself. I'm informed that all of the equities are invested through provincial treasury. It's the fixed income that's invested by WCB. I don't have detailed information on the comparative rates of return. I'd be happy to arrange for that information to be provided to the member, but in general the rates of return -- as I understand it -- are very close as between the two investment portfolios.

F. Gingell: No, I don't need those numbers. It would just have been an immediate measure of the effectiveness and success of the investment office.

The assets under administration at the end of '96 were almost $39 billion. Again, we have this problem that here we are in June. . . . I would imagine that it's relatively straightforward for this particular office to be able to get the annual report out. You can almost do it on April 2, in this modern day and age. I wonder what the status of the report is. If it is ready and we just haven't got it, perhaps it would be useful for us to receive it.

Hon. A. Petter: I understand that while the office obviously tries to get the report out as quickly as possible, they like to get the performance numbers and the March 31 numbers, and that can take six to eight weeks. So we may be as much as, but hopefully no more than, a month away from the report being completed.

[3:30]

We were at $39 billion. How much is the value of funds under administration one year later?

Hon. A. Petter: About $4 billion more than that; so it would be $43 billion.

F. Gingell: I have a suspicion that the rates of return for 1996-97 may be in the estimates in those annualized returns, therefore the year-end is September 30, 1996. Were the returns for the year ended March 31, 1997, similar to those shown on page 157?

Hon. A. Petter: I'm informed that we're continuing to exceed our benchmarks. The equity markets have been particularly strong, so the overall rate of return is a little higher than was the case last year.

F. Gingell: I am trying to follow through on the issue of what the costs are. From the information that is available, the indication is that the cost to run the office is roughly $4 million a year, which is reported in various stuff as 8.7 basis points. I don't know whether I've got my decimals in the wrong place, but I make that 0.87 basis points. So I'm wondering if there is a whole series of costs related to fees paid to investment advisers, in the region of $32 million or so, that are charged directly to the funds.

Hon. A. Petter: Yes, I think the member is correct. It is the additional amount, and the reason that 8.7 is correct is that management fees are taken out of the pool and therefore allocated according to the user-pay kind of principle. The rate of return is net of those management fees, but they nevertheless show up in the report as a true reflection of the cost.

F. Gingell: When we talk about management fees, these are truly management fees -- i.e., they are managed trusts in which the decisions are made by the managers and advice is given to the office of the chief investment officer only about what has been done, what has happened. They're not seeking the authority. Does that follow from a set of circumstances whereby the chief investment officer purely and simply makes the decision about how much money to allocate to each particular fund manager?

Hon. A. Petter: As I understand the question, the answer is yes. These are fees paid in respect of the management activities that the fund manager undertakes. The decisions concerning investment are undertaken by those fund managers, and investment allocation decisions are then made, based upon an assessment of the fund manager's performance in past years and the like.

F. Gingell: The equity stocks in total at the end of 1996 were split, roughly 50 percent to indexed stocks and 50 percent to active investments, with slightly different breakdowns between Canadian, U.S. and other internationals. First of all, does that approximate breakdown of 50 percent indexed and 50 percent active still apply at this point?

Hon. A. Petter: The apportionment will be a little higher towards indexed than not. And it's a little different in respect of the different geographic areas in which investment takes place. So within Canada it's 75 percent indexed, 25 percent in other. I understand that 80 percent of investments are within Canada. The U.S. would be 60 percent indexed, and non-North American, 40 percent indexed. So it varies. But overall, it would mean that the component that is indexed would be somewhat in excess of 50 percent -- I'm guessing, but probably somewhat in excess of 60 percent.

F. Gingell: Can I take it from this that for those that are in indexed funds, you don't pay any management fee? You may 

[ Page 4533 ]

pay a fee to the organization that does the investing for you, but the investment decisions themselves are done, in effect, automatically by the makeup of the index.

Hon. A. Petter: No, the management activity associated with the indexed investments is done in-house, and therefore there are no fees associated with it. The costs are borne within the budget of the chief investment officer.

F. Gingell: I might as well get to the question that I know you are waiting for. Does the way you operate the indexed funds allow you the flexibility to make the decisions to leave out from the index a particular stock -- obviously, such as the Bre-X?

Hon. A. Petter: It's obviously the prescience of the afternoon that I think I see where the member is going with his blunt questioning. But the answer is no. The advantage of using an index to guide investments is so that the kind of selection and discretion that might otherwise be required -- that would entail associated management and fees -- is not required. So, as I understand it, there is not within the indexed investments the discretion to remove selectively a particular stock or stocks.

F. Gingell: My line of questioning on this wasn't really focused to come through to the Bre-X issue. As soon as Bre-X happened, I phoned the office of the chief investment officer, who happened to be in Toronto. I was hoping he wasn't going there by helicopter, and I showed due concern for his health.

But I understand that the total loss suffered by all funds was in the region of $78 million. Perhaps you could confirm that.

Hon. A. Petter: Approximately $78 million -- correct.

F. Gingell: That was in a period of time when the stock market went up substantially, and you more than recovered.

Hon. A. Petter: The member and I obviously received the same briefing. That's certainly my recollection -- that the profit realized from increases in stock market values in that same period more than offset the $75 million lost, by some considerable amount.

F. Gingell: We've been going through a long bull market. I'm not a security expert in any way, shape or form. But, you know, what goes around comes around. We have been in a long-term bull market. Is there any point that the chief investment officer has felt it appropriate to move from the equity market into the bond market or the money markets?

Hon. A. Petter: Well, the investment portfolio is well diversified right now, with about 40 percent targeted at debt and 60 percent in equity. At this present time there isn't the intention to shift back, away from equity. But certainly when bulls turn to bears, I'm sure the investment officer and his staff would act strategically. We have an investment policy that is opportunistic in the best sense of the word. As opportunities exist more on the bond side than on the equity side, I'm sure that shifting in that direction would and could take place. But at this time the division seems to be one that is doing well for the province.

F. Gingell: In no way would I want to be seen as offering advice. One of the advantages, of course, of being in opposition is that you can ask a question like that. If the bears do come in and chase out the bulls, I'm a genius. If they don't, no one remembers, anyway. So you get the wind in both directions.

In the report for '95-96, there was an expression of need for the office to improve the management of the real estate and mortgage programs. Perhaps the minister could advise the committee what the problems were and what action has been taken to correct it.

[3:45]

F. Gingell: Do the province's investments in the real estate market take the form of owning title of properties? Or is it of corporations that are in the real estate development business? Well, no, I presume not, because that would be shown as equities. Is it in the form of trusts? Or have you gone into partnership with B.C. Buildings Corporation?

Hon. A. Petter: For the most part, hon. Chair, the province would be on title; it would have direct ownership of property and would be on title -- and no, there is no partnership with BCBC of which I'm aware.

F. Gingell: So these are properties that you own without partners; they're not tenants in common. Does the office, then, actively manage them?

Hon. A. Petter: There are portfolio managers who would do the actual hands-on management of the properties. In respect of joint ownership, the great preponderance of properties are held solely by the province, and that is reflected on the title. There may be some cases in which there is joint ownership of certain substantial properties with another pension plan or the like, but that's the exception rather than the rule.

F. Gingell: Are all the properties clear title, or are any of them subject to mortgage? Just following along from that, are any of the mortgages within the mortgage funds that you may be holding for other clients of the office?

Hon. A. Petter: It's complicated. To simplify it, yes, first of all, there are some mortgages that are held on some of the real estate. In terms of clear title, there is a maximum 25 percent debt that can be secured against title. I understand, though, that it's generally significantly less than that. I hope the member isn't going to ask me if any title is held in fee tail as opposed to fee simple, because that goes back way too. . . . No, never mind. It's okay; it's an anachronism.

F. Gingell: So in each building, there is at least 75 percent equity. That seems to be the other way around; I would have thought it would have been at least 25 percent equity.

Hon. A. Petter: No, that's correct; it's at least 75 percent equity.

[ Page 4534 ]

F. Gingell: During the year ended March 31, 1996, the province acquired in its investment fund roughly $340 million worth of buildings. How much more was acquired in the year 1996-97? What is the investment in real estate at this point?

Hon. A. Petter: We're looking for the answer. This may provide the same answer through another means. If it doesn't, then I will try to get the answer. The total real estate holdings, right now, are $1.4 billion.

F. Gingell: That gives me the answer that I need. That's a lot of real estate. Can the minister identify any significant buildings that the province happens to own? It's much more interesting to think about the actual bricks and mortar than the financial numbers -- as much of a shock as you might find that to be.

Hon. A. Petter: About 34 percent of the holdings are in B.C.; the remainder are in Canada. There are no holdings outside of Canada. We could go on giving all sorts of descriptions. But, interestingly, if the member visits Toronto, drop by 145 King Street. I understand that it's owned by the province of British Columbia through these investments.

F. Gingell: So I take it, Mr. Minister, that you're giving us an assurance that there are no condominiums in Palm Springs amongst this portfolio.

If you've got $300 million or $400 million in British Columbia, are there any major buildings in Victoria, Vancouver, Kamloops or Vernon in your portfolio?

Hon. A. Petter: The holding includes industrial property, multifamily residential and office space. An example of an office property that is owned within these portfolios would be Park Place in Vancouver, which I think is at Burrard and Hastings, if I'm not mistaken.

F. Gingell: Is there any relationship between the colour of that building and the political party that happens to be in office? Maybe we'll get it repainted at some point in the future.

There are two more subjects that I'd like to touch on. One is that the report refers to the need for the office to improve some of its back-office functions. They were spending some money, as I understand it, on additional computer power and upgrading, that kind of thing. Does the chief investment officer now feel comfortable with the ability of the office to look after all the responsibilities in its mandate?

Hon. A. Petter: Yes, there have been improvements in terms of some of the systems that are utilized as part of these so-called back-office functions. "Back office" sounds a little peculiar to me, but it's a political lens that I'm looking at this with. These are very legitimate back-office functions, and they include mortgage systems -- we talked about real estate before -- and systems that facilitate better communications between brokers and the ministry staff.

F. Gingell: One of the issues, of course, in an office of this type is to ensure that the internal controls are in good shape and that there's a sufficient division of duties and responsibilities, so that when you close the door at 5 o'clock you are sure all the assets inside aren't going home with the employees. Does the office continually have evaluation of their internal control operations performed by some outside consultants or by the office of the auditor general? What internal review disciplines and ongoing practices does the chief investment officer have to assure himself that everything is as it should be?

[4:00]

F. Gingell: I appreciate that that is unquestionably the case. I see that there is a reference in the report to the use of derivatives. This is a subject that the minister and I have discussed in earlier estimates in relation to the debt of the province, where we take derivatives to deal with floating interest rates, foreign currencies and such issues. In what form is the investment branch using these kinds of arrangements?

Hon. A. Petter: It's always interesting how much one learns in these debates.

The office does have the capacity to use derivatives, but to this point they have not done so. They are contemplating the possible use of derivatives such as swaps or options on a very limited basis, where it would afford greater flexibility and where it would reduce the risk and provide greater diversity within the holdings. To this point, derivatives are not part of the current portfolios.

F. Gingell: Moving on to the classification of investments, which this report refers to as private placements, I presume that these are the B.C. Focus funds. Is that correct?

Hon. A. Petter: Yes, private placements are utilized, but on a very limited basis. Less than 2 percent of total investments are in the form of private placements. Some of that would be B.C. Focus funds, and some of that would be a very small component of the pension funds -- less than 2 percent of pension funds would also be invested through private placements.

F. Gingell: I actually got the wrong end of it. I wasn't talking about who they invested for; I was talking about what they're invested in. By Focus funds I was really referring to the commitment that the province made to assist certain types of startup businesses -- British Columbia companies, particularly in the high-tech area, that have reached a certain point of development and need financial support, and which aren't ready to go public but are past the startup stage.

At the moment, it's substantially less than half of 1 percent in this analysis. Perhaps I could reword the question to ask the minister what portion of these funds is invested in what we would call startup exercises that are in relation to economic development for the province. What portion of the 

[ Page 4535 ]

funds is invested in private placements that seemed to the investment managers in the office to have the potential to give above-average rates of return?

[G. Brewin in the chair.]

Hon. A. Petter: With respect to the B.C. Focus funds, I indicated before that about $53 million is in private placements -- the majority in venture capital with a particular focus on tech and biotech investments in B.C. Now, that is obviously targeted and is part of government policy.

In addition, as I understand it, within the pension fund portfolio, part of diversifying those investments results in a small percentage of those funds also being invested in venture capital-type arrangements with respect to these kinds of emerging companies, as well, just simply as part of the overall investment portfolio. But the B.C. Focus is, as the title suggests, focused on trying to provide venture capital for these kinds of emerging ventures, particularly in the tech and biotech fields.

F. Gingell: I'm sure that cabinet ministers continually hear from and have pressure put on them by constituents and entrepreneurs in the province that they really need some help and that there are no investment funds available. That's, of course -- because of a lack of investment fund for some of these things -- why the Focus fund was originally created. But in the end, someone has to make a decision on whether or not an investment is made.

Do you have a separation with the Focus funds, so that the decision to invest may be made outside the office of the chief investment officer? So really, it's not an investment exercise that is a decision of the investment officer, but it is clearly managed by them, because they're the professionals, and the province needs someone to manage them -- separate from private placements, which staff within the office may think are good opportunities for investment and which will still meet some of the criteria that the minister spoke of.

Hon. A. Petter: Yes, I understand that external fund managers are used with respect to both the B.C. Focus fund and the private pension fund component. Just to make sure we're using the same nomenclature here, I'm using the term "venture capital" in the sense of being a subcategory of private placements. Private placements would include venture capital, but would presumably include other forms of investment.

F. Gingell: In the documents that we obtained through freedom of information -- relative to briefings given to the Minister of Finance up to something like the end of March -- were some briefing notes that discussed the province's investment in Epic Data International, flowing through to Ebco Aerospace. As in so much of this information you send us, there's a heading, a date, someone's name at the bottom and a big blank space in the middle. Without wanting to have information become public that perhaps is confidential -- though I often think that that exercise is overblown -- I take it that the province has a $2 million or $3 million investment in Ebco Aerospace through Epic Data International. Obviously the investment has circumstances surrounding it that made a briefing of the minister appropriate. Would the minister like to expand upon that?

Hon. A. Petter: As near as I can determine, the issue regarding Ebco concerns an investment undertaken by Discovery Enterprises. The responsibility for Discovery Enterprises became the responsibility of this office, but the problems precede the involvement of this office. So we're engaged in a cleanup operation in relation to matters that were undertaken by Discovery Enterprises prior to it becoming the responsibility of this office.

F. Gingell: Have all the operations of Discovery Enterprises been folded into this office?

Hon. A. Petter: Well, there's still a Discovery Enterprises board that runs the day-to-day management, but ultimate responsibility for Discovery Enterprises does now reside with the chief investment officer.

F. Gingell: What was the gross investment in the private placement category at March 31, 1997?

Hon. A. Petter: Roughly $400 million.

[4:15]

Hon. A. Petter: We're aware of four that have graduated and one in particular that did so very recently, in which the province happily, through that graduation, realized about six times its original investment. Now, I don't want to claim that that's necessarily typical of all the investments, but it bodes well. Clearly there have been some successes in respect to this part of the investment portfolio.

F. Gingell: I thought the minister was going to name the company that did go public at six times the province's acquisition price.

Hon. A. Petter: Well, I'll give two names of companies that have graduated, to our knowledge. The one that I just referred to is known as ALI, apparently; the other, Stressgen.

F. Gingell: Are both these companies in the biochemical area? They sound like it.

Hon. A. Petter: I understand that ALI is a technology-based company -- software development. Stressgen is biomedical in its focus.

F. Gingell: I appreciate that it's much more difficult to measure rates of return in relation to private placements. They take longer to mature, and in the meantime, so often there's normally no real, independent market valuation available. But could the minister give the committee a feel for whether, in the total package, going into the private placement business has been successful? Recognizing all the ups and all the downs, do you have a feeling of confidence that you're going to make a rate of return that is in excess of the rates of return being earned in the somewhat buoyant Canadian equities market?

Hon. A. Petter: Well, as the member indicates, it is still early days for this kind of investment to be fully evaluated. 

[ Page 4536 ]

But I take it that there is a degree of satisfaction with the performance to date and some confidence that we will be able to realize a rate of return commensurate with what is a mainly higher-risk form of investment, but one that obviously has major benefits in terms of jobs and economic benefits for British Columbia.

F. Gingell: The office of the chief investment officer has identified a series of program benchmarks, as they've been called. It's important for these benchmarks to be consistent but also for us to add to the benchmarks as advice is given on more measures that are appropriate, or on measures that are more appropriate than some of the ones that we are using. So has the office of the chief investment officer sought the advice of outside experts or outside people in developing these particular benchmarks, all of which are related, that are shown here to both long-term and short-term rates of return? I think it would be important for us to try and identify some benchmarks that will measure the efficiency and effectiveness of the office -- the business management side. I wonder whether any thought has been given to that and, back to the first question, whether any outside advice has been sought on the most appropriate benchmarks.

Hon. A. Petter: I understand that the benchmarks being employed here are not unique to the ministry; they are standard benchmarks. In this case, the benchmarks are derived or provided by Frank Russell Canada, which is a "benchmark maker." Just as there are agencies that establish credit ratings, I guess there are agencies that establish benchmarks for investment. I didn't know that, but now I do. And Frank Russell Canada, I take it, is the one whose benchmarks are being employed here because of its expertise and recognized qualifications.

In respect to broadening the benchmarks to look at other issues, yes, there's work in that regard in terms of looking at the cost base and relative cost of managing the portfolio, etc.

F. Gingell: From my distant past, when I used to be involved as a trustee of a pension fund that was in the hands of money managers, I seem to remember that the rates of return were calculated by an independent body. Is that this same Russell company? And if it is, is it their calculations that are used in this reporting system?

Hon. A. Petter: It turns out that the whole industry uses a standardized approach to measure performance in attaining benchmarks. In this case, the software being employed is software that was, I take it, developed by Frank Russell Canada, and it provides the basis for the measurement that then becomes subject to audit by the auditor general.

F. Gingell: I would just like to thank the minister for this discussion. I always follow the results of the investment office with interest, and I'm pleased to see that they've been doing well. I wish them well in the future -- for all of us.

Hon. A. Petter: Well, I very much appreciate those remarks. This is a part of government and a part of the ministry that doesn't always receive as much attention as it should, but it has been a tremendous success story, I think. Some of the institutional changes and capacity-building that we've had a chance to debate and to shine a bit of light on have helped me -- and others, hopefully -- to better understand the operation. I very much appreciate the member's comments, and I know staff appreciate them doubly.

F. Gingell: I move that the committee recess for five minutes.

The committee recessed from 4:28 p.m. to 4:39 p.m.

[G. Brewin in the chair.]

F. Gingell: We spent some time yesterday dealing with Treasury Board, discussing the responsibilities of the assistant deputy minister for special projects. It would seem to me that that partially deals with a capital expenditure review and a program review -- a whole series -- in relation to dealing with costs rather than with the delivery of programs.

The other sort of new function that has been set up under Treasury Board under Steve Hollett is to look at what assets the government may realize. When the budget was tabled, we all noted that an amount of $170 million was shown as anticipated receipts from asset dispositions, and I'm sure the minister will remember the lack of response from various Crown corporations and other people who were asked about this. Have we got to the point where the $170 million has now been identified?

Hon. A. Petter: This is an area in which I'll give some general response, but because the dispositions have not taken place, I don't want to compromise the ability of government to realize a full and adequate return when properties are disposed of. The three major areas that have been looked at are the assets associated with the windup of B.C. Systems Corporation -- there's a building and equipment which has a substantial value, perhaps in excess of $50 million. There are other information technology areas in which there may be interest in the private sector in assuming some of the responsibility for providing access to databases and the like. There is also the area of vehicle management, which is being looked at.

I might say that in all these instances, we're obviously looking at establishing competitive processes in which we can ensure that there are real values to be had. If there are savings to be had in an operational sense -- and in some cases, there may well be -- those are real savings as well. We're looking at the request-for-proposal type of arrangements with competitive bids and the like.

F. Gingell: I didn't catch the first one. Was it B.C. Systems?

Hon. A. Petter: Yes. The member will be aware, of course, that B.C. Systems is in the process of being wound up. There are still assets, such as the building in Victoria that B.C. Systems is located in, that have not been disposed of. The disposal of some of those assets that formed part of B.C. Systems can provide some significant contribution toward the $170 million. The other two categories I mentioned are two other areas that are being looked at actively -- and ministries as well. Treasury Board staff are obviously open to other possibilities as well, but those are the three major areas of focus.

[4:45]

As this is a Crown corporation, the building appears in the accounts of B.C. Systems Corporation. If you realize. . . . On winding up the assets of B.C. Systems Corporation, it will 

[ Page 4537 ]

be a financing transaction to the extent that it is recovering the book value that's in the consolidated revenue fund for these assets and only income to the consolidated revenue fund for the gain. Would you agree with that?

Hon. A. Petter: As I understand it -- and I think this is not what the member suggested, because B.C. Systems Corporation was a corporation that was not within the consolidated revenue fund -- the book value of its assets would not be carried within the consolidated revenue fund. The disposal of those assets would therefore return a profit to B.C. Systems that could then be translated into a dividend through to the consolidated revenue fund. That's my understanding.

F. Gingell: Was the conclusion arrived at by the triumvirate over there unanimous?

Hon. A. Petter: Yes.

F. Gingell: I'm bewitched, bothered and bewildered. When money was invested by the province into B.C. Systems Corporation. . . . As when it is invested into any other organization, if it is not put in by way of a subsidy or payment for services but is the acquisition of shares -- shareholders' equity -- that's a financing transaction. The disposition of that, the conversion of that into cash, will not give rise to revenue. It will give rise to cash, but it will not give rise to revenue. Now, if this equity in the building is the result of reinvested profits that B.C. Systems has made -- profits being a rather loose word, in this particular instance -- then I would agree with you. I would have thought that the increase in the value would have been the result of investment of money, rather than the reinvestment of profits.

Hon. A. Petter: The money that will be remitted to the consolidated revenue fund is in the form of retained earnings -- that is, the incremental value of the building that results from the investments that resulted from the retained earnings of the corporation. It is therefore a legitimate realization of real value that can be credited to the consolidated revenue fund through a dividend.

F. Gingell: As I said, if it is retained earnings, then that's fine. It'll be one of those transactions that will reflect as income in the consolidated revenue fund but not in the summary financial statements, because the incremental values have been recorded in the summary financial statements -- although there may well be a profit on the building in addition to its book value. Could the minister give me some idea of the possible size of that incremental value?

Hon. A. Petter: I want to be cautious here, because we want to realize the full value, of course, and I don't particularly want to set a market value. I don't want to set a ceiling value. The other way to answer this would be to give the member some sense of what the book value is, because that would at least give him a sense of what the sale will be charged against, if I could put it that way. I don't have that to hand, but I can provide that to the member if it doesn't compromise our bargaining position. I'm not sure if it would, but I don't happen to have that information to hand at the present time.

F. Gingell: The purpose of my discussion is for the committee to finish up with a feeling for where the $170 million is going to come from and whether that is a reasonable estimate. I think it was treated with a bit of skepticism at the time of the budget, because reporters had phoned various organizations like B.C. Rail, and they said: "What are you talking about?" I just want to get some feel for it. The information technology, I presume, is also part of B.C. Systems. Is it one of the retained assets, or is it information technology that sits outside B.C. Systems?

Hon. A. Petter: It exists outside B.C. Systems. There are opportunities, here, for asset recovery and operational savings by virtue of some of the opportunities that may exist for the private sector to operate some of these services more cost-effectively, on the one hand, or to put some of the services that have been put in place by government to a better use and thereby increase the effective value of those assets in terms of the profits they can generate.

I'll give you an example. Simply providing, say, on-line services to information bases on a 24-hour basis rather than on an eight-hour basis can greatly enhance the profits and the service and hence the value. If a private sector operator were prepared to take that on and do that, the consequence could be an expansion of service for the public. But the value of the equipment, etc., would of course reflect that increased utilization and profit, which would then be reflected in the return to provincial treasury.

F. Gingell: I really am getting confused now. Are we talking about selling something -- disposing of some process and information -- which the citizens of the province will subsequently be paying for, be buying back? Why does this have a value, unless the person who buys it can use it for commercial purposes?

Hon. A. Petter: One little added element that I want to make sure I share so that there's no misunderstanding. . . . As I understand it, in respect to some of the equipment that's involved here, the equipment is still in fact owned by B.C. Systems but has been leased or rented to government. These operations exist outside of B.C. Systems, but some of the equipment may still be owned by B.C. Systems.

The situation is this. Government does have commercial operations with respect to information and profits from that. What we're going to test here -- and there is a substantial belief that we will succeed -- is that there are opportunities for these commercial operations to be far more profitable in the hands of a non-governmental operator who's prepared to maximize the opportunities to provide service, on a cost recovery basis, than has been the case for government. It is that increased opportunity, of course, that then generates the value that can, through a competitive process, be returned to government. Through that process one can then expand service for these commercial operations by having them operated outside of government and, at the same time, provide to government some benefit for the disposition of these services to a non-government operator.

F. Gingell: I must admit, my reaction is that if I were to see this in an IPO, I would file it in the round basket. I just don't have any feel for this. Well, you won't be able to sell my name to Maclean's magazine's subscription department, because they already have it about 18 times.

I have a problem being able to see in my mind how you can do all this in this year -- realize some substantial proceeds from this sale which must not in turn be recovered back from the taxpayers over a period of years. That would not be an acceptable way. But you'll be able to accomplish all this and realize proceeds in the year '97-98.

[ Page 4538 ]

I don't think that this perhaps is the place for us to explore this issue. It's somewhat complicated, and I need to be educated about it. If we may, I'll leave it at that -- unless the minister he has something to add.

Hon. A. Petter: Just a little something. There are, throughout government, extensive assets that one might have looked at for an asset disposition policy. These didn't come forward accidentally. In the case of the Systems concerns, they came forward because there is, in our view, a strong interest and opportunity that exists here, and we anticipate, as a result of that interest, that there are some real gains that can be had. I appreciate the member's concern about not converting future income streams into net present values and all that.

These areas were identified, as a result of the program review that was undertaken last year, as areas of high potential and areas in which people -- who certainly have more knowledge of these particular areas than I do and presumably the member opposite does -- indicate that they believe there is high potential. They've expressed high interest, and we therefore believe there's high potential for a return in a way that is responsible.

All I can say further to that is that the RFIs and RFPs are in the works, and we'll have to see. The proof of the pudding will be in the response, and that's the way it should be.

[5:00]

In your budget speech -- if you have been successful -- I will look forward to your mentioning the specific sum that has been raised from the sale of information technology by the government. If the item is missing or if you don't mention it, I will make the assumptions that opposition members always make in those circumstances.

We move along to vehicle management. As the minister knows, there is an amount within the budget whereby the B.C. Purchasing Commission, I presume, acquires all the vehicles. It's called the special account. The government acquires all the vehicles in bulk, they assign them to the ministers, and they bill the ministers for annual lease costs based on their costs. They borrow money more cheaply than anyone else in the market. I was under the impression that they were somewhat satisfied with the process. I also understood that the government was looking at the possibility of going into privatizing this function. There may be some reason that would indicate that some outside financial body could do this at lower costs with no lack of service.

When you mention vehicles, am I to assume, then, that the way the privatization process would be done -- if it were to be done -- would be to sell the currently existing fleet over to the organization, so they've got all one package at one time, and they carry on from that point?

Hon. A. Petter: Yes, the proposals that are being looked at would entail the sale of the vehicle fleet and responsibility for the vehicle fleet to a non-governmental organization. The open question is whether the maintenance for the fleet would be done as part of that sale and part of that proposal or whether it might be retained as a service provided within government. Those are some of the issues that are being looked at as we move forward towards a competitive process here.

I just want to say one small thing about the member's comments about looking forward -- as I do -- to how this all transpires. I'm curious to see how it does work, and obviously I feel there is tremendous potential here.

But we went out of our way in the budget not to make any secret of this and to include it as a separate line item and to make sure that the proposal to dispose of assets was transparent. That principle of transparency and, flowing from it, the principle of accountability are ones that I frankly think should give the member some modicum of confidence that I'm prepared to be answerable for what I hope will be the success of this assets disposition strategy. It should give the member an opportunity to point out where he feels it hasn't been successful.

F. Gingell: I think that government finances and your budget should always be transparent. I don't think that it should be the exception to the rule. The minister's remarks kind of indicate that it's the exception to the rule: "Praise me for this one occasion that I have been transparent and told all."

Moving along from there, I would like to remind the minister of the issue that I brought forward on information technology. The minister repeated my concern and understood what it was: that you wouldn't sell something that was, in effect, a current value of a future income stream -- that income stream to someone else becoming a cost to government.

I'd like to suggest to you that the circumstance with the current vehicle fleet is that the fleet is paid for. The costs have been written off by government. If you turned around and were to sell it now in the package, yes, you would show some revenue, but all that is, is a cost that you will absorb from this point on. That's all that will happen. It is no different. . . .

I'd better be careful how I say that, because it's in one of these rotten special accounts that get everybody confused, and may well have been treated as a financing transaction. . . . Oh dear, the way you keep your books is really a little difficult. No, it's not a financing transaction. Therefore I make the assumption that the amount has been written off. Yes, it has been written off: "The purchase of these vehicles has been charged as an expense to this point."

So what you're doing, if you were. . . . I can appreciate the issue of privatizing future acquisitions if there is a business management basis for it. But in turning around and selling the presently existing fleet, all you're doing is taking the current value of a future cost stream, putting that into income and absorbing those costs over the years that the purchaser will recover that acquisition cost.

Hon. A. Petter: I'm sort of amused to some extent that when government takes action to try to maximize value, the member is quick to point out how it in fact doesn't achieve that, for all sorts of different reasons. In fact, I think the truth lies somewhere in between. That is, the member is absolutely right that there are certain cautions here for accounting purposes and for good public accounting treatment; that clearly we want to make sure that we are not ascribing as a value the net present value of a future income stream or the realization of a book value that's already carried on the accounts. I think those are the two areas. The member is pointing his finger at me and saying, "Don't count those," and I agree.

But having said that, the book value of the vehicles is conservatively assessed, depreciation is perhaps not conservatively assessed, and there are, in our view, opportunities to realize a real value in terms of the difference that exists 

[ Page 4539 ]

between the book value and the value that might be gained through the sale of this fleet to a non-governmental entity. I think the member would agree that if there is such a differential, that's a real value that can be counted, and should be.

Moreover -- and I think the member suggested this -- if we can set up an operation that is less costly in the future, well, one wouldn't carry that benefit into this year's budget. It would have benefits in future years in terms of the costs associated with the renewal of the fleet and, potentially, its operation. So I just hope that the member isn't becoming so negatively disposed or fixating on the limitations, which are real, to the point that he's denying that there are real values to be had here.

We've looked very carefully across government and identified this as one area in which we think -- and we'll test it through a competitive process with an appropriate accounting treatment -- there are some real values that can be realized.

F. Gingell: I'm sorry, but I'm not convinced in any way, shape or form. These assets have been written off. Now, if you intend to sell them to some third parties. . . .

Interjection.

F. Gingell: Yes, they have been written off. I'm sorry, but they have been written off.

Hon. A. Petter: If the member checks Public Accounts, volume 2, page B14, I think he'll find the treatment in public accounts is somewhat different. The treatment in public accounts is that vehicles net of amortization are carried at a value of $34 million. He may be confusing the two accounting treatments between public accounts and the estimates process. They have not been written off for the purpose of public accounts, and therefore there is value here and. . . . The member is more acquainted on a day-to-day basis with public accounts than I am, but I think that a reference to Public Accounts will confirm that.

F. Gingell: So what you're saying is that yes, we've written them off as far as the consolidated revenue fund is concerned, always have, and they've been charged up as an expense in here; but that through the capitalization exercise for the purpose of the consolidation and the creation of the public accounts, you have brought them back -- which I support. I support it for business reasons. I support it for one reason only, actually. I support it because I think that it improves program costing. It more accurately reflects the costs of delivering programs by this government.

Now, the method that you have been using through the working capital special account has already accomplished that. I mean, you already. . . . I appreciate that vehicles have been written off, but it was a means by which you allocated a monthly cost or an annual cost of owning the automobiles to each ministry, and that was able to be charged into the programs. I'm disappointed in the minister using this capitalization program for the purpose of questionable -- in my mind -- revenue recognition.

Hon. A. Petter: It's quite the opposite. It's completely the opposite from what the member is saying. But for this change in accounting practice, we would not have to reduce the value by $34 million. Because of capitalization and the associated accounting changes, there is a $34 million value net of amortization that it's measured against. So it takes away a false incentive of trying to realize an asset that has been written off but really has a value.

So, far from pillorying me for taking advantage, the member should be crediting me for making sure that this new accounting treatment is utilized and that the real benefit to government is adjusted to take account of the continuing value of this vehicle fleet. I mean, I'm prepared to be pilloried for almost anything, but not for this.

F. Gingell: Yes, I accept that, but you've got to recognize that you've already bought these vehicles once and written them off. You've already bought these vehicles once and written them off in the consolidated revenue fund, and recently, through this last chance, capitalized them back for the purpose of producing the public accounts, and now you are going to sell them again for a quick-term gain and long-term pain. You're going to pay for them over again. The final result of the exercise at the end of the day is that you've pulled income into 1996-97 and increased your expenses in subsequent years. That's the end result. Agreed? Check with the accountant on your right.

Hon. A. Petter: No, I've checked with accountants to the left of me, accountants to right of me. . . .

What's fascinating about this debate is the incredible defence and faith the member has in public enterprise as the most efficient, effective way in all cases. I'm heartened. So we're sort of in a strange position in this debate.

But let me assure the member that we will not only have to, through this competitive process, show a gain in terms of the value that we realize through the sale of the vehicle fleet -- should that occur; should that be shown to be justified -- adjusted for the current book value, which has not been written off under the accounting treatment in public accounts. We will also certainly have to show in future that the provision of vehicles, which presumably would no longer be owned by government, would be owned by some non-governmental entity and provided to government. . .that that cost is in fact cost-effective for government in the future, as well. This is not a transference of future benefit to long-term detriment; in fact, there are benefits to be had both in future years and in the sale.

I appreciate the member's concern. I honestly do, because I don't think we want to achieve false economies; we want to make sure they are real economies. But his skepticism is not in keeping with his philosophical position within this House.

[5:15]

[ Page 4540 ]

It doesn't sound like the minister has come up with $170 million yet. Maybe he has. There were suggestions made at the time of budget day that there was an anticipated realization of some assets that sit within B.C. Rail. Has that moved along at all, or was that suggestion without foundation?

Hon. A. Petter: No. Within the budget there was provision for some additional dividends to be provided by Crown corporations from realization or sale of properties, excess properties or excess assets they may own, but the amount that was booked through asset disposition to the consolidated revenue fund -- other than the windup of B.C. Systems Corporation, which is a rather unusual situation -- pertained to assets that exist within government.

F. Gingell: I was just going to suggest that B.C. Systems Corporation was not going to be any different.

One of the obvious places that one thinks about is in the disposal of land. I was wondering what thought the Ministry of Finance or Treasury Board had given to issues of raising revenues through the disposition of Crown lands.

Hon. A. Petter: Again, the sale of Crown lands is not factored into the $170 million, but there is provision in the budget for the sale of Crown lands with respect to the Crown lands special account. Government is working to maximize the potential within responsible limits and to try to set a target that is achievable, but is certainly more ambitious in terms of the sale of Crown land than was the case in last year's budget, for example.

F. Gingell: So that optimism, or the intention to focus more on it, is the reason that revenue source was increased from some $31 million to a hoped-for $56 million.

I'm not sure exactly how this works, but I would imagine that when the Roberts Bank backup lands were acquired, for instance, that would have been charged to the Crown lands special account, and is perhaps some land that the government should be encouraged to realize. I presume Crown Lands talks about who is the owner rather than the method by which it was acquired -- i.e., acquired by conquest rather than by purchase.

Hon. A. Petter: The intention here is to take a more entrepreneurial approach to the sale of Crown lands and to provide a benefit by providing more Crown lands for use within the province.

The particular lands that I know the member is very interested in -- with his lay hat on, as well as his critic hat, I'm sure -- obviously are contentious. I'm aware of a little bit of the history in terms of some of the feelings of the original owners and their desire to regain ownership over those lands. I don't anticipate that those lands are necessarily going to be part of this strategy, partly because of some of the controversy and difficulty surrounding them. It's probably a matter the member could take up with the minister responsible for Crown lands during her estimates debate.

F. Gingell: It's a particular subject I take up with all ministers -- Agriculture, Environment, Lands and Parks, Finance -- whoever I can. . . .

Interjection.

F. Gingell: Yes, Aboriginal Affairs, too -- whoever I can find to listen.

Hon. J. Cashore: I gave you the same answer.

F. Gingell: Well, you did. But I was pleased that the minister recognized the need to deal with the matter swiftly before it was taken out of her hands.

I noticed in the cost breakdown for vote 32 for Treasury Board that some $830,000 is allocated to the asset disposition and revenue enhancement unit, but only 2 FTEs. I know there must be a lot of additional non-payroll costs involved in that, and I wonder what they are.

Hon. A. Petter: That's a reflection of the need to do due diligence around these particular proposals, and therefore to engage contractors to evaluate the real potentials so that we can set prudent targets, ones we believe can be achievable within the time frame of this year's budget. There is a fair bit of work that has been and will be undertaken in respect of these matters.

F. Gingell: So I take it that these additional costs, which I presume are in the region of $700,000 or almost that amount, are more in the area of contracting for outside advice. We are now two and a half months into the year. Have any contracts or RFIs been issued with respect to this area?

Hon. A. Petter: The answer is that there have been both contracts and RFIs issued -- RFIs particularly in reference to the information side of this initiative. I'd be happy to provide the member with that information in greater detail and in writing if he requires it.

F. Gingell: We got into a prolonged discussion about trying to differentiate between ourselves in relation to these three categories that you gave us: the difference between asset dispositions and dividends or revenues. The $170 million is the amount that's been included in the budget for the excess overcapitalized values. Does the minister have any feel for the additional funds that will be realized for the asset disposition which will be treated as a financing transaction?

Hon. A. Petter: The advice I'm getting is that it's difficult to estimate. To the extent that it can be estimated, we don't have the breakdown at hand. So again, we'd certainly undertake to provide the member with what information we can about that, if he can allow us a bit of time to assemble that. Obviously, as the dispositions take place, we'll be able to provide an accurate accounting and apportionment.

F. Gingell: As the start of this discussion on asset dispositions identified, there were remaining assets at B.C. Systems Corp of buildings and equipment and information technology, which I haven't been able to completely grasp and understand, and vehicle management or the vehicle fleet, the accounting treatment of which we can discuss subsequently. Is there any other item, or is that the majority of the package that's expected to raise revenue in the amount of $170 million?

Hon. A. Petter: There are other bits and pieces -- I guess I'd call them that -- around government in which ministries may have some potential to realize a return from asset dispositions. But those three areas are the ones that are the focus of this initiative.

F. Gingell: To finish this subject, I would make a plea for the capitalization-of-assets issue. One of the things that government will benefit from is far better knowledge about what equipment, what assets it does have. I know that the comp-

[ Page 4541 ]

troller general's office and the ministries are having quite an exercise in trying to garner some of that information now. But it's an important project. It's going to cost some money, but I'm sure it will enhance both the government's accounting practices and the internal control of all these things, because equipment walks on occasion.

With that, I'd like to now raise the subject, within Treasury Board, of intergovernmental relations and constitutional issues. Maybe I'll turn the floor over to my friend from Richmond-Steveston.

G. Plant: I'm delighted to have the opportunity to rise to join in this estimates debate. I take as the point of departure here, I suppose, the fact that the minister is the Minister Responsible for Intergovernmental Relations and has within his ministry budget provision for something called the intergovernmental relations secretariat. I want to ask some questions about those two, I suppose, overlapping activities.

I want to take as my starting point an extract from the most recent financial report for the Ministry of Finance and Corporate Relations, the '95-96 annual report. I want to ask a few fairly mundane questions around dollars and activities. The subject of federal-provincial relations is dealt with at page 12. The budget figure there is $605,000, with a total of seven employees. Now, I know that this would probably have been the fiscal year within which responsibility for intergovernmental relations moved, from the government's perspective -- although, as I understand it, it followed the minister. But I may be wrong on that.

[5:30]

Hon. A. Petter: If I understand the member's question, there are two different things. One is the federal-provincial relations branch of the Ministry of Finance, which has had an ongoing role that certainly has preceded my service as minister. It does excellent work, particularly in tracking federal-provincial fiscal issues. It helped, for example, in the preparation of the report that was done for the Western Premiers Conference by the western finance ministers. It tracks the province's position with respect to federal budget decisions, transfer payments and the like. It provides support to government on fiscal issues related to federal-provincial relations, from a Finance perspective.

The other is the intergovernmental relations secretariat, contained in a separate vote -- vote 32. It has a larger budget; I think the estimate for the coming year is $1.3 million. Its function is to provide support services to the executive council and for government generally, in respect of a broader range of policy and intergovernmental relations matters.

I'll say that if the member wants to debate in any detail those numbers or the activities of the intergovernmental relations secretariat to the point that he would want me to have staff present, I haven't provided for that this evening. But I can certainly try to provide that for later in this estimates process. If he wishes, on the other hand, to debate the federal-provincial relations component, then certainly that's a function that falls within the area we're now dealing with. If he wants to talk about policy terms on the federal-provincial front, I am happy to engage in that, as well, and take my chances without staff. If the member is interested in getting into some of the internal financial workings of the intergovernmental relations secretariat, I just want to forewarn him that if he provides notice to me, I will try to get staff here later on this evening, but that was not part of the schedule that I had anticipated for this time.

G. Plant: I thank the minister for that clarification. I will defer the questioning specifically directed at the secretariat to another occasion. Perhaps I could just ask one or two -- well, maybe more than that; we'll see.

Hon. A. Petter: Because of the member's interest and the response time of my staff, I am informed that the ADM responsible for the intergovernmental relations secretariat is going to be available within the next ten minutes or so. So if the member wants to ask some questions in that regard, it may be possible to deal with this matter at this time -- before we break or certainly after we break.

G. Plant: Well, that's tremendously good service. I'll have to make sure I have some good questions.

Let me then tie up the issue of the responsibility for federal-provincial relations within the Ministry of Finance. The 1995-96 annual report for the Ministry of Finance set aside a budget for just over $600,000, with seven employees listed. The activities in this area were divided into two categories: core activities and special activities.

Perhaps I could begin by asking the minister: in respect of both the '96-97 year, which has been completed but for which we don't yet have a report, and in respect of what the minister foresees for the fiscal year that we are now in, what's the budget for federal-provincial relations? What are the employee numbers? Are the core activities pretty much the same as set out in 1995-96?

Hon. A. Petter: The budget for 1996-97 is roughly $568,000 and seven FTEs, and for this coming year -- the year we're now in, '97-98 -- $529,500 and seven FTEs.

In terms of some of the activities in the past year, the core activities would continue much the same. I can give a fuller account, but I can tell the member, for example, that one of the areas of special activity in which there was a lot of work done was in respect to the Canada Pension Plan, the future of the Canada Pension Plan and the discussions that British Columbia was involved with along with other provinces and the federal government concerning the future of the Canada Pension Plan.

This was very usefully done, I might add, by the federal-provincial relations component of my ministry, which is another great area of the ministry with very talented people. As I said earlier, I am blessed by the staff I have. Tremendous work was done. There are officials within this very small component with tremendous depth and expertise in that particular area. While B.C.'s proposals were not fully accepted, I know our input had a very beneficial influence on that process. That was one particular activity.

This year, with the Western Premiers Conference being held in British Columbia, the responsibility for presenting the 

[ Page 4542 ]

Finance minister's report to the conference fell upon me, as Finance minister for the host province. Again, staff in the federal-provincial relations component undertook the work to draw together the views of other provinces and consolidate them into a very useful report. This has really helped to crystallize just how important the western provinces have become as net contributors to Confederation and the economic importance of the west. It also outlines some critical issues that lie before us on such issues as labour market training, fisheries, Canada Pension Plan, the Securities Commission, which we talked about earlier -- those kinds of issues. Those are just a few examples. I could go on, because I'm a real fan of the work done by this particular branch.

G. Plant: Just to follow up on one thing in the minister's answer there a moment ago -- and I apologize for my naïvety in this respect -- the report that the minister presented at the Western Premiers Conference sounds like it would be an interesting document. Is it a document that's available to the public? If so, could I have the minister's assistance in obtaining a copy?

Hon. A. Petter: Yes, it's a report that was made public during the course of the Western Premiers Conference once it had been endorsed by the various Premiers. I'd be more than happy to share it with the members opposite. It is a very useful document and one that I would encourage members to familiarize themselves with. I will certainly send it to the member and perhaps to the critic in respect of Finance, but I might encourage my staff to share it more widely than that. I see another member who wishes it, so I'll make sure he receives it as well.

G. Plant: The annual report for '95-96 listed, as one of the special activities of the federal-provincial relations branch, support for negotiations involving first nations, and included the topic of fiscal arrangements for the Nisga'a agreement-in-principle and all the cost-sharing issues that are related to that. Is this work that has carried on over the year and a half since the AIP was signed? Do the people in the federal-provincial relations group have an ongoing role in respect of the negotiation of a final agreement with the Nisga'a and other first nations agreements? If so, is the minister able to outline what that role is and where he sees us going down that road?

Hon. A. Petter: Yes, the activity continues. It has, as a result of the reorganization that occurred within the ministry, in fact been transferred into the tax policy branch. It's no longer located within this particular branch, but it still exists. The kinds of functions it performs are twofold. One is providing support to the negotiating process to ensure that there is support in the form of financial input and advice. The other, sort of coming the other way, is making sure that the financial interests of government are well protected and that Treasury Board -- and through Treasury Board, cabinet -- is informed concerning the fiscal implications of various options or agreements that are being contemplated from time to time.

G. Plant: I want to pursue that a little bit more, if I may for a moment, to get some sense of what the kind of work is that's being done here. I understand what it means to say that support is being provided, but does that include modelling about fiscal implications? Does it include projects about going forward, the significance for provincial revenue -- if certain assumptions are made around resource reallocation -- and things like that? Is it that kind of work, and if it isn't, what is it?

Hon. A. Petter: It is that kind of work, hon. Chair.

G. Plant: I suppose if one were to take a snapshot of the federal-provincial relations groups right now, some portion of the way into the '97-98 fiscal year, there would be both the core activities and the special activities. I'm wondering if there are any other special activities that the minister knows this group is undertaking right now. I assume that continuing support for the Nisga'a and other treaty negotiations is one such activity. Maybe there's preparation for APEC. I'm not sure what else might be on the list here.

Hon. A. Petter: Well, one major activity that I didn't mention earlier and that I'm reminded of -- probably the major activity for this branch -- has been with respect to the federal-provincial discussions on a national child poverty initiative. As the member will be aware -- and I take some pride in the fact that this government has sort of led the charge -- the federal government was persuaded to initiate a national child poverty initiative, based in part upon the initiative taken at the provincial level in respect of B.C. Benefits, and has since announced its intention to expand that. The agreements that were reached among the provinces and the federal government envisage this becoming a national program -- not perhaps in the traditional sense of a shared-cost program but a national program in the sense that the federal and provincial governments would work in concert to maximize the benefits and ensure that the moneys, federal and provincial, were coordinated so that they went where most needed.

[5:45]

G. Plant: I have, I suppose, a two-part question. The first part is to get a bit of a sense of what this group does in relation to an issue like the child poverty initiative. Then I would ask the minister where he sees that initiative going over the next six months to a year, given that there is speculation in the press that the federal government may make this a particular priority for its next term.

Do we have here a group of individuals who are generating policy ideas in terms of ways to move forward on interesting initiatives, or a group that's more concerned with responding to ideas and figuring out how they can work within things like the fiscal constraints or existing federal-provincial agreements on particular issues? Are we talking about someone you go to when you say: "I have this idea. Can you tell me if it will work or not, or how it will work?" Or are we talking about someone you go to and ask: "Got any good ideas around child poverty?" That may be a gross oversimplification, but I'm sure the minister has a sense of what I mean. Perhaps in that context he can set out a little bit of what he 

[ Page 4543 ]

foresees -- perhaps it's his hopes, wishes and dreams -- in terms of the child poverty work that is underway for the government.

Hon. A. Petter: Well, as is so often the case, it's a bit of both. It kind of depends, actually, on whether the initiative is one in which there is a ministry involved with a strong policy focus, or if the issue is more fiscally focused, then the policy may reside. . . . Or it may just be happenstance that the policy is one in which there is internal expertise. So I will give two examples, I guess.

The child poverty initiative. . . . The kind of work that would go on would be modelling the federal child tax credit proposal -- how it will interact with the family bonus proposal and what the total impact of that might be and where that impact might have unintended consequences that are not desirable in a policy sense, which would then become a part of the negotiating stance of the government.

The Ministry of Human Resources would have a window and a say on that, but in that initiative the substantive policy lead role would be the Ministry of Human Resources, with assistance from Intergovernmental Relations -- not this branch, but Intergovernmental Relations. Finance would play a largely supportive role in providing some policy input regarding modelling how the policy objectives could best be achieved in terms of fiscal instruments that might be used, and the like.

In the case of the Canada Pension Plan, this was an initiative that fell more squarely with the Ministry of Finance. It so happened that there was tremendous expertise within this branch in respect of pension matters. It was the kind of branch where you go and say: "Gee, how could we place the Canada Pension Plan on a sustainable footing in a way that does not target those who are most vulnerable in terms of the working poor on the contribution side or the disabled and women on the benefit side?"

This branch was amazing in its capacity to generate options for cabinet consideration, which formed part of our negotiating position and our public position on the Canada Pension Plan. They're an eclectic and talented group with more depth than you would normally expect of seven employees, and they provide support in both the respects that the member indicates.

G. Plant: I am interested in perhaps getting a bit of a sense from the minister about where he sees the child poverty initiative going over the next six to 12 months.

Hon. A. Petter: I'm sorry. I didn't answer that. In some respects, the debate that is going on down the hall in Committee A may be a better forum, because as I indicated, the lead in respect of the policy on this is there. With my Intergovernmental Relations hat on, I think what we hope will transpire is that there will be a larger commitment from the federal government than has taken place to date toward child poverty and that there will be more commitment from the federal government on coordinating their response with provinces.

We hope that rather than using the child tax credit, they will sit down and work with the provinces to perhaps come up with a single-payment structure, so that there will be a single payment provided to people involving contribution of both federal and provincial funds in a way that ensures that the benefits go to those who are most in need and that there are no irrational climbs and dips along the curve, if I can put it that way. Those are the two major dimensions in which I hope the initiative will unfold in the coming year.

G. Plant: I was now going to move to the subject of the secretariat. Are we in a position where my very few questions would. . . ? Let's just start with the big-picture stuff, which is a small reduction in funding, around about 10 percent and probably consistent with other areas within government but unfortunately not consistent with all areas within government. Observing a decrease from $1.54 million to $1.35 million, how has this reduction been obtained? What implications might it have for the activities of the secretariat?

Hon. A. Petter: First, I'd like to introduce Robin Ciceri, who is the ADM in charge of the intergovernmental relations secretariat and is noted for her timely responses -- even to opposition, we've heard. I very much appreciate her joining me to assist in this part of the exercise.

Yes, the reduction, as I understand it, is consistent with the kinds of reductions we have visited in the last year across government agencies and ministries, save in certain areas like health care and education -- although even there, administratively, there have been commensurate reductions. How is it being absorbed? It is being absorbed through one vacant position in B.C. House that is not being filled and through some reduction in the travel budget that is available to the secretariat. I do not envisage it will diminish our capacity in terms of policy and our ability to position ourselves from a policy point of view in response to and in anticipation of emerging federal-provincial issues in the coming year.

G. Plant: I'm curious about the reduction in B.C. House, a place I've visited whenever I have felt, I guess, lost and lonely in London. Is that a reduction in the staff within B.C. House? Or is the position of agent general -- or whatever the title is -- currently vacant? I apologize if I'm ignorant of something that's quite obvious.

Hon. A. Petter: I'm sorry. I should have been clearer. This is B.C. House in Ottawa, not B.C. House in London. I'm amazed that the member would have assumed it was London. It shows how better travelled he is than I. But this is B.C. House in Ottawa. It was a position that was filled previously by Lorne Seitz, who has since returned and serves in a deputy capacity within government. The feeling was that the function performed there could be as well or better performed with the use of staff at B.C. House, plus more direct contact at deputy and senior levels within government. So that position exists as an FTE, but it has not been filled and will not be filled in the coming year.

G. Plant: This may be a topic that we can continue pursuing at a later date. The secretariat, as I understand it, has responsibility more broadly in respect of intergovernmental issues within government than, obviously, the ministerial group within the Ministry of Finance. I would ask the minister, at least to begin the discussion: is it possible to sort of divide what the secretariat does in terms of core activities on the one hand, and special activities on the other? I suppose the core activities would be those that are set out in the estimates book as being support that's provided to various activities.

Hon. A. Petter: Well, with my eye on the clock, I'll try to provide a very general answer, and then maybe we should adjourn the debate until after the supper hour.

In general terms, I'd put it this way. There are core functions; that is, the secretariat operates as an ongoing source of support on a broad range of federal-provincial issues. Some of those issues may have a longer shelf-life than others, and 

[ Page 4544 ]

therefore continue throughout the years. I can think of a few that would fall in that category. Others may be issues that emerge for a shorter period of time or are of more pressing concern.

I mean, we can think in the past year of some issues that clearly were deserving of and received attention from the secretariat, like the negotiations around the three-month residency rule, resolution with the federal government, negotiations regarding labour market training -- all of which came to fruition -- and fishery negotiations, although there was the B.C. fisheries secretariat that also played a major role. The core function is to provide this ongoing support.

Special activities relates more to the fact that the support is directed in special areas according to the kinds of issues that emerge in and preoccupy federal-provincial relations.

With that general description, I think what I'll do, with my eye on the clock, is suggest that we move. . . . In fact, I will move that the committee rise, report progress, and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; the Speaker in the chair.

Committee of Supply B, having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.

Committee of Supply A, having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.

Hon. A. Petter: I move the House do now recess until 6:35 this evening.

G. Farrell-Collins: Point of order. I think we're getting to that point in the year where we start to have some crazy things happen around the Legislature. One of the things that is starting to happen is that the government, I believe, is starting to take advantage of this House, and certainly take advantage of the members opposite.

We've been diligent through the early part of this session in trying to ensure that the people's business is done. In fact, there were a number of occasions early on in the session when the government came in with legislation that they wanted to see pass in a reasonable length of time. Indeed, I think that on at least three or four occasions the opposition accommodated the government's wishes and moved legislation through all three stages of debate in one day. And we're willing to do that.

[6:00]

Unfortunately, what's starting to happen is that it appears that the government -- you know, for all its urgency of having this House sit into the evenings -- has decided that the government's business and the people's business isn't urgent enough for us to sit this Thursday and this Friday. Rather, it has called -- or at least it has telegraphed and made clear -- that the government would like to adjourn and be off on Thursday and Friday to go about starting and doing its publicity campaign.

I think the opposition finds it difficult to have a motion from the Government House Leader to have the House come back at 6:35 this evening when in fact there have been plenty of opportunities in the past and there will be opportunities on Thursday and Friday and in the weeks ahead when government business can be done.

Just look at what has happened since the House started to sit in March. First of all, we can start there. The House started on March 24, a relatively late -- at least for the last number of years -- time for the House to sit. There's no reason why the government can't bring in the House in February or earlier in March. In fact, it has done that in the past.

I think that's when the abuse of the House started. The government called the throne speech one day and the budget speech the next day, and rammed that through as quickly as they could without the traditional opportunity for a response by the Leader of the Opposition and the opposition critic. That has continued.

I think the opposition has been more than patient with the government in trying to ensure that government business can be done, but at the same time we're not willing to just roll over and accede to every little change in government procedure every time the government wants the House to sit or every time they want a day off. More importantly, the three days that the government insisted on taking off to help in the federal election campaign. . . .

I find it difficult to accede to a motion by the government to have this House come back at 6:35 this evening when the House wasn't able to sit for some reason on May 29, May 30 and June 2 for the federal election. All indications are that the House is not going to sit on Thursday and Friday of this week. That's certainly what's been told to members of the House and was speculated in the press today.

Indeed, if one looks at the number of shortened days we've had in order to accommodate the government's wishes, one doesn't have to go that far back. Look at Tuesday, April 1, the day after the. . . .

Interjection.

G. Farrell-Collins: "April Fool's Day," I hear the Government Whip say from a minister's seat -- something I know he aspires to but probably won't quite make. But when you look at who is over there, you never know. I mean, anything can happen.

Interjection.

G. Farrell-Collins: That's right.

On Friday, April 25, Friday, May 2, Friday, May 9, Friday, June 6, and Friday, June 13, the government adjourned the House at 11 o'clock when the normal process, the normal rules of the House are to sit until 1 o'clock on Fridays. Two hours of government business could have been done on six days; 12 hours of government business could have been done had the government wished that to happen. We had three complete days that I talked about with the election campaign and now another two full business days when the government has just decided that it doesn't want to sit, that it has other things on its agenda.

Well, the House isn't run for the benefit of the government. This House belongs to all 75 members, including yourself, hon. Speaker. I think that this House only works well when it's done by consensus, when it's done in a reasonable way and when there's a realistic attempt to be responsible for doing the government's business.

[ Page 4545 ]

When I hear that the government is now going to rise and take a holiday on Thursday so the Premier and a couple of his colleagues can fly around the province, make an announcement, get themselves on television and have some photographs in the newspaper while the government's business languishes, I have to ask myself why it is that we have to go beyond the normal sitting hours, the normal sitting days, and sit here tonight until 10 o'clock. What's the reason for it? This job is hard on people's lives; it's hard on people's health; it's hard on their families. I know all members opposite tell us that all the time. Members on this side feel the same way.

F. Gingell: Many of us started at 8 o'clock this morning.

G. Farrell-Collins: As the Finance critic says, many started at 8 o'clock this morning; many of us started well before that this morning.

Again, it's not a matter of trying to obstruct the government's business. It's not a matter of trying to stop what the government is doing, but there should be some reasonable test to it. To have the government come back and ask for night sittings at a time when they're simply not willing to do the people's business during the regularly scheduled time, I think is a burden on the House and, quite frankly, is unreasonable.

This decision for Thursday and Friday was not taken in consultation with anybody. It was a dictate that came out of the Premier's Office and was told to the rest of this Legislature, and the Premier, as much as he might run what goes on in the government caucus and as much as he might dictate what goes on in cabinet, doesn't dictate what goes on in this House. This House belongs to all members on all sides, and that's the way it should stay.

There is no other decent thing for the government to do than either to decide it's not going to adjourn the House on Thursday and Friday -- and decide how it's going to do its announcement some way other than vacating this House of a number of members of the opposite side -- or to have this House adjourn now and come back and do government business at a normal time. I think it's an unreasonable request of the government. It's something they shouldn't be doing, and it's something this government should be ashamed to do.

For a Premier who has been in this House as long as he has and who has been through some of the long hours that we put in in this House, which people don't complain about, to be abusing the members opposite with that type of an agenda, I think is unreasonable. We're more than happy to come in here and do the work on a reasonable basis, to come in and do the work during regular sitting hours. Quite frankly, if the government finds that it's behind in its agenda, this House and these members opposite have been more than accommodating in sitting in the evenings, more than accommodating in allowing government business to move through the House during several stages of debate. I think that the members of this House on all sides, including the government back bench, deserve the respect that they have as members, deserve the respect of this House and deserve the respect of the Premier to have this House operate in an orderly fashion.

I would hope that the government, the Government House Leader and the Premier -- if he's around -- will come in and give us some justification for why they feel that it's okay for them to have this House sit in the evenings when they don't even have the nerve or the guts to have this House sit on a regular basis to make sure that the government business is done in an orderly and reasonable fashion, rather than have the sitting hours of this House be dictated because of what the Premier's political agenda is. Do you need some NDP candidates to get elected? Fine, we'll adjourn. Do you need some photo ops? Are you still down in popularity, around the record low levels of Mike Harcourt? Then call for an announcement and have a photo op and fly around the province. Well, we're not here to do the bidding of the Premier. We're here to do the bidding of the people, and it's time that the Premier recognized that.

I see the Government House Leader is here. I don't know if she has changed her mind or if she intends to have this House sit until 10 o'clock tonight and come back. But I know other members of the House are most eager to participate in this debate -- that of when the House should recess until. We're more than happy to do that for however long it takes. I understand that there is another House that's not functioning right now. So if this is the way the government wants to have the evening progress, then we're more than happy to accommodate them, because, as I said, this House belongs to all members, not just the Premier.

The Speaker: I now recognize, on the motion to recess, the member for Matsqui.

An Hon. Member: He's back. We missed you.

M. de Jong: And I missed you, too, hon. member. I really did.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, members. I'm sure we're all interested in listening to this debate.

M. de Jong: I'm counting on it, hon. Speaker.

There is a principle at stake here. You know, I recall the circumstances under which this session commenced not so long ago, and the tradition that said we would have six days of debate on a Speech from the Throne and then six days of debate on a budget and that these two key documents in a legislative calendar would receive the consideration of all members opposite and of all members on this side of the House. What happened? Because of a Premier who was more intent on manipulating the legislative calendar, who was more intent on imposing upon all members of this chamber an agenda that had nothing to do with getting the work of the people done -- of passing legislation, some of it urgently required -- but had everything to do with presenting and pursuing a crass, partisan political agenda, we couldn't abide by that traditional schedule of debate.

That may not mean anything to some of the members opposite, hon. Speaker, but I can tell you this: in the annals of parliamentary history, of parliamentary debate, it represented a shameful moment in the history of this House. It represented a moment in which the government said, with contempt. . . . And that's the key word -- contempt. It shows contempt for every single member of this Legislative Assembly when the Premier says: "I can run roughshod over your rights."

Interjection.

M. de Jong: One of the members opposite just now referred to the fact that I've been absent. That's true. I was travelling south of the border, and I had an opportunity to visit a number of state legislatures and the federal Congress in 

[ Page 4546 ]

Washington, D.C. Almost without exception, those parliaments abide by a legislative calendar that is founded on two principles -- that is, the need to pursue and debate legislation in a way that will ensure that the people's business is done in as efficient a manner as possible and which respects the rights of all members of those assemblies to participate meaningfully in those debates.

When you've got a Premier and a government that say, "We're going to vacate the chamber when it's convenient for us, for no other purpose than to pursue a crass, partisan political agenda," that suggests to me that the regard members opposite -- members of this NDP government -- have for this House, this assembly and all of the history that it represents to the people of British Columbia is deplorable and shameful. It's something that we're not going to abide by on this side of the House.

It's a travelling road show, Mr. Speaker, that we adjourn for on Thursday, so that the Premier can sally forth. . . . You know, when I heard about the announcement, I thought of a song by Peter, Paul and Mary. All his bags are packed, he's ready to go; for a million bucks it'll be a helluva show. The Premier says we're moving to Prince George. He's leaving, Mr. Speaker, on a jet plane -- don't know when he'll be back again. Oh God, he's spending dough.

Except in this case it's not his money he's spending; it's the money of the people of British Columbia. It'll go on and on and on. He should be ashamed of himself. And it doesn't end, unfortunately, with the cost of the little junket. It doesn't end there because what this Premier is saying to the people of British Columbia, what he's saying to members of the House on both sides and what he's saying to the staff of this Legislative Assembly is that while he is out trying to sow the seeds of another deceptive electoral victory some years down the way, staff members here can work late because it's convenient for the Premier. The people in the halls, the Clerks. . . . Their families can go without their mothers, their fathers, their husbands and their wives because the Premier has decided that it's more important to abuse what have become, over time, the traditional sitting hours of this Legislative Assembly. It's more important, in his mind, to simply pursue his crass, partisan political agenda.

[6:15]

M. de Jong: Now, members opposite say that's not a factor, but we've heard from members. . . .

Interjection.

M. de Jong: The Government House Leader chastises me for a trip I took at the invitation of the American government. Her government didn't have those concerns when I offered -- and they asked that I deliver -- a message to the government in Washington on their behalf. So I don't know; she's awfully selective.

She asked, and her government asked, for us to speak as one in this province on certain issues that are apparently important to this government. But when we do so, we're chastised for responding. It's the typical deplorable rhetoric -- half-truths -- that we've become accustomed to from this government, where they say one thing and do the other.

On Thursday people are going to turn on their televisions, and do you know what they're going to see on the legislative channel? Fuzz. Fuzz, because there won't be anything happening here, and it'll be just like watching the government any other day of the week: fuzz. There won't be anything going on, on the government side of the House. But the unfortunate thing is that there won't be anything going on anywhere in the House, because they're all going to be on a little 737 jet flying up to Prince George, to try to spread the propaganda.

It is beyond conception that this government would have even an ounce of credibility on any of these issues when they are prepared to show such contempt for the rights of the 75 members of this Legislative Assembly, and the Government House Leader doesn't seem concerned about that. She doesn't seem to be at all troubled by the illogic of a situation that would have this assembly sitting until 10 o'clock, 11 o'clock or 12 o'clock at night some days, and all that implies in terms of overtime payment, and other days not sitting at all, where the chamber is empty.

I don't know if the Government House Leader intends to participate in the debate, but maybe she could explain to the people that are going to turn on their televisions at 10 o'clock tonight and see this chamber debating, and then turn on their televisions at 11 o'clock on Thursday morning, fully expecting MLAs to be at work doing the people's business -- and we won't be here. I don't know, but is that what the Government House Leader's idea of a normal workweek is? It's not mine. I presume, Mr. Speaker, that when we come here, we will. . . .

Interjections.

M. de Jong: The difference is -- and I wasn't here for this debate earlier last week -- that when I get my phone calls, I'll be in my office answering the phone, which isn't, of course, the case for all government members, because some of their offices are being rented out for other purposes. But I'll be in my office.

You know, I haven't seen the Government House Leader this agitated in quite a long time. Perhaps the Government House Leader is beginning to see the illogic of her ways. This will come as a shock to you, but I and my colleagues are prepared to give her all the time she requires, over the course of the next few hours, to revisit the decision she has made about how to manage this chamber.

To some extent, as the Opposition House Leader has alluded to, her role carries a very important function. As the Government House Leader, along with the opposition member, she is charged with the task of managing the business of this House. It is to be done in a way that will allow for the efficient debate of legislation, which will show some regard for the history and traditions of this place and will show some regard and some respect for the rights of the members of this House and, indeed, British Columbians who wish to follow these debates in both Houses.

The decision that she has made today represents an impediment to those objectives, a serious impediment. We can deal with it lightly, but the principle at stake here is an important one. It is that the business of this House needs to be done. It needs to be done efficiently, and it should not simply be done at the whim of the government, depending on what their political considerations of the day are.

I go back to when this session commenced and the circumstances under which it commenced, when a deliberate decision was made to wait until the last possible moment. So the ability to have a continuous debate on a throne speech and a continuous debate on the budget wasn't possible because 

[ Page 4547 ]

we weren't called in a timely manner. Those are decisions that this government has completely within its control. When they proceed in a way that shows such utter contempt -- not just for opposition members but for their own backbench members -- you have to wonder what is uppermost in their minds. But, of course, we know the answer to that: it is purely crass, partisan politics. It has nothing to do with respecting the traditions of this House, it has nothing to do with the timely and considered debate of legislation in this chamber, and it has everything to do with offending the principles upon which debates in this Legislature are said to be founded upon.

I hear the member for Skeena hemming and hawing. It escapes me why he wouldn't be on his feet -- if not in this chamber, then outside this chamber -- calling for a regular legislative calendar so that we wouldn't be vulnerable to this kind of abuse. You know, the member for Skeena talks about wasting time. He must have a seat in the first-class section of the 737. The member for Skeena is saying: "Wait a minute. I can fly home and not use one of my capital constituency trips. I can get there for free." That's what's in his mind. He doesn't seem to care at all. He doesn't seem to care that we have, by my count, 20-some-odd bills. . . They are odd bills, but we have 20-some-odd bills that need to be debated. We have an estimates process that has just begun. . . .

H. Giesbrecht: Sit down; let's debate them.

M. de Jong: And the member chastises me: "Let's sit down, and let's get on with it." Well, I say: "Let's get on with it; let's get on with it in the way that this House has been getting on with business for years and decades past." And that is by debating through the week, debating through regular office hours. Let's forget about governments and Premiers and cabinet ministers that are more interested in gassing up the old 737 and flying around the province on a political sales job.

What it really comes down to is respect and another word I'm afraid we hear precious little of in this chamber: consideration -- consideration for history, consideration for tradition, consideration for all members and consideration for the need to have meaningful, well-thought-out debate. And by its actions today, this government has demonstrated that none of those things are important in its eyes. What's important is propping up a Premier that has sunk so low in the opinion polls that he has to look up to his predecessor, Mr. Harcourt. And who would ever have thought that might happen?

We get back to the word "consideration," Mr. Speaker. It's about a Premier who has become so desperate to divert attention from what is happening and, more importantly, from what isn't happening in this chamber because of the inability of his government to provide a meaningful vision, legislative and otherwise, to the people of British Columbia. . . . It has everything to do with a Premier who is trying to create a smokescreen, and he'll go to any lengths to do it. He'll run roughshod over any history, any tradition and any members' rights in this Legislative Assembly, and I think it's deplorable.

All kidding aside, I'd ask members on that side of the House to take a moment through the course of this evening's debate to ask themselves honestly what's taking place here -- to consider the fact that a legislative assembly which by all rights needs to be in session by virtue of the work that is there to be done won't be, because the Premier of the day, the Premier of the New Democratic Party, has decided that he'd like to have a little travelling road show. He did it at the election, he did it on the Fridays leading up to the election, and he's doing it now. If ever there was a case to be made about a Premier and a government that have lost sight of the importance of a truly independent, functioning legislative branch of government, it is this Premier and this government.

As members consider that issue through the course of this debate this evening, I hope they will think for a moment about the image they are portraying to the people who would like to watch these debates and who won't be watching these debates, because they and their Premier will be winging their way across the province, spending millions of dollars on a public relations process. I am opposed, Mr. Speaker.

G. Plant: I'm honoured to have the opportunity to participate in this debate. The question in my mind is really: what is the basis upon which we in this House could be asked to sit after the ordinary working hours of most British Columbians? Why is it that we would be called upon to return here to sit in the hours of the evening when most British Columbians are home with their families?

I know that when I arrived here for the first time approximately a year ago, I found it to be an intensely interesting learning experience to learn about the rules of this place and to learn something about why it is that during the course of a session we reach a point in the business of this House when it can become necessary, at least as a matter of agreement by members of both sides of this House, to sit at night in order to do the business of this House in a timely and efficient way. We're asked to sit at night and we do so, and I think the reason we do so is because we recognize that there is about the business of the House sometimes a sense of urgency, a sense of importance, a sense that we have to actually get here and work together in order to do the people's business, which is largely conceived of by and on behalf of the government.

In other words, we come here, and we as opposition members accommodate the government's need to accomplish its agenda. We debate that agenda, we debate the issues that the government brings before the House, we debate the spending that the government wishes to undertake. We debate the bills that the government brings to this House, and at some point a reasonable case is made for the proposition that because of the urgency of dealing with the government's business, we have to sit at night.

Well, that would really be, I think, about the only reason that one could justify sitting in a chamber like this after ordinary working hours, sitting at night, sitting at a time when most British Columbians are actually at home with their families and enjoying themselves. We're here doing the business that we are called upon to do because something about that business has acquired the aura of urgency.

[6:30]

In this respect, I've had an interesting experience over the last few days. I've watched the estimates debate proceed. I've watched as the members on this side of the House have asked questions of ministers, moving estimates debate forward in a way that I think is constructive, efficient and useful and that ensures that the government is held to account for the spending it undertakes through its various ministries.

But that wasn't quite enough. In fact, we've actually been doing that for several weeks now, on a basis where we've 

[ Page 4548 ]

accommodated the government's desire that the business be conducted expeditiously. We've gone along with the government's desire, and we've sat late at night. Well, sitting until 10 o'clock is, I think, a sure mark that this institution is not organized in the way that any rational institution would organize itself. Nonetheless, we've done that, because it's sort of part of the tradition of this place.

Last week, however, we were told that with respect to the estimates debate in one ministry, we were not going to be able to adjourn at 10 o'clock. In fact, it was absolutely essential to the business of the government that we continue the debate of that ministry's estimates throughout the evening on Thursday of last week until it was concluded.

Now, why was that request made of us? Well, we said: "What is it about the business of the House that requires us to stay so late -- until the early hours of the morning if necessary -- to conclude the estimates debate of one particular ministry? Why is it that you the government insist that we stay here well past 10 o'clock if necessary, well past any civilized hour, to conduct debate?"

I was told that it was because the business of the government had become extraordinarily urgent. We were about to have land on our doorsteps four -- I think that was the number -- significant, serious and controversial pieces of legislation and it was urgent that we have the opportunity to debate those bills in this House. We would want the opportunity to debate them because they would be controversial bills, and they would be bills that would cause concern among a broad range of British Columbians who would want to be sure that their voices were heard in this House with respect to that legislation.

And yes, over the course of this week the government has introduced one or two bills that may in fact spark some controversy. Frankly, it was on the strength of that assurance late last week that I said that we will sit as late as we have to in order to finish the estimates debate of one particular ministry -- because you, the government, say there is urgent business for this House to debate: four pieces of legislation or thereabouts, which will be introduced this week or next.

What a surprise to find upon my return this week that in fact that representation was entirely false, that in fact there is nothing urgent about the business of this government except this government and this Premier's desperate need to restore his flagging reputation among the people of British Columbia by indulging himself in the worst form of high-priced, overpaid photo opportunities that are hundreds of miles away from this place, to make promises, break promises. . . . Who knows what he does when he goes out there, Mr. Speaker?

He wanders around and says the first thing that occurs to him. Sometimes it makes people happy; sometimes it makes people mad. The last thing you ever want to do is ask the next day whether he actually did anything about the issue, because that's not what this government is about. This government is about flying in airplanes to places where there are TV cameras and saying nice things to try to make a problem go away. This government is not about coming to this Legislature to do the really serious work of British Columbians in this House, where it belongs.

On Thursday night I was told that the urgent business of the House was to debate legislation. On the strength of that representation, I said, "Fine, we will continue debate" -- in the ministry that was at issue then -- "until that debate is finished, and we will do so because you tell us that the business of the House is urgent."

Well, actions do indeed speak louder than words. Now we find that it is in fact not necessary for this House to sit on Thursday or Friday of this week. That sends a signal. That sends a signal that any rational thinking person would have no difficulty understanding. The signal it sends is that this government does not think the business of this House is urgent. This government does not respect the traditions of this House and the traditions of our parliamentary democracy in terms of how the business of a government is conducted.

This government has no respect for these traditions because, frankly, those traditions get in the way of the personal, private political agenda of its Premier. Whenever that happens, we're all supposed to move out of the way as quickly as we possibly can to make sure he doesn't miss his flight, that he doesn't miss his TV camera appointment, that he doesn't miss the opportunity to try and sell another phony bill of goods to British Columbians.

What is it that we as parliamentarians can do here to build respect for the institutions of the government of this province? Frankly, when I was elected, I thought it was an opportunity for me to do what I could, in my own small way, to encourage people to have more respect for the institutions of our parliamentary democracy, rather than less. I thought it was a time in the history of this province where British Columbians, increasingly cynical of their political institutions, should in fact be shown an example of behaviour in the Legislative Assembly that would encourage them to develop respect for that assembly. That's not what's happening here. What's happening here is a demonstration of a complete lack of respect for this assembly.

Let's be clear for a moment. When I talk about parliamentary democracy -- big words -- I'm talking about things that are fundamentally important to how we live our lives in a democratic society. We and our democratic society are built on institutions that are hundreds and hundreds of years old. The only way they survive is when the traditions and the institutions are respected, when their rules are honoured in spirit as well as to the letter. In particular, when we are speaking in this House, when we are speaking about the institutions of parliamentary democracy, there are special rules.

There are special rules about how the business of the people of British Columbia is conducted. This is their chamber; this is the place where their voices are heard; this is the place where the people of British Columbia can make themselves heard on all sides of important issues. This place comes into existence because of the expression of the will and wish of the people of British Columbia. This is the place where they can be heard, where they can make their voices heard. This is the place where the decisions are made by government in a way that is accountable to the people of British Columbia.

It is central to the functioning of our democracy that this institution be respected. And who should be better charged with the respect for that institution than the Premier -- the individual who is the head of the government, who has more power than any other in our system, who can change the way we do things, who can break the rules and cause all British Columbians to lose respect for their institutions, including the institution of this House? So we have an opportunity. The Premier always has an opportunity.

L. Reid: Point of order, hon. Speaker. I'm having difficulty hearing this member, and I know that is not your desire. Indeed, this member's rights are being compromised by that lack of etiquette.

[ Page 4549 ]

The Speaker: I thank the member for her intervention, and I would suggest to those members whose duties require them to be elsewhere that they indeed go elsewhere.

G. Plant: Though I am speaking of the Premier and the important role that the Premier can play in a parliamentary democracy in terms of encouraging respect for its institutions, one of the most important institutions, if not the most important institution in a parliamentary democracy, is this chamber, this House. That is where the Premier has an opportunity. He has an opportunity to respect the institution of this House and to ensure that he brings before it the business of his government and the business of the people.

But that's not this Premier. In fact, this Premier, far from taking advantage of an opportunity presented to him to demonstrate his respect for this institution, says and does the contrary. We know what he's going to do: he's going to shut the House down for a couple of days to accommodate his own personal, partisan agenda.

It's not just that bad; it's worse. Listen to what the Premier says when asked about the business that he is engaged in -- or will be engaged in later this week. I'm quoting from something the Premier said earlier today: "I make no apology whatsoever for getting out of the Legislature and talking to the people that matter, that build this province up and down B.C. . . ."

Well, he should make an apology, because this is the place where the people of British Columbia want to be heard, have the right to be heard and have exercised their democratic right of voting in order to have a voice in this chamber. For the Premier to say "I make no apology" for leaving the Legislature is to reveal the true heart and soul of this Premier -- a Premier who has no interest in the institutions of parliamentary democracy.

Listen to what the Premier also said: "We've spent too much time debating with naysayers from the other side of the House. . . ." What a horrible inconvenience for a Premier, what a terrible obstacle, that he might actually have to defend his actions in the chamber built for the purpose. What a tremendous problem the Premier has. The Premier actually has to come into this House and be answerable to the people of British Columbia for his decisions. No, no, that is far too difficult for this Premier. A few days of debate on a bill, a few days of question period -- which he doesn't show up for all that often lately, does he? This is his view.

This is his opportunity to build our respect for the institutions of parliamentary democracy in British Columbia. What does he say? "We've spent too much time debating with naysayers from the other side of the House. . . ." That is deplorable; that is appalling; that is a pathetic way of dealing with the government of British Columbia.

But he goes on. He goes on to give us his vision of government. I'm so grateful to the Premier for the fact that he gave us his vision of government. This afternoon, here in this chamber, he said: "This isn't what government is all about. Government isn't coming in here, talking to bureaucrats in Victoria or these naysayers over there."

No, of course that's not the Premier's vision of government. That's the vision of government that involves real accountability, real answers to real questions. It involves something a little more difficult than sitting down with the spin doctors and dressing up headlines for press releases. It involves actually caring about issues, actually thinking about issues; it involves real debate about issues. It involves dealing with problems as they arise and acknowledging that sometimes there are difficult questions that need to be debated, and it involves recognizing that he has to answer for his actions and the actions of his government. The place he will do that is not out there on the campaign trail -- the permanent campaign trail of photo opportunities, bright lights and whatever else the phrase is. The place he does that, the place he ought to do that, is here in this chamber, and he has no interest in doing that.

I can only infer one thing from all of that. I can only infer that in fact there is no urgency to the business of this government. There is no vision; there is no mandate; there's no sense of where they're going. They realized they had to come here. They delayed coming here until the last possible minute. Now they're plotting, scheming, planning, hoping, praying and dreaming that they'll all be able to go home as soon as they possibly can for a summer holiday, having accomplished. . . . On the fifty-fourth day of this Legislative session, they have achieved the passage of one controversial piece of legislation.

This is not a government that has any urgency about any important, interesting and difficult issues of public policy. This is a government that is only interested in its political survival. It's not a government that needs to call upon the resources of this House, including the members sitting here or all the staff who work here. It's not a government that needs to call upon the attention of British Columbians anytime after 6 o'clock in the evening.

[6:45]

I'd love to be able to tell them: "Well, this week we're debating Bill 12, and that's going to carry us through to Thursday. And we're doing the estimates of the Ministry of Employment and Investment." But typically, we don't know that information. The public expects us to know that.

Interjection.

C. Hansen: The House Leader for the government side just asked: "Does your House Leader keep that information from you?" The answer is no, we're kept right up to date.

I'd like to give the House Leader for the government side an example of the way this chamber is treated with disrespect and the way that we, on this side of the House, are treated with no notice in terms of what the business of the House is going to be.

Yesterday afternoon I got a phone call from the assistant to the Minister of Employment and Investment -- at 4:30 yesterday afternoon. I was told that at 10 o'clock this morning 

[ Page 4550 ]

we would be back to debating the estimates of the Ministry of Employment and Investment. Obviously we spent some time on the Ministry of Employment and Investment last week. We had a chance to go through things like the job strategy. We had a chance to go through some of the trade issues that the ministry is facing. My colleague for Richmond East had the opportunity to raise issues about science and technology.

We got to the point where my colleague from Kamloops-North Thompson was talking about gaming -- which is obviously an issue of great importance to British Columbians today. . . . We were about halfway through those estimates, and we have to come back to them. The Minister of Employment and Investment does not have the authority of this chamber to spend the funds necessary to get through to the end of this fiscal year. Therefore, as we got halfway through those debates on the Ministry of Employment and Investment, lo and behold, on Monday morning they weren't called again.

I was told yesterday at 4:30 -- after we went to the Ministry of Finance estimates in this chamber and the estimates of the Ministry of Women's Equality in the other chamber, followed by the Ministry of Human Resources -- that what was going to happen. . . . I was given 18 hours' notice that we were coming back to the Ministry of Employment and Investment estimates and that we were going to be dealing with the B.C. Lottery Corporation this morning at 10 o'clock. After that we were going to be going on to the estimates of the Ministry of Forests, which is included in the Employment and Investment estimates.

My colleague the member for Richmond Centre was, of course, preparing for that agenda. These aren't things where you just stand up on a moment's notice and start to ask the questions that we have to ask on behalf of the people of British Columbia. An enormous amount of work goes into it, which I am sure the Government House Leader doesn't appreciate, because they have staff from the ministry that feed her the files, with everything done. On this side of the House, in opposition -- which the Government House Leader will remember from years gone by, and in years to come she will have a memory refresher on it -- the research is done by us. We don't have 16 assistants running around to do that research for us.

So when we're told by an official of this government that the Ministry of Employment and Investment estimates are going to be coming back into this House at 10 o'clock this morning, an enormous amount of work goes into preparing for that estimates debate. Then we found out, last night. . . . I thought it was bad enough that we only had 18 hours' notice that this was going to happen at 10 o'clock this morning. Then we found out last night that in fact it's not the Ministry of Employment and Investment estimates that we're coming back to, but that we're going to carry on with the Ministry of Finance in this House and the Ministry of Human Resources in the other House. That is an insult to this House.

The people of this province expect that this chamber and the business of this chamber will be conducted in an orderly fashion that allows us to do our jobs as members of the official opposition -- to do the research that is necessary and to do the consultation that is necessary. When the government brings down a piece of legislation, it's not that we sit here and point out the shortcomings of that legislation; we reach out to people around this province who can give us that kind of advice, and that takes time. I think all members -- and certainly the members of the government benches that were here from '86 to '91, sitting in opposition -- appreciate the amount of time it takes to do the research and prepare for the debates in this chamber.

For us to sit in this chamber from 10 o'clock in the morning till noon and then come back at 2 o'clock until 6 o'clock. . . . I think the thing that the public finds most appalling is that we then break from 6 o'clock to 6:35 -- 35 minutes -- and then we come back into this chamber. Where is the time to have dinner, never mind the time to do the research and return phone calls to constituents and all of the other stuff that has to go on outside of the actual debates that take place in this chamber?

As many of the members know, we have guests in this precinct today. We have members of the Legislative Assembly of the province of Saskatchewan here, who were introduced by the Leader of the Opposition prior to question period today. Earlier today I was telling them about the lack of notice we get in this chamber for the business of this House. They were appalled at how little notice we get as to what's on the government's agenda.

The sad part is that it is not. . . . I would love to think that the government has their master agenda as to what's going to happen in this chamber for the next two months -- or the next three years, let's say. I would like to pretend that that agenda really does exist and that they're just keeping it as maybe a little secret that they really don't want to share with us. But the sad part is that there is no agenda. This is something that I think is true. Not only do they not have an agenda for what's going to happen in this chamber from day to day, but they don't have an agenda for what's going to happen with this government from week to week or month to month.

All they know is when the next photo opportunity is coming up and when they've got to get the communications crew geared up for the next photo op for the Premier. So, lo and behold, here we have the next photo opportunity that the Premier wants to do. He wants to make sure that his tie is straight. In fact, I am sure even the Minister of Agriculture will be there with his tie straight and his top button done up. The Premier, I am sure, will have his hair neatly combed, because it may be windy in Prince George on Thursday. But that's the only thing that is on the agenda of this government; everything else stops. The business of government stops in order to prepare for what? Prepare for policy? Prepare for solutions to some of the real problems that are out there? No, the business of this chamber stops to allow the Premier to fly to Prince George for a photo opportunity.

I want to touch on another problem that we have with this motion of adjourning from 6 o'clock to 6:35 p.m. We have done this ever since we've been in night sittings, since the first part of June. Basically, each night of the week except for Friday nights, we have been sitting until at least 10 o'clock at night. And in one case the government felt that maybe we weren't making progress fast enough, so they wanted us to sit until midnight last Thursday night. Why? Because there was urgent business that we had to get on to, as my colleague from Richmond-Steveston talked about earlier.

Each of these motions that have been placed to adjourn the House every single Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday have been put by the Government House Leader or the acting House Leader of the day. And typically, the acting House Leader, as we know, is the minister whose estimates are up in this chamber, the minister who is being held accountable for his spending estimates in the period leading up to 6 p.m. So that minister then stands up and moves a motion that we adjourn until 6:35 p.m. That minister and the staff who are there to support the minister then have to leave to find dinner.

When does this House reconvene? At 6:35. Hon. Speaker, you know only too well what happens if we in the opposition 

[ Page 4551 ]

benches are not here at 6:35. That motion could be put, and the estimates of that ministry would be simply cut at that point. If we are not here in this chamber at 6:35 to speak to the estimates that are being debated or to speak to whatever motion the acting Government House Leader chooses to put to this chamber at 6:35 p.m., then nothing happens. Basically, the motion gets put, there's no debate, and the government moves forward. So we are always here at 6:35. That is our duty: to be here at 6:35 if that's the motion that has been passed in this House.

But what happens after rushing a dinner from 6 o'clock to 6:35 so that we get back here because that's what the government motion says? We are here in this chamber at 6:35, ready to start the business of this House, and who is not here? The acting Government House Leader, the minister whose estimates are being put at the time. We sit here -- and, hon. Speaker, you sit here -- waiting for that Government House Leader to come back into the chamber so that we can get on with the business of this House. And on every one of those night sittings when we come back in this chamber, we sit here waiting for the minister to come in so that he can move the motion to proceed with the business, and typically at 6:45 or 6:50 p.m. he comes in wiping crumbs from his chin. Why? Because he has taken the luxury of enjoying his dinner.

Wouldn't it be nice if those of us on this side of the chamber could have a respectable dinner in an orderly fashion? The Government House Leader is also the Minister of Health. If anybody should be sensitive to the need for a good diet and a proper dinner, it should be that Minister of Health. And certainly the interests of this chamber are not well served by a break from 6 o'clock to 6:35, where we can rush out of this chamber, wolf down a dinner and rush back in again only to have the minister, who is the acting House Leader, take his or her sweet time to come back into this chamber. . . .

Hon. M. Farnworth: Sweet tooth.

C. Hansen: Sweet tooth, the Minister of Municipal Affairs says. Well, maybe that's it. The minister who is the acting House Leader of the day takes the time for maybe a little dessert after dinner.

An Hon. Member: Or a cigarette.

C. Hansen: Yeah, or a cigarette, speaking of the evils of the tobacco industry.

Hon. Speaker, I also want to talk about the work of a Member of the Legislative Assembly in British Columbia. What I find is that most of my constituents, most of the members of the public that I meet, are very cognizant of what's involved with our work. Our work is not just the time that we have to spend in this chamber debating legislation. Our work involves a bunch of things. It involves research; it involves dealing with constituency problems. I talked earlier about the amount of research that has to go into this whole process. People ask me how I keep up with the mail. I think every member of this chamber appreciates that fact -- I can see the member from Comox shaking her head -- because we all know that you can't deal with the volume of mail that comes in. It is too much.

Mail doesn't get measured, as we all know, in terms of the number of pieces; it doesn't even get measured in terms of the inches of mail that come in every day. We measure it in terms of the feet. A typical day's mail that we see coming in, in terms of reports, in terms of letter, in terms of copies of letters that are sent to ministers that they don't get answers to. . . . The volume of stuff that comes into our in-basket every day is enormous. I don't think there's anybody in this chamber that is not convinced of that.

In addition to the time that we have to spend in this chamber debating the issues that are here -- whether it's the spending estimates or the legislation that this government wants to bring in -- we have to make sure that there is an adequate number of hours in the day so that we can deal with that volume of mail. I've found that there's no way I can possibly read all of it. It's impossible. To read all of it would take 150 hours a day, just to keep on top of it.

[7:00]

C. Hansen: That's right. Actually, the Minister of Municipal Affairs talks about the need for speedreading courses.

G. Campbell: Unfortunately, he skips over all of the information.

C. Hansen: That's right. The minister should probably read a little bit more of his mail in his basket.

S. Hawkins: He skipped over the word "consultation."

C. Hansen: As my colleague reminds me, he made some commitments to municipal leaders around this province about consultation. He should probably read the correspondence from people appealing to him. . . .

If the business of this House was dealt with in a more orderly fashion in terms of the time that the sittings of this House take place, that Minister of Municipal Affairs would have more time to deal with the mail that's in his in-basket, whether he's had the speedreading course or not. He would be able to at least get through a tiny bit more than he is today.

What I have found with the volume of mail that comes in is that I can only possibly deal with about 5 percent of it. I know that my constituents. . . . When I have a constituent that phones me up and asks me about the report that was done by the member for. . .the one that did the report on mobile homes. When I get phoned up and asked about the report that was done on mobile homes, I've got to admit. . . .

S. Hawkins: Malahat-Juan de Fuca.

C. Hansen: The member for Malahat-Juan de Fuca.

I have to admit that I have not read that report on mobile homes. When I have a constituent that phones me up who is very much interested in that issue, he expects me to know about it. If there were enough hours in this day to read every single report and to be on top of every single item, I would certainly want to do that, because I feel that's my job as a member of this Legislature on behalf of my constituents.

I also find that when I'm faced with situations like that and when I have the opportunity to explain to a constituent that I can't possibly find the time in the day to read all of this stuff that comes across, never mind between 6 o'clock and 6:35 each afternoon, they're very understanding -- particularly when we undertake to find the answers that constituents are looking for and then get back to them. But certainly, I find that even with the business of this House, the stuff that comes 

[ Page 4552 ]

across my desk that I feel I should read. . . . It's not a case of putting it away where I know where to find it, but with the information that I feel an obligation to be on top of on a daily basis, there are simply not enough hours. So if we can't deal with the business of this House in an orderly manner and allow enough time outside of the sittings of this House so that we can do that kind of research, then I don't think that we're doing the business of our House adequately.

The other area that is very much a job that every one of us in this chamber has to do is correspondence. It's the constituents' problems. It's the issues that people are writing about, whether they've got a problem with Pharmacare, whether they've got a problem with reference-based pricing, whether they've got a problem with the Workers Compensation Board. Those are all issues that my constituents expect me to find the time to deal with. Quite frankly, when somebody in my constituency is in a very difficult personal situation, they don't really care whether I've only got a half an hour for dinner; they don't really care whether the House is sitting until midnight. They care about that particular problem, and that's my priority, as well. If I've got a constituent who is in need of assistance from his or her member of the Legislature to deal with a personal problem, that goes to the top of my priority list.

So I think that we have to make sure that the business of this House is conducted in a fashion that allows us to deal with those kinds of problems on a priority basis. Certainly that doesn't mean we have to sit in this chamber until midnight dealing with issues that are obviously not important to this government -- otherwise we would be back here on Thursday and Friday of this week dealing with the ordinary business of this House, rather than dragging things out until the wee hours of the morning.

One of the things that we are. . . . I want to make something very clear to anybody that's following this debate. We on this side of the House are ready to do the people's business. We are ready to debate the estimates of the ministries. We are ready to debate any of the legislation that this government wants to bring in. But there are normal times to do that.

When this House did not sit on May 29, that was a day we could have been debating the estimates of the Ministry of Employment and Investment. We were ready to be here on May 29. Where were the government members? The government members were trying, in a futile attempt, to help federal NDP candidates get elected. Quite frankly, maybe some of the NDP candidates in the federal election may have actually been successful if it had not been for members of this government being at home in their ridings trying to help them.

Given the reputation of this government, given the reputation of this Premier and the reputation that every one of the NDP members of this chamber have, I would suggest that for those members to have been back in their constituencies helping federal NDP candidates on May 29 and May 30 was probably a kiss of death. If I were the NDP candidate in many of those ridings, I would have said: "No, don't come; stay in Victoria. Debate the legislation in Victoria." That is what we should be doing in this chamber this Thursday and Friday.

I want to raise another issue that I think is quite important and germane to this motion that's before us. When we came back to this chamber at the end of March -- in fact, I remember it well; it was a Thursday night before Good Friday -- we were asked to pass an interim supply bill. Why? Because the government, as of April 1, had no authority to spend the taxpayers' money. They could have brought this chamber back in February. It could have come back in March, and we could have had an orderly budget process. It would have allowed for this Legislature to approve this government's spending plans in a proper and timely fashion. But here we were, on the last possible day in March, and this government was asking this chamber to approve spending of $5 billion -- $5 billion -- with virtually no debate. They would have loved it if that interim supply bill had been passed in this chamber with no debate at all -- $5 billion of taxpayers' money.

Well, we did debate that bill that night. We debated that bill until 2 o'clock in the morning on Good Friday. Why? Because we recognized the urgency of, firstly, the accountability that we have to hold this government to, and secondly, we realized that there are people in this province who are dependent on the government's authority to spend taxpayers' money.

Given that they didn't bring that bill forward for debate in this House until the last possible moment, it was a matter of urgent public importance. It was a matter that warranted us staying and sitting in this chamber until 2 o'clock in the morning so that we could debate that interim supply bill -- so that the government had the authority to pay salaries the following week, so that the government had the authority to issue cheques for programs around this province for the associations that are dependent on revenues from this government.

On that night we were prepared to sit here until 2 o'clock in the morning so that that could be done. Was it necessary to sit until 2 o'clock in the morning? Not if this government had had its act together. Not if we had had a proper legislative schedule, so that we could have brought this chamber back together in February, so that we wouldn't have had to sit up until 2 o'clock in the morning that night. That would have been a better use of the time of this Legislature.

But if this government is going to bring in an interim supply bill at 2 o'clock in the afternoon on the last possible date, then we have no choice on this side of the House. We had an obligation to the taxpayers to debate this legislation. And we did. We asked the necessary questions. We did that until 2 o'clock in the morning.

Today we see that this government is trying to say that we have urgent business that requires night sittings of this House. Well, if that's the case, then we have business in this House that requires this House to sit this Thursday and this Friday, instead of the Premier flying half of the entourage up to Prince George for a photo opportunity.

So let's look at the dates that this House has not sat when we could have sat. We could have sat on May 29. We could have sat on May 30, instead of allowing those NDP members to go up and give the kiss of death to their NDP federal candidates. We could have sat on June 2. Yes, that was a federal election day. But you know what? I was prepared to vote in an advanced poll in my riding the weekend before so that I could be here on June 2, so that we could do the business of the people in this House and so we could be getting on with the legislation and the estimates that are before us.

Let's look at the shortened days that we've had. We could have been doing the business of this House on those days when the House ended early.

But you know what's going to happen. We're going to be under pressure from this Government House Leader, who will be saying that we've got to get through the estimates process, that we have to have the spending authority from this chamber. Well, you're right; we do have to have the spending authority.

[ Page 4553 ]

What's going to happen on June 30, when interim supply runs out? Today is June 17. We have, I'm guessing, probably about eight or nine sitting days left until the end of June, if we sit this Thursday and Friday. We've got eight or nine sitting days left before we have to deal with the issue of interim supply.

I can see the Attorney General sitting there shaking his head because now he's got something else to do on the to-do list, and it's something called an interim supply bill -- (No. 2), 1997. The authority for this government to spend money is going to expire as soon as the spending authority provided for under the first interim supply bill runs out.

We on this side of the House are critical of the use of interim supply bills when they're not necessary, just as the NDP were very critical of the use of interim supply bills. I remember how critical they were when the previous Social Credit government came and asked them for $4 billion of interim supply. Well, hon. Speaker, this government asked us for $5 billion of spending approval without debate -- or with minimal debate -- in this chamber. Here we are; we're coming up to a date when there's going to be a need for a second interim supply bill. That is not doing the people's business in the way that is necessary.

But before I wrap up and turn this over to my next colleague, I just want to point out that we're debating a motion to adjourn this chamber until 6:35 p.m. I find that's a motion that I simply can't support, because we do have business of this House to do. It is now 7:15 p.m., hon. Speaker, and I think it would be totally inappropriate for us to pass a motion to adjourn until 6:35 p.m.

Tomorrow is Wednesday. Tomorrow is another day, and tomorrow at 2 p.m. we should be in this chamber debating the affairs of the people of this House. It's simply not appropriate for us to adjourn this House until 6:35 p.m., because we have estimates to do tomorrow. Well, we don't in fact know what's on the agenda tomorrow. We don't know if we're doing the Ministry of Finance tomorrow afternoon at 2 o'clock. We don't know if we're doing the Ministry of Human Resources tomorrow at 2 o'clock, because whenever we've been given a schedule as to what's going to happen, the Government House Leader changes it.

[7:15]

G. Abbott: Thank you for that resounding round of applause to commence my remarks. It's certainly a pleasure for me, hon. Speaker. I know you've been waiting with bated breath for me to enter this debate, and I appreciate your rapt attention -- as usual -- to every word. It's a pleasure for me to rise and to wipe the crumbs from my face. These are metaphorical crumbs, Mr. Speaker, because we haven't had an opportunity to dine yet, because we have been here in this House, debating the very important motion of adjourning at 6:35. I know that probably for the thousands of British Columbians who have just tuned into the legislative channel, who have probably heard via perhaps rumour or telephone that, in fact, the member for. . . .

An Hon. Member: News flash.

G. Abbott: "News flash: the member for Shuswap rising to speak in House. For those thousands of viewers that have just joined us, we are. . . ."

Interjections.

G. Abbott: We are debating a motion to recess this House at 6:35 p.m.. Given that it's now 7:18 p.m., some viewers, particularly those that have just tuned in, may be curious as to why we would be debating this motion. Well, let me be the first to answer that question that those many thousands of viewers who have just tuned in are obviously asking. There is, I think, a great symbolic importance to the debate that is occurring here. The 6:35 p.m. time has passed, but there is a very important principle here that we're trying to make, and that is: it takes cooperation on all sides of the House to make this institution work well. That has been the focus of the debate so far, and I'm sure as long as colleagues on this side of the House wish to continue this debate, that will be the focus of it as well. It is not possible. . . .

Interjection.

G. Abbott: The hon. member for Skeena, as usual, is attempting to make light of my serious words here.

An Hon. Member: He's in a different time zone.

G. Abbott: He is from a different time zone. That's true. He is beamed up and beamed down from this chamber. Many of us go in and out of the revolving door; the member for Skeena is beamed in and beamed out. He just appears to have been beamed in.

At any rate, the very important point that I was about to make before I was so rudely interrupted is that this House has a serious job to do for the people of British Columbia, and it's important that the House operate in a manner where some cooperation is evident on all sides. I think the focus of our debate here is that we have not been seeing, particularly in recent days, the cooperation that we should see from the government side of the House in the operation of this House.

As you know, we all have the honour and the privilege to serve in this remarkable institution. This beautiful building that I have the privilege to speak in now has been here for well over 100 years, and this province has had a government for well over 125 years now. There is a whole realm of tradition that goes along with this institution, and cooperation between all members of the House is a very important tradition that needs to be observed here -- one which I think the government has, on more than one occasion recently, unfortunately forgotten.

[ Page 4554 ]

In this institution over the past 125 years, there have only been something like 800 British Columbians who have had the privilege and honour of serving here. I certainly feel fortunate to be among that number now. I try to take my job seriously, and I try to do my job well. I know other members of the House try to do their jobs well. To address the heart of what we're debating here, it is not possible for us to do our job well and to do effective work for our constituents when we are frequently thrust into the kinds of positions that the government has put us in over the past few days.

The first role of this House is obviously to give careful consideration to public policy. Can we do that, Mr. Speaker, at 10 o'clock at night, at 11 o'clock at night or at 2 o'clock in the morning? I don't think so. I don't think that's a good time to be debating public policy in this institution. In fact, I think it's an abuse of this institution to have legislators sitting at those hours of the day. It's most unfortunate, because I don't think that public policy gets the kind of consideration and the thorough and mature consideration that it might at other times of the day.

Certainly I think that late sittings, as we've been experiencing for the past two weeks now, are completely inconsistent with the notion of careful consideration of public policy in this institution. We have tried in recent weeks to give our consideration and cooperation in the progress of business in this House. We have been sitting now for over two weeks, is it? It's something like that. We have been sitting until 10 o'clock at night.

We have not groused, sulked or otherwise complained about the 10 o'clock sittings. We have tried to cooperate with the government to keep the business of the House moving. We've been prepared to sit until 10 o'clock without complaint. Last Thursday, we learned from the Government House Leader that it was critical that we conclude the estimates of the Ministry of Small Business, Tourism and Culture.

I had the privilege of visiting with the Government House Leader, along with the Whip, and she made it very clear to us that they just could not wait until Monday morning or afternoon to conclude those estimates. They had to be done. There was a tremendous surge of government legislation that was going to be appearing this week, and it was necessary to clear away those particular estimates to allow us time to give careful consideration to new government bills in this House.

So what do we find, Mr. Speaker, after sitting until after 11 o'clock on Thursday night to conclude Small Business? We find, when we come back here on Monday morning, that in fact there wasn't the enormous urgency attached to the completion of those estimates that the Government House Leader had suggested. In fact, it would appear that we had some leisure time ahead of us later in the week. We were advised that notwithstanding the weight of new government bills and the importance of completing the estimates, we would be able to adjourn the House on Thursday and Friday.

An Hon. Member: Amazing!

G. Abbott: It's an amazing thing. How could that possibly happen? Why did this happen? This House is adjourning to allow the Premier, some members of cabinet, I guess, and perhaps some members of the NDP back bench to join him on a jet tour around the province to advise of the good news that a jobs and timber accord is now in the can.

An Hon. Member: The voyage of the damned.

G. Abbott: The voyage of the damned. Yes, we could characterize this tour of the province, Mr. Speaker, if it's not too unparliamentary, as the voyage of the damned -- but we'll see about that. What we're going to be seeing on Thursday, as the Premier and his entourage jet around the province, is the Premier announcing his supposed solution for problems that this government itself created over the past several years. [Applause.]

I want to thank the members for Okanagan West and Matsqui for that resounding round of applause. That kind of support from members on our side of the House sustains me, like water on a hot day.

An Hon. Member: Or hot water on a cold day.

G. Abbott: Yes -- hot water or a cup of tea on a cold day.

When the Premier is away, this House won't sit, so that means, I guess, that like other British Columbians, we're going to learn about the details of the jobs and timber accord. . . . Perhaps we'll hear about it in the media. Maybe we'll read about it in the newspaper or see it on TV on the news. We'll hear about the jobs and timber accord. Perhaps we won't learn the details of the jobs and timber accord until sometime next week, when the in-flight movie may be the jobs and timber accord.

Unfortunately, I guess the Speaker has to leave me. I hope you are able to tune in to the parliamentary channel, Mr. Speaker, to enjoy the balance. I was just getting to the good part, actually. I was just getting to the really good part, but I guess it's fair in a way that the Deputy Speaker should also be able to enjoy a portion of my remarks firsthand, and so I do welcome her, although I lament the departure of the Speaker.

[G. Brewin in the chair.]

An Hon. Member: Start over, so she doesn't miss the first part of it.

G. Abbott: I'm sure she has been watching the proceedings on the parliamentary channel, and I don't think I would want to do that. In deference to the thousands of British Columbians who are watching this for the first time, I don't want to repeat anything, but I did want to say when I interrupted myself there, hon. Speaker, that I was just about to make what I think is a very important point.

If I can call that point back up again now, it was that when the Premier is away on Thursday and Friday, announcing the good news that he has now found the solution to the problem his government has created over the past six years. . . . When he's away doing that, we are not going to be sitting in this House, and it won't be until sometime next week that we find out the details of this.

I think that's really unfortunate, because it's the first order of business of this House to talk about public policy. Clearly, Mr. Speaker -- Madam Speaker, hon. Speaker. . . . I still haven't quite adjusted to the departure of Mr. Speaker, hon. Speaker. My apologies for that. There was no real confusion there. I was actually looking away when I said that, so pardon me.

The important point here, though, is that when the Premier is away having his glitzy press conferences all around the province, we're not going to be here giving that mature, sober, serious consideration to the jobs and timber accord. I just want to talk briefly about the jobs and timber accord and what we're likely to be missing on Thursday when the Premier's away.

[ Page 4555 ]

Last year during the throne speech debate, I was fascinated. I looked across the House, and I saw one of the NDP members reading The End of Work by Jeremy Rifkin. In fact, that member is here today -- the member for Bulkley Valley-Stikine. He is an avid reader, and he's now reading "The Destruction of the World As We Know It," which again I suspect is perhaps some premonition. . .

An Hon. Member: Written by Glen Clark?

An Hon. Member: By Arthur C. Clarke.

G. Abbott: By Arthur C. Clarke.

. . .about the destruction of the world as we know it, based on the policies of the government.

But anyway, I'm going to make the very important point here that surprisingly, even though there appeared to be only one member of the NDP side that was reading Rifkin, we later found out that the Premier is quite possessed with the ideas of Jeremy Rifkin. In fact, Mr. Rifkin's ideas influenced the Premier in a very substantial way about the new employment policies in this province.

I suspect what we'll be seeing. . . .

[7:30]

G. Abbott: I'm going to ignore all that fuzz from over on the other side there, because I've got a lot of points that I want to make here and a very limited time to do it. So I can't respond to every heckler on the other side. In fact, it would be irresponsible and unparliamentary for me to do so. What I'm going to do now is focus. I'm going to focus on the points I want to make, and I'm not going to get caught up in any secondhand debate with the members there.

Let's just talk about how we've underestimated on this side, I think, the importance of Jeremy Rifkin in influencing the thoughts of the Premier. We thought that the hon. member for Bulkley Valley-Stikine was merely anticipating the inevitable consequences of the policies of this government when he was reading The End of Work. In fact, we see in the 1997 throne speech that the Premier has wholeheartedly embraced the economic theories of Jeremy Rifkin. And what is this going to mean? We're clearly going to see in the jobs and timber accord the first significant impact of those ideas of Rifkin on the Premier and, as a consequence, on the province.

I frankly find it a little frightening that the Premier has been seized so powerfully by any particular intellectual -- and perhaps particularly so, given that it's Jeremy Rifkin. I think the Premier's current view is certainly ample evidence that sometimes the intellectual can be far more powerful than the politician. Certainly this is the case here, where the Premier has been convinced that the end of work is the direction we should be going in this province. I think nothing can be more frightening than a politician who embraces in a very uncritical way the ideas of the intellectual.

I don't want to get into a wholesale debate here on Jeremy Rifkin. Obviously his ideas have many commendable features. But what I'm concerned about is that the Premier has embraced them so uncritically. Rifkin certainly has a vision of how the world is going to unfold. But the world never unfolds as any particular thinker or intellectual anticipates. The Luddites, for example. . . .

An Hon. Member: There they are.

G. Abbott: There's a number of them over there, that's right -- Luddites. For those who haven't been following the Luddite web site on computer, the Luddites had a concern that early industrial technology would kill most jobs. They were convinced, for example, that the spinning wheel, or whatever, would eliminate human labour. Of course, these concerns have obviously been proven wrong. The advent of industrial machinery did not mean an end to employment. It meant, in fact, more employment than we had seen in the past. Similarly, among the neo-Luddites, of whom many of our friends across the way are prominent supporters, are people who believed that computers were going to mean the end of human employment. Of course, that's been proven wrong as well. Karl Marx, once the champion of the socialist working class, believed that a worker revolution was inevitable, based on the growing impoverishment of the working class. Of course, that's been proven wrong as well.

So I really think the Premier, when he embraces Jeremy Rifkin, should take Rifkin's ideas with a grain of salt, if we can use that metaphor. I certainly think he should take a restrained view of it rather than the obvious, wholehearted, passionate embrace which we've been seeing in recent months. I don't know how the future is going to unfold, but neither does Jeremy Rifkin. I think we as legislators need to be very cautious in embracing those kinds of ideas.

One of the ideas that's central to Jeremy Rifkin and that I suspect is going to be central to the jobs and timber accord, which we're going to hear so many glowing things about sometime next week, when we return from our short vacation here. . . . I think we're going to hear something about a shorter workweek, because this is central to Jeremy Rifkin. I'd suggest that the shorter workweek may well diminish rather than expand our basis of employment. There's a strong argument to be made for that. I doubt whether many of the members across the way will be able to capture the arguments which I'm going to make, because I sense that there's a limited attention span there -- which was far surpassed, actually, probably some hours ago. Nevertheless, I think it's important to make it.

Does the Premier anticipate that a shorter workweek will mean that people will continue to enjoy the same wage that they did in the past? I presume that he would make that argument. But what does that mean? It means that what we will be doing, whether it's through a shorter workweek or an edict which says: "Industry must create more jobs or else. . . ." I think what we do is, in a very immediate way, make our industries less competitive. Well, can we afford that?

Obviously, the NDP government thinks we can afford to have less competitive industries in this province. But I think that that really naïve socialist thinking is all wrong. The members opposite really belong to a different age, when governments were leaders and could issue edicts, when they could issue orders and say: "This is the way it's going to be."

Well, we now live in a global, competitive world. I don't think we are going to enhance in any way our economic environment, our job creation environment in British Columbia by making our industries less competitive. That's exactly where the jobs and timber accord is going to be headed. I think we will be seeing, when we return from our short vacation this week, a lot of that kind of thinking in the jobs and timber accord.

The effect of the jobs and timber accord, ironically, is going to be to further drive jobs and investment from this 

[ Page 4556 ]

province. As we talked about earlier today, the consequence to date of this government's policy in the forest sector is some 17,000 fewer forest jobs in British Columbia since the NDP government took over in 1991. There are 17,000 fewer now. We know that we have lost 5,500 jobs in British Columbia in the last year as a consequence of the regulatory and tax policies of this government. So I think it would be absolutely astonishing if anything this government did created real, new sustainable jobs, because everything this government does is contrary to that. Everything this government does is smoke and mirrors; it's illusion. It's pretending to create jobs, but it has never created real jobs for British Columbians.

I see in this government, particularly headed by the current Premier, some really disturbing elements of what I would characterize as the Joe Stalin school of political and economic management. In fact, I think that is a fairly apt way. . . .

Interjections.

G. Abbott: Surprisingly, I hear quite resounding applause from the other side of the House, indicating that they think my analysis is right on the mark. It frequently happens that they are so overwhelmed by the logic and reason of my argument that they embrace my arguments so fervently, so passionately. While I appreciate that, it does surprise me to some extent.

But I think they're right that what we do see from this government -- I don't think it was so much true of the previous NDP Premier, but I think it's particularly true of the current Premier -- is this Joe Stalin school of economic and political management.

An Hon. Member: There they go, clapping their hands again.

G. Abbott: Yes, they're clapping their hands again. This is just overwhelming, the support that we're getting for this notion.

What characterizes the Joe Stalin school of economic and social and political management? Well, what we see particularly is a tendency toward decrees, edicts and ultimatums from the seat of government. Since the current Premier was elected to the post, we see this all the time, where the Premier holds a press conference and says: "Well, this is the way it's going to be. Here it is. How do you like it?" It's a very typical way of. . . . It's just like Uncle Joe. This is the way this government likes to operate. If you say that there's going to be 21,000 new jobs, then magically 21,000 new jobs are going to appear. It's not going to be 1,000 jobs, it's not going to be 31,000 jobs; it's going to be 21,000 new jobs that appear, because this government by decree said that those are going to be created.

Well, of course, this is utter nonsense, hon. Speaker, as you know so well. This is utter nonsense. The world just does not operate on this basis anymore. The world, as I have noted, is a competitive place. It's a global marketplace, and nonsensical thinking, like we've seen so frequently from this NDP government, is completely out of step with the realities that pervade the world today.

What else do we see from the Joe Stalin school of management? Well, there are things like an emphasis on planning and minute bureaucratic detail. I think one of the things which the Premier has promised to correct in the jobs and timber accord is the Forest Practices Code, and here we see, I think, NDP-Joe Stalin management at its best. We see the government coming in with a very commendable goal about better forest practices but trying to micromanage it. Let's put all the emphasis, they say, on process, not on results. Of course, the Premier now claims to have realized that the NDP had gone wrong there and that they should be putting emphasis on results rather than on process. That's good to hear, but the thing about this government is that they'll say one thing but do another. We'll have to wait for some time to see whether the NDP can actually come through on this one and produce the kind of results-oriented process that they've promised but never delivered on.

As well, I think we see in the Joe Stalin school of management an emphasis on arbitrary targets and five-year plans. One of the beautiful kinds of symmetry between the Stalin type of government and the NDP type of government is that they both think in terms of five-year blocks, saying: "Over five years we're going to do X." They set artificial targets. "When those targets aren't met, then we move the target." That's fairly simple. We frequently see this kind of thing. I see my time is running short, hon. Speaker, and I have so much to say.

Interjections.

G. Abbott: Actually, it sounds like there may a unanimous resolution of the House to allow me to go overtime in order to complete my thoughts on this. This is great.

[7:45]

Let me just conclude with a couple of comments here. I know the members opposite are crying, "More, more," and I'll oblige them another day. But in respect to the rules of the House, I'm going to have to wind up here. I want to say that it's high time we restored some balance in the operation of this House. I think we've lost that in recent weeks, and it's time we restored it. Historically -- not just in the current parliament, but over the past 125 years -- there has been a good deal of cooperation between the government and the opposition in terms of how the House will operate. I think we've lost that recently. It's time to restore it. . . .

Deputy Speaker: I draw attention to the red light, which is on. So your time is, in fact, finished.

G. Abbott: Thank you very much.

Deputy Speaker: Sorry to be the bearer of bad news.

G. Abbott: I appreciate the opportunity to have done this. I just want to note in departing. . .

Deputy Speaker: Hon. member.

G. Abbott: . . .that the Attorney General's current reading material has buried me standing. I think that would be an appropriate target for this government: to bury themselves standing.

[ Page 4557 ]

G. Janssen: I'm enthralled by the member's statements just spoken. I ask leave of the House to ask him to continue.

Deputy Speaker: Hon. members, the rules are as the rules are. The debate should move on.

I recognize the hon. member for Okanagan West, who will be undoubtedly as enlightening as the previous speaker.

S. Hawkins: I'm delighted to enter this debate on a motion to adjourn the House until 6:35, and as I note the clock, it's almost 7:50.

I've listened very carefully to the speakers before me, and I've listened to the arguments that have been made. Really, it makes me think about why we're here. Why are we here as legislators? What is the reason that we sit in the Legislature today? I think that -- and the points have been made very well by speakers before me -- it's to do the people's business. It's to represent the people who elected us -- to represent them here in the chamber and to represent their interests. We've been in the House since the end of March -- March 24, to be exact. Speakers before me have said that the government had the choice to call the House in January. They could have called the House in February, but they chose to call the House at the end of March. Here we are in the middle of June, and I keep hearing from the benches opposite that we're behind; we're way behind. Well, you know what? That's not our fault. We're being responsible. We are debating the issues of importance to the people of British Columbia, to our constituents. If it's anybody's fault, it's the fault of the government opposite.

I think we've been very accommodating. I've heard members go through dates, and I've got them right in front of me. Maybe I'll just go through them. We've been sitting 55 days since March 24. In that period of time, we've taken five days off so that they could help their buddies on the federal scene -- five days off for purely partisan purposes, five days where we did not have the opportunity to debate the people's business. We sat for six short days, and we accommodated the government on those days; we did.

I guess it brings to mind those famous words of the Forests minister, the member for Cariboo South.

Interjections.

S. Hawkins: Just wait for it. He said: "Don't forget, government can do anything." Well, you know what? I think tonight proves that government can't do anything it wants.

I think the opposition has the responsibility to point out to the government when they're failing to do something. They're failing to respect the traditions of the House, the rules of the House, the members of the House. Here we are; we're ready. We've been in night sittings for two weeks, and we're prepared to sit this week. We've got constituencies to go home to; we've got families to go home to. We've got work to do; we've got the people's work to do.

It is not right that when it is convenient for those members opposite to work for their buddies on the federal scene or to fly the Premier around the province so he can prop up his image -- which we know is very, very damaged -- and take some cheap photo ops at the taxpayers' expense, we break from the House for two days. We're going to fly the Premier around the province. . . .

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Order, hon. members. Would the member speaking please take her seat. I recognize the hon. member for Okanagan-Boundary on a point of order.

B. Barisoff: Point of order, hon. Chair. I can't hear the member speak. We've been very quiet down at this end of the House. We were trying to hear what she's got to say. She's got a lot of interesting things to say, hon. Speaker, and I would appreciate it if the other side of the House would listen for a while.

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Order, hon. members. I would ask all members to pay attention to the debate that is proceeding. Hon. members, order, please.

S. Hawkins: I've never been accused of having a soft voice so people are not able to hear me. Maybe I'll try to speak up a little bit so the members can hear me.

I heard the member for Richmond-Steveston and some of the other members comment on the way some of the rules and traditions of this House weren't respected, and I think that's totally deplorable. I heard examples of the way we started in the House the first week. We had no continuous debate on the throne speech; we had no continuous debate on the budget. We had games played around that. It really does show contempt on the government side for this House and for the members who sit in it. That's wrong.

There are issues of importance to debate in this chamber. There are issues like in the Ministry for Children and Families. There are very, very important issues around that. Yet this government is going to adjourn the House for two days at the end of the week, like I said, so that the Premier can fly around to prop up his image. We have the people's issues to debate here.

Ever since last summer when it was reported that children were dying in the care of the government and a new ministry was created. . . . And we do have more problems being reported every day -- kids in foster care. . . . We're waiting to debate the issues of that ministry. When is it coming?

We're waiting to debate the issues of the Ministry of Forests. We were told that was coming up later this week -- maybe tomorrow -- but it isn't. We just found out that the House isn't going to sit on Thursday and Friday, because they've decided. . . .

Maybe it's me. I hate to be cynical, because I'm not like that. I'm usually a very positive person. But do you know why I think the House isn't going to sit on Thursday and Friday? It's just my own theory, but I think that the last time the Premier had very important, positive, good news for the people, the House was getting too much attention, because there was a minister that was getting embarrassed here. But he can't afford that this time. So rather than bring up issues in the House here that might embarrass the government on Thursday and Friday, we'll just close it down, and for a change, maybe the Premier can get some good photo ops and get some headlines that aren't embarrassing. Because that's what's been happening.

But do you know what? It's not going to work, because the record of this Premier and the record of this government -- and the people know it -- is that they say one thing and they do another. So even when he goes flying around the province, breaking his good-news story everywhere, people are skeptical. Whether the House sits or not, they're going to be skeptical, because last year he said there would be 21,000 new jobs in the forest sector. And you know what? We lost 

[ Page 4558 ]

5,500 jobs. So this time when he said "new jobs," people sat back and said: "Oh, my God, don't let him help us. Last time he helped us, we lost 5,500. What's going to happen this time?"

When we took a break for five days for the federal election, and when we sat shorter days, and now when we're breaking on Thursday and Friday, what is the urgency to sit tonight? Again, I don't want to be cynical, and I don't want to say that the Government House Leader misled the House on Thursday night, but last Thursday night we were led to believe that the Ministry of Small Business, Tourism and Culture had to get their estimates over with because there was urgent business this week. We had our critic doing her estimates until 11:30 that night because there was an urgency to get that ministry over with. So what's the urgency tonight, when we're closing the House on Thursday and Friday? It just doesn't make sense, but I guess that nothing this government does makes sense.

We're here to work, and we've been here since the end of March. We've been very accommodating: we've sat in night sittings; we've gone until 11:30 when it's been convenient; we did the interim supply bill. As the member for Vancouver-Quilchena said, we passed that at two in the morning. But I think those members have lost any sense of reality. They've lost a sense of why we're here. . .

An Hon. Member: Yes, and of due process.

S. Hawkins: . . .and of due process.

I've wondered many, many times if they know what they're doing. I wonder if they're organized or if they know how to manage. Every time I think about that, I come up with an answer in the negative: no, they don't know what they're doing; no, they're not organized; and no, they have no clue how to manage. If they did, we'd be moving along more smoothly than we have this session. We've been taking breaks whenever it's convenient. We've been taking breaks when the Premier wants to prop up his image, as he's going to do at the end of the week. But as I've said, I don't think it's going to work.

G. Abbott: Political sabbaticals.

S. Hawkins: Political sabbaticals, as the member for Shuswap says. There are so many issues of importance that need to be dealt with in this chamber, and here we are in the middle of June, and I've heard government members say that we're not even halfway through our business. There are bills on the order paper to debate. There are ministries of importance. There are issues of importance to British Columbians; there are issues of importance to my constituents.

I'm sure even the members opposite have thought about the time they've spent away from their families. We come here from all over British Columbia. We come here with good intentions for getting the people's business done. We go home on weekends, if we're lucky; if we're lucky, we spend some time with our families.

We've been here since the end of March, and while we're doing our work here, we're still doing our constituency work. I heard other members speak about how overwhelming that can be. We've still got issues in our constituencies, we've got issues in ministries to bring up, and we've got family issues that come up. And we're not getting that done tonight, because the government's chosen to not really set out an agenda this term.

[8:00]

S. Hawkins: The member asks if they have an agenda. No, I seriously believe they don't have an agenda. If they had an agenda, we would not be moving from long days to short days, from off-days for federal campaigns to political sabbaticals for the Premier to fly around the province. What kind of way is that to do the government's business? It just doesn't make sense.

I think there are better ways to do business. We're prepared to sit here Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday and Friday, like we have for the last three and a half months, and make sure that the work gets done in an orderly, well-organized fashion. We've been very cooperative; we've been very accommodating.

But tonight is an insult. It's disrespect for the members on all sides of the House to come here and find out that we're sitting late tonight, we're sitting early tomorrow, we're off on Thursday, and we're off on Friday. It just doesn't make sense. It's deplorable. It shows a lack of organization, it shows a lack of management, and it shows that there really is no agenda for this term.

Like I said, last week there was a certain urgency to sit until 11:30 on Thursday night and to rush the critic through her estimates, because there was supposedly this urgent legislation coming through that was going to keep us very busy. So we cooperated; our House Leader and our Whip cooperated with the government. We did complete the estimates of the Ministry of Small Business, Tourism and Culture. And I'm sure the critic would have liked some more time. She had researched her issues very well, and she wanted to get some things on the record and some questions answered for the constituencies that she was representing. But she cooperated with the government and organized herself, and even though she ran her estimates until 11:30 that evening, she completed them. We did that in cooperation with the government.

But then to come here on Monday and find out that we're sitting late on Monday, perhaps not sitting late on Tuesday, maybe getting out earlier on Wednesday, not sitting at all on Thursday and Friday. . . . You know, some of us are a little more organized in our lives. Some of us have held real jobs, and we've had to juggle our lives and actually organize ourselves -- not like those members opposite, who don't even know from hour to hour what they're doing and don't even know from day to day what business is going to be called in the House. It is absolutely appalling.

Some of us don't mind sitting late. We've been sitting until ten in the evening for two weeks; I've done 24-hour shifts. We could go on for days on end. If the government wants to run the business, let's do it. But to take time off for reasons that are purely political and not in the best interests of the public. . . . How is closing the House down for two days this week in the best interest of the public?

There are serious issues to be raised. They will not get raised, because those guys don't want to sit. They see that the Premier's image is damaged, and they know he's lower in the polls than their previous Premier ever was. I heard one member say that the Premier was looking up at Harcourt; that's how low his image is, and that's pretty. . . . And you know what they have to do when it gets that low? They have to close the House down so the Premier looks good. But you know what? Last time he tried to fly around and get good news, there was bad news in the House that hit the front pages more than his good news, and he can't afford to do that.

[ Page 4559 ]

I hate to be cynical, because I'm not like that. I am not cynical. I want to qualify that, but it just. . . . I don't know. The theory sort of came into my head all of sudden. Why are we closing Thursday and Friday? Well, just a minute: the Premier is flying around the province with some good-news story, and geez, maybe something might come up in the House that might embarrass him and sort of deflect from the good news he's trying to get out.

So it clicked. I want to make it very clear: I'm appalled at the abuse of the rules -- I really am. I'm not accusing; I would hate to accuse the Government House Leader of misleading our House Leader and our Whip when she said that we had to run those estimates last Thursday until they were done because there was urgent business this week. You know what? We find out there is no urgent business this week, because if there was urgent business this week we wouldn't be shutting down on Thursday and Friday.

Some of us have organized our life so that we would be here Monday to Friday to do the people's business until it is done, so we could go home and get into some sense of regularity again. But these guys have thrown that all in turmoil, because they don't have an agenda. This House has no agenda. This House has absolutely no agenda, and it's been functioning that way since we opened March 24.

It's absolutely deplorable. We've been saying since we've been here that we want the House to function reasonably, and we want it to function in an organized manner. I think that since the end of March, we have done that. And when the government shut the House down for the federal election, we went along with that, but this is kind of over the line; this is kind of over the top this week. Closing down for the federal election was not a good enough reason, either; it was not a good reason. But this goes over the top; this goes to the absolutely ridiculous -- closing the House down so that the Premier can fly around to prop up his image. That is absolutely appalling, and I think, as I said before, that the government and the members opposite have lost all touch with reality. I mean, do they even know why they're here? Why are they here -- just to sit at whim? "Well, we'll have the House one day; we'll close it the next. We'll sit late; we'll sit early. We don't know what's going on today. We'll call these estimates; we'll call those estimates. Whoops! That person's having trouble. Better pull them and put up another."

It kind of makes a mockery out of the chamber, the way this session's been running. It really does. And as a rookie, as someone who has actually had a real-life job before and has come here, I'm absolutely amazed. I guess I have some perception now about why sometimes things don't get done in government. There are no time lines, there's no organization, there's no management, and there's no agenda. It's appalling. Four-day weekends: it's absolutely appalling.

An Hon. Member: They'll still get their cheques.

S. Hawkins: Yes, whether we're here or not, we do get paid, and I think the people expect us to work for that. The people expect us to be here Monday to Friday; they really do. There are great expectations upon us. Right now, we are under a lot of pressure to manage all our responsibilities: our constituency work, our legislative work, our debates, looking after our families and making sure things are running fine at home. The sooner we get on with the government's business -- the people's business here -- the sooner we can get back home.

It makes me wonder. Perhaps, and I didn't think about this, they like it so much that they want to stay here the rest of the summer, into the fall. Maybe they do. Because you know what? The way we're going -- stumbling along here with absolutely no plan -- that's the way it looks to me. If we're going to have four-day and five-day weekends and a short day one day, a long day another and then nights, we could be here until who knows when. It just seems to me a pretty shoddy way to run a business. It's the people's business, and it's a shoddy way to run a business.

If people are tuned in tonight, they will probably wonder why, at 8:10 p.m. on a Monday night -- oh, it's Tuesday; it could be Wednesday -- we're debating a motion to adjourn the House till 6:35 p.m. Why are we doing that? You know what? This side of the House, unlike that side of the House, doesn't believe government can do anything. This side of the House believes that the government sometimes needs to be held to account, and this happens to be one of the times, because that side of the House has been bit abusive with the rules and a bit disrespectful of the members and traditions of the House. They have to be reminded once in a while that government can't do anything it wants and that they are accountable to the people.

You know what? The people expect the people's business to be done in this chamber. When this government can close the Legislature at whim for very weak reasons -- and I would put it to you that flying the Premier around on Thursday and Friday on a junket for a cheap photo op is a pretty weak reason. . . .

An Hon. Member: Cheap?

S. Hawkins: The member says it won't be cheap. Of course it won't be cheap. I understand that it's going to cost the taxpayers a lot of buck-buck-bucks. But anyway, sometimes, like a naughty child, the government needs a spanking, and I think this is one of the times to give it one, because they have to be reminded that they can't do anything they want. Perhaps they thought that tonight they would push through whatever they could so they could get Thursday and Friday off. Well, it doesn't work that way. This side of the House is going to stand up for the rules, for the traditions and for the respect of the members in this chamber.

We will remind the government that to get cooperation, they have to be cooperative themselves. In order to get cooperation and accommodation on this side of the House, there has to be some reasonableness, and that hasn't been shown here. That hasn't been shown here at all.

It's not good enough to say on Monday that we're sitting late on Monday, late on Tuesday, and we're getting Thursday and Friday off. It's not good enough to say that the government is taking those days off so the Premier can fly around the province because he doesn't want to be embarrassed here in the chamber. That's not good enough; that's not a good enough reason to shut down the House so that the people's business can't be done. I'm fully in support of continuing this debate, and at this time I will defer to my next colleague.

J. Dalton: I guess it's a good thing the Stanley Cup finals ended early. Otherwise, all the people who are no doubt tuned in tonight would be watching a hockey game instead.

C. Clark: The House wouldn't be sitting if the hockey game was on.

J. Dalton: Well, that is quite possible. Maybe the Premier is a hockey fan. He may have gone back to Detroit on that airplane, for all we know.

[ Page 4560 ]

Hon. Speaker, I should advise all members that each of us in the opposition is doing our half-hour MLA report this evening -- just to advise the members of the time frame.

I want to start off by referring the House and all members to the standing orders. Perhaps the Premier should be given an autographed copy of Standing Orders by the Speaker. Standing order 2: "The time for the ordinary meeting of the House shall, unless otherwise ordered, be as follows. . . ." Then it lists each day. As we know, we adjourn -- unless there's some reason otherwise -- at 6 p.m. every evening except Friday, when, of course, we rise at 1 o'clock for the weekend.

[8:15]

I see no reason why we are abandoning the standing orders in order to be here this evening, arguing with this government as to why this Premier. . . . I'm hoping he'll join the debate later. It might be interesting to get the Premier's viewpoints as to what he thinks is happening, both here and in the rest of this province. Certainly the standing orders have been abandoned, for whatever cause.

I'm one of the class of '91. There are members on both sides who can recall back to the many people who were elected in 1991. Some of us are, happily, still here. I think back over the six years that I've been an MLA, and I can recall sitting on Saturdays for emergency issues -- usually, and in fact exclusively, it was a school strike -- and on Sundays. That one Sunday night in '93, we came here to end the Vancouver school strike. Leading up to that we'd had multitudes of strikes -- in North Island, in Osoyoos, up in the Kootenays and all over. But it was only because the largest school district in the province went down that this government woke up and realized that they had a problem. We had to come back on a special Sunday sitting and end that school strike.

We have sat all night; we've sat half-nights. We've had members of the opposition removed from this House. I recall one evening when my roommate was ordered out of this chamber.

An Hon. Member: Why?

J. Dalton: You know why? It's because we'd agreed with the government on that night that we would adjourn at midnight -- midnight, hon. members. The now Minister of Employment and Investment -- he was the Forests minister at the time -- got to his feet and tried to introduce a bill for second reading after midnight, in clear defiance of the agreement that the opposition and the government had struck and obviously in clear defiance of and thumbing his nose at the whole legislative process. Well, pandemonium broke out that evening. Even such calm members as the member for Vancouver-Langara were very outspoken that evening. As I say, my roommate was actually removed from the House on that particular occasion.

That is shameful. It is shameful that a government even back then, under the Harcourt regime, would have acted in this manner. But now we see, of course, with the current Premier that things have got worse.

Thinking back as well, even though we've had some funny sitting times, I guess we could say that sometimes we've been entertained and amused -- and even educated on occasion. Particularly down at this end of the House, I can recall some of my colleagues, who had been out at receptions or dinners and had to come back and speak to various bills, standing. Certainly I recall one member in particular, who is not in this parliament, who entertained. . . . I see the member from Burnaby is recalling that evening. I keep telling my colleagues we should get those tapes of that Hansard and replay them. I won't embarrass the former member as to who he was, but I think some members know.

We sat through the summer last year. It was August 15 before we adjourned, so we basically lost our entire summer with our families. We sat to the end of July in 1993. In that case, of course, we had a multitude of bills to deal with. Again, we lost a good part of the summer. I have no idea what the government's going to do this year. I suppose the Premier has in mind: "Well, I'll come back from Prince George and Campbell River" -- or wherever he's going -- " and then we'll limp through another session or two, and then I'll have to charge off somewhere else for another photo op." We may be doing that in a very hop, skip and haphazard manner, right through the summer of '97.

We think back to when we started the spring session. The earliest we've ever sat is the ides of March. Maybe that's appropriate. This year it was March 24. Some members have already addressed the issue of why we don't start earlier in the spring. What's wrong with February? What's wrong with an orderly sitting, where we could sit from mid-February until, say, the middle or end of June? We could adjourn at the same time that our families are adjourning from school and work, enjoy some holidays, and come back in the fall regenerated, recharged. Maybe even, in the government's case, some new and useful ideas could be brought forward.

I'm trying to make suggestions to the members opposite as to ways that we can improve the environment around here. Certainly what we're seeing now -- debating whether we should recess on a Tuesday evening, when the Premier has already advised the province that we will not sit on Thursday or Friday of this week so that he and his entourage can be off to Prince George, Quesnel, Williams Lake, Kamloops, Comox, Spuzzum, Pouce Coupe and wherever else he's going. . . . For what reason? I don't know.

Why would we not consider a fall sitting? Since I was elected, we've only sat once in a fall sitting. That was in the fall of 1992. We dealt with one bill, the Labour Relations Code. Of course, the game plan there. . . . The government knew that was going to be a controversial bill, so they didn't want to bring it in in the spring session of '92, because we would have been there right through the summer. At least they had half a brain and said: "Why don't we introduce the bill in a separate session in the fall and at least allow the members to go home for the summer and enjoy their holidays and get back to their constituencies?"

On this side we do have constituencies, and we do have regular constituency hours, and we keep those offices open 12 months of the year -- not this sort of helter-skelter thing that we've seen recently with some government members.

[ Page 4561 ]

What have we witnessed this year, when we think back to when we started on March 24? It is the second year, of course, of the current Premier's regime. I guess we could say this Premier is now in full flight, after a relatively cautious start in 1996. Last year we didn't have this hit-or-miss: "I think I'll entertain a photo opportunity and adjourn the House." We sat right through from June until August 15, completed the government business and adjourned. In 1997 what have we got to date? Night sittings on some nights -- of course, we started earlier this month. But in contrast to these night sittings, we've had some unexplained days off: the three days preceding and the one day after the federal election. Of course, we know why that was -- so that the government members could go door-knocking for their federal friends. It wasn't a successful effort, but I suppose we might at least applaud their so-called contribution to democracy.

We've taken off two days for this extended photo op -- referring to this Thursday and Friday coming up. We know that on six Fridays we've adjourned at 11 a.m., right after private members' statements, instead of carrying on until 1 p.m. That's 12 hours lost. We lost two hours on June 3, the day after the federal election, because, of course, we did not return until the afternoon of that day. We've lost many hours just because this government, with its poor management skills, has not been able to even think of how we could best fill a dozen hours and accomplish some of the people's business.

What's ahead? What can we look forward to in 1997 with this track record to date? Certainly more night sittings. Next week, I'm told, we may be going until midnight. I've already commented about the possibility of losing this summer entirely. And I can assure you, hon. Speaker, the opposition members are not as concerned about losing summer as such as about the fact that this government cannot order its business in such a way that all members, on all sides, can enjoy the summer -- a deserved holiday -- plus, as I said earlier, attend to the constituency business that all of us during a session understandably have to neglect somewhat. We all go back on weekends, already work through Saturdays and some of us, Sundays. With this government's track record, I'm fearful that the entire summer may be lost due to this haphazard legislative process.

But that also depends on the future photo ops of this Premier. We know he already has the photographers and the cameras lined up at the Prince George airport for Thursday morning. Then it's down to Quesnel and Williams Lake, over to Kamloops, on to Comox and who knows where.

I suppose what we do in the future in this session will depend in part on what other wars the Premier has declared. Today he's already declared war on America, Greenpeace, bad drivers, the BCGEU, courthouses, municipalities, students, patients and taxpayers. I probably could go on and list many others.

Interjection.

J. Dalton: Oh yes -- and tobacco. Of course, I forgot -- the R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. has been added to the list of people with whom we are waging war. The next battle scene will, of course, determine whether the Premier is here in the House or absent in some other part of the province.

I have some suggestions to make to this government, and of course these are going into Hansard. I know that thousands of people are tuned in instead of watching the soaps tonight, or the hockey game. I'm suggesting that we have fixed sittings of this Legislature -- spring and fall. The spring session could start mid- or end of February and go through to mid- or end of June. That should give the government plenty of time to table its budget, deal with the estimates and adjourn for the summer.

I have another suggestion for the legislative package of government: bills of any contentious or substantive nature could be tabled in the spring session and then trotted around the province. Instead of the Premier trotting around the province, let's trot the bills around the province and let the people affected by them have a look at them and put them to committee. Let them be vetted by the entire province -- not by these two people over here, who we know never consult with anyone.

I see the Attorney General is sitting there, hon. Speaker. I still remember his words in the broom closet down the hall, when he admitted in his estimates, in response to the Attorney General critic's question, that he did not consult with the municipalities when he closed their courthouses. He said: "I did not consult with them." He wasn't ashamed of that; he seemed to be quite proud of it. The other night at West Van council, they finally padlocked the door of the West Van courthouse. They've been trying for many months to change the Attorney General's mind on that issue. Having two former Attorneys General on West Van council did no good. In fact, it was probably harmful, I suppose.

So I'm suggesting that the legislation can certainly be dealt with by tabling it in the spring session. If there isn't time to pass it before the spring adjournment, it's still on the order paper, and we can come back in the fall and deal with it. In the meantime, the public and the people affected have had an opportunity to examine the bill and make some contribution to its content. This, of course, would also allow us to adjourn for the summer so we could see our families and friends, take some holidays and spend time in our constituencies. Instead, what our families have to do now is go surfing through the channels. Now and then they might spot a familiar face on channel 59 -- on the North Shore; it's a different number in various other parts of the province.

[8:30]

If we had an ordered agenda, it would leave time to table bills. As I said earlier, let them travel the province instead of the Premier and his entourage. It would certainly be less costly, for one thing. We could put the business of this House to committees. How many members could say that they've actually met and done anything in the standing committees they're members of? I, for example, have been a member of the Education Committee since I was first elected in 1991. We have met for half a minute -- once -- to elect a convener, and that is it. So I guess that tells you how important education is to the government members.

We could reorganize the estimates process. I think back to when we first brought in the rule whereby we would divide 

[ Page 4562 ]

the committees into A and B -- committee A being, as I describe it sometimes, the broom closet down the hall, because there's no television there. People cannot tune in and actually see the debates of, for example, the Attorney General. You can listen to them within the confines of the precinct, and you can read Hansard, but there's no publicity for what goes on in Committee A.

I'm suggesting that we could organize the agendas of the estimates and put many things to committees that are now dealt with in this very limping question-and-answer process that we go through. For example, why not have the Education Committee deal with many of the issues that we struggle with in estimates because the minister hasn't got the answer or his deputies are whispering in his ear every ten seconds and you get all this crossfire going on?

One idea I do applaud the government for is that there is the opportunity -- at least, down the hall -- for deputy ministers to directly answer questions, if the minister cares to allow the deputy. I think we should have more of that. I was sitting through some estimates yesterday. A question was put to the minister. It was a minute before there was any answer coming from the minister, because in that minute interval, you had all of these deputies whispering and passing notes and this and that. I have no idea whether what the minister said reflected what the deputies told him -- probably not. Why not have the deputy get up and say: "This is the answer to your question, hon. member"? If it's a political question, the minister will say: "You don't answer that; I will." If it's an orderly, factual-type question, I see no reason why an official who knows the answer should not provide the answer. And that doesn't have to be in a House committee. It could be in a parliamentary committee -- that is, a committee of members of all parties, dealing with education, health, transit, Lions Gate Bridge or whatever it may be.

We should have a daily agenda. I was somewhat amused. I won't identify my colleague, but one of my colleagues asked me the other day: "Do you think the government has a master plan?" I looked at this member and said: "You've got to be kidding. A master plan? We don't even know from one day to the next what we're doing here, let alone. . . ." I guess the only person who maybe has a master plan is the Premier, and his master is photo ops. It's the opportunity to hop from Prince George to Quesnel, to this place and that place.

No one is quarrelling with the fact that we play politics both here and outside the precincts; that's what the game is. But I would suggest that this Premier and his government are mixing the two in an undesirable way. As far as estimates and the budget and legislation, the political process is dealt with here in this chamber. The politics and the photo ops in Prince George should be out of session. You don't abandon a job and the function of this chamber so that the Premier can trot off to Prince George to have his picture taken. That's a bad mix of politics, and it is totally unjustified. The Premier is guilty of mixing the two, and it's causing confusion and total mismanagement of government.

[The Speaker in the chair.]

One day we're here; the next day we're not. Next week, who knows what opportunities will arise? We're heading into a holiday weekend not very far away. We don't know whether the government is going to choose to sit on the Monday between the weekend and the holiday, or whether we'll adjourn the Friday previous, or whether we'll sit all night to deal with Bill 63, whatever that may be. It's a chaotic situation.

I suppose we could say bon voyage to the Premier tomorrow night, when he and his entourage head off to the north. But when the Premier touches down in Williams Lake, perhaps I could ask him if he could take time to drive out Highway 20 towards Bella Coola and stop at my in-laws' ranch and give them some assistance in their day-to-day lives. They don't care about what's going on in this place; they care about getting the hay crop in, getting the cows to the summer pasture and getting the bulls out into that pasture so we'll have some calves next year. That's what they care about -- not all this goofing around, running from one airport to the next. One of the colleagues was confused as to whether it is Monday or Tuesday. Of course, this is Tuesday, so it must be Belgium, and I think that's how this government would operate.

So the Premier is building up the air miles -- perhaps for a summer adjournment so that he can use those air miles to head off somewhere else. But we don't know that we're going to have a summer adjournment; he hasn't told us yet. Of course, we won't know until the day that the House Leader gets up and says: "Guess what, we're adjourned." So it's going to be an on-again, off-again process, hon. Speaker.

We all remember the infamous -- or maybe we could say famous -- words of the three witches in Macbeth, when they asked: "When shall we meet again?" Well, I think we should also ask: "Where will we meet again?" I suppose it will be back here one day, but if the Premier has an opportunity to stay elsewhere, he may extend this sabbatical and this holiday. As for the other two witches, besides the Premier, I suppose you could pick any two people who are advising him as to these junkets that he's taking here, there and everywhere.

We've all seen the various Airplane! movies. I think you will recall Leslie Nielsen, the Canadian actor who is one of the stars in those movies. I think he's also starring in some Lotto 6/49 ads, if I'm not mistaken. I think we might ask: "Which Airplane! is this?" Is this sequel No. 13, perhaps -- to assign it an unlucky number? And who's going to play the Premier in this rather farcical show that starts tomorrow night? And who will be the pilot? Well, I've got a suggestion for the government as to who the pilot could be. I'm going to suggest that our House Leader be the pilot. Our House Leader is a qualified pilot, and I'm sure he'd be more than happy to fly the Premier and his gang of colleagues around the province. Maybe he's prepared to make a sacrifice in that regard -- who knows? It's only a suggestion. I can't say whether his services would be free, but certainly they would be professional.

So we hope that the Premier flies well. We hope that when the various members of the government side are flying over their territory, they will get off and go visit their constituents and tell them about jobs -- not the 21,000 phony jobs that the jobs and timber accord is making, but the real jobs that have been lost in this province.

Perhaps they'll tell their constituents, who know anyway, about overtaxation and overregulation. Perhaps they'll tell their constituents about the underfunding of education, about the chaos in health care and about the mess that regionalization is in. Perhaps these members opposite would like to go home and take advantage of this flight. I was going to say that it's a free flight, but that's not true. It's a million-dollar flight at our cost -- at the people's cost. Perhaps they'd like to touch down in their territory for a change and talk to the people who count -- talk to my in-laws about trying to struggle from day to day on a ranch and dealing with all of those issues. I don't think these members opposite have a clue about those real issues.

And one other thing: there's an issue on the North Shore that I am struggling with, and it's not the Lions Gate Bridge -- 

[ Page 4563 ]

that's another issue. Cypress Park is an item that is coming up for discussion. There's an interesting item; it's one of the prohibited activities in Cypress Park. It says: "There shall be no circuses in Cypress Park." Well, I'm suggesting -- and I made the comment earlier about the standing orders -- that we should introduce a standing order that there be no circuses in this House, because that's what we have now. This place is run like a circus; we've got a zookeeper who's never here. He's off wherever he's going, and we've got a government side of. . . . I won't describe what kind of animals, but I guess they do as they're told. . . .

C. Clark: It's like Animal Farm.

J. Dalton: "It's like Animal Farm," my colleague says. So we will eliminate circuses in this House and get to the people's business, as it's supposed to be.

To close, I'm suggesting through my comments that we can order the people's business in a way that makes some sense, that would be productive and that would not waste the time as the government's doing but would, rather, expand the time available, make it more efficient and meet the needs of this province.

P. Nettleton: I think it's appropriate that I, as a representative of the constituents of Prince George-Omineca, have something to say about what's happening tonight -- or what's not happening. Given that the promotional tour of the Premier begins, as I understand it, in Prince George, I think it's particularly appropriate that I speak on behalf of my constituents. I can tell you that although we've been here since March 24 -- and it seems much longer -- I have been back occasionally on the weekends and I've talked to my constituents. I think I have some sense of their regard -- or lack of regard -- for this Premier and this government. I hope that the Premier has an opportunity on his promotional tour to listen to some of my constituents and hear some of their concerns. I think it might be enlightening for the Premier. It might help him in his attempt to provide leadership to this government, something which has been missing to date. There is something about people in the north, and I think their commonsense approach to life would be most helpful to the Premier in terms of developing some sense of direction as to where he wants to go and how he is going to get there. Again, as I say, this is something that seems to have been missing to date with this Premier and this government. Does the Premier know where he wants to go?

An Hon. Member: Up in the polls.

P. Nettleton: Well, that's true.

I know that there are some constituents of mine that would like to tell him where to go and how to get there, but I'm not convinced that he knows where he's going.

[8:45]

P. Nettleton: Is he? I think he's in the dark in terms of a lot of policy issues that impact on residents of the north. Forestry, in particular, comes to mind. As I understand it, one of the purposes of this promotional tour which the Premier will embark on is to make an announcement around forestry and the creation of jobs. Heaven only knows, given the impact of this government's policy on forestry, forestry workers and forest-dependent communities, he needs to do something in terms of addressing the concerns of forest-dependent communities and the impact that his policies, his government, have had on them. We've witnessed the loss of 5,500 jobs in 1996. The impact on industry has been somewhere in the range of $1 billion. Clearly this is unsustainable from year to year.

As I travel back and forth on the weekends and talk to my constituents, I talk to small and medium-sized contractors who are nervously awaiting the announcement of the Premier, seeing their employees finding themselves in an increasingly perilous position. It seems to me that something has to be done soon. It's unfortunate, but I think that people generally -- and this may come as something of a surprise to the members on the opposite side of this House -- have a sense of skepticism or disbelief. Anything this Premier says is suspect. I'm not sure why that is. It may have something to do, I suppose, with the fact that we were promised a balanced budget. No, we weren't. We were told that the government had balanced the books twice, and as it turned out, in fact, they were not. So that might contribute in some sense to the healthy skepticism of residents of northern communities, forest-dependent communities. . . .

So if the Premier's expecting the red-carpet treatment, if he's expecting little kids carrying balloons with "Glen" written on them, if he's expecting women to be tearing their blouses off, I think he might be in some difficulty, because I don't think people are particularly keen on seeing the Premier. Interjections.

P. Nettleton: In that case, I apologize. I'm getting carried away in my exuberance here, anticipating the reception that he might expect.

In any event, what is the message this Premier is conveying to the citizens of Prince George? Things come to mind like debt, denial and deception. I think those are the kinds of things the residents of Prince George would like to hear this Premier address. They'd like to hear about debt. They'd like to hear about the debt management plan that doesn't appear to be working. They'd like to hear about denial. They'd like to hear about the string of broken promises from this Premier and from this government.

One of the other things they'd like to hear about is Forest Renewal B.C. They'd like to hear why it was that he had anticipated or planned on raiding Forest Renewal funds at one point. The Minister of Forests, Hon. David Zirnhelt, had referred to the raiding of. . . .

The Speaker: Member, I'm going to catch you right now because we had this experience the other day. We are not to use proper names in this House.

P. Nettleton: I apologize. The hon. Speaker probably feels as though he's back in college in having to correct me, and I accept that.

In any event, it was referred to as a sideways shift in funding -- that is, the anticipated raid on Forest Renewal -- and a number of quotes come to mind. I see that the Minister of Employment and Investment is here, and I'll read a quote from the hon. minister for his benefit: "There won't be a politician next week, next month, next year or 20 years from now who will dare to put their hands into that pocket of money." Does this bring back memories, perhaps, of something that had been said in the past? "It's taking the silvi-

[ Page 4564 ]

culture money -- at least that portion we can put into intensive silviculture -- away from the vagaries of politics. We're doing a favour to the forest communities by doing that." That was the hon. minister on April 25, 1994.

I'll make a comment, if I may. This is a minister that I happen to know is highly regarded in the northern communities, so when he says something, it's not taken lightly. He's generally regarded as a man that's credible and has some integrity, and I don't question that. But on the other hand, it may be that this minister finds himself in a position where he doesn't have quite the control that he perhaps thought he had in terms of the direction of government. Perhaps he hadn't anticipated the desperation of this government in terms of their fiscal difficulties. So he finds himself unwittingly and almost unknowingly part of this band of bandits that is raiding forest-dependent communities in the north. I don't know. . . .

Hon. D. Miller: Why don't we talk about it over dinner?

P. Nettleton: Certainly. I'm certain we can do that at some point.

Again, the hon. minister does have to return occasionally to his community and he does have to face his constituents, and I'm sure that there are some very difficult questions that are put to him in relation to FRBC and the raid on FRBC funds.

There's another quote that comes to mind, and unfortunately, the member for Yale-Lillooet is not here. His quote was simply: ". . .the money will not go into general revenue and no greedy ministers -- it doesn't matter what party or government they may represent -- will be able to dip their fingers into the pot." Again, this was a member from a forest-dependent community who anticipated that those funds were safe and secure. I can tell you that if this group on the other side was in the banking business, I certainly wouldn't be putting my money in their bank, given the change in their position in regards to the funds of FRBC.

When visiting forest-dependent communities during the 1996 election campaign, the Premier and the NDP bragged about Forest Renewal and how it would support sustainable forests and long-term jobs. Again, I come from a forest-dependent community where people are really concerned about what the government says in relation to forestry, and they take what it says seriously. When promises are made, there are certain expectations there in terms of those kinds of promises in relation to forestry.

Forest-dependent communities have found themselves in difficulty as a result of the string of broken promises in relation to this government. They have found themselves in some difficulty as a result of the policies and programs of this government. I think there's a healthy skepticism there. People are generally concerned that this government doesn't mean what it says and doesn't have any sense of where it's going.

So what is the message that this Premier has for the residents of Prince George? What is the message that this Premier has for northern British Columbians? I think that what they would like to hear about is debt and how he's addressed debt. They'd like to hear about the debt management plan. They'd like to hear about FRBC and how this government will deal with the funds that are sitting in FRBC at the present time. They'd also like to hear about things like gaming, I'm sure. My colleague from Kamloops-North Thompson isn't here at the moment, but I'm sure that he'll have something to say about gaming and this government's position on gaming.

By the way, do they have a position on gaming? I don't know. It seems reasonably clear that they're committed to proceeding with gaming, despite the social evils associated with gaming. It's like this: plug your ears, close your eyes, plug your nose, grab the cash and run. That seems to be their approach to gaming. This will come back to haunt them. This will come back to bite them. But it's unfortunate that in the interim, there are going to be people -- men and women with families and children to support -- who will be impacted by this immoral move to gaming.

This is a government that is bankrupt morally; this is a government that is bankrupt financially. This is a government that, as I said earlier, has no sense of where it is going and no sense of how to get where it is going. It has generally lost the confidence of the residents of British Columbia. While I don't pretend to speak for the residents of British Columbia, I believe that I can speak for my constituents. The people of Prince George-Omineca, and northerners generally, have lost confidence in this Premier and this government.

So it's with some sense of interest, I suppose one might say, that I'm awaiting the announcement that the Premier and his entourage will make on this promotional tour in Prince George, although I think it's with some sense of skepticism that we await this announcement. I can tell you that if in fact we're not here Thursday and Friday of next week, I will be in Prince George. I will be there with my constituents. I will be there to await the announcement of the Premier and work with my constituents to get the ear of this Premier so that he will respond to the concerns of ordinary citizens. Those people have been impacted by the policies and programs of a government that is increasingly out of touch with ordinary citizens -- families, men and women who have mortgages, men and women who have bills to pay, men and women who look to this government for some sense of direction and leadership. They look to this government for some sense that it's on their side.

I think that people increasingly have the sense that they have to work against government. Government is an obstacle for them to overcome if they're to do those kinds of things that I have mentioned earlier: pay their bills, pay their mortgages, feed and clothe their families. It is unfortunate that we find ourselves in the position where government is an obstacle to people making a living. It's an obstacle for people in terms of providing accessible, affordable health care. Government has become an obstacle in terms of the security of knowing that you can provide for your children and that you can send them to a university that's affordable. Those are the kinds of things that concern ordinary residents, the residents of Prince George-Omineca and the north, generally.

We've seen difficulties. We've seen difficulties over the course of a number of years in the area of health care, in the area of education and, of course, in the resource sector, be it forestry or mining. This is not something that's new; this is not something that has developed overnight. It is not as though this government can say: "This came upon us as a surprise. It's due to a sudden change in international economic circumstances." This is something that has evolved rather slowly, I would say, over the course of the last few years. It is something that should have been dealt with, it is something that should have been checked, and it's something that should have been changed. Government should have been listening to ordinary people, and we would not find ourselves in the position that we're in now.

I could go on and on. Northern British Columbians are feeling the effects of this government's mismanagement of 

[ Page 4565 ]

health care. I think I could go on talking for two hours about health care and this government's mismanagement of health care in the north. I'm not an expert on health care, but I don't think you have to be an expert to recognize the difficulties associated with this government's handling of health care.

[9:00]

We now find ourselves in a position where health care is increasingly inaccessible. Constituents are having to go elsewhere if they want treatment, be it the lower mainland or other places. This is just unacceptable.

So again, back to the promotional tour; back to the trip to Prince George for this Premier and his entourage. I don't know what kind of a welcome the Premier expects in Prince George, but I can tell you that it won't be a warm welcome. Ordinary residents of Prince George and the surrounding areas are not going to be happy to see the Premier.

I think that concludes my remarks for the moment. More?

P. Reitsma: You still have the light going. Talk about Fort St. James.

P. Nettleton: Should I talk about Fort St. James? There's a lot to talk about. Fort St. James is a lovely spot. For those of you who are planning your vacations. . . .

Interjections.

P. Nettleton: Is he going on a holiday? Does the Premier have time to stop in Fort St. James? I think we could probably arrange a tour of the museum for him. I know that we've been able to do that for the all-party Aboriginal Affairs Committee -- the provincial museum. Certainly that would be of some interest.

For those of you who don't know, Fort St. James is sited on Stuart Lake, which is a lovely big lake. It's flooding at the moment, which is really. . . .

Interjection.

P. Nettleton: Well, yes, if you fly over it you can really get some sense of where the town is sited on the lake.

An Hon. Member: How's the fishing?

P. Nettleton: The fishing? Well, I haven't had time to go fishing lately, but. . . .

Interjection.

P. Nettleton: Oh, I'll have Thursday and Friday off; there you go. Perhaps. . . .

Interjection.

P. Nettleton: Yes, I will be working those days.

In any event, that's it for me. I'm sure the members on the opposite side of the House are relieved, and perhaps members on this side of the House are relieved, as well.

D. Jarvis: I seek leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

D. Jarvis: I just want to make an introduction of a young woman in the gallery today, who is one of the well-known legislative assistants in Victoria. Not only that, she is one of the top caterers in Victoria. I wish everyone here would make welcome a young lady by the name of Antoinette De Wit.

D. Symons: I notice that in the gallery there is a legislative intern and another person. Unfortunately, I don't know either of their names, but I must commend these people. I think we must draw attention to them and commend them for staying here this evening and watching this scintillating debate that is going on. I am sure they will tell their children about it years from now.

The Speaker: I notice that in MacMinn's third edition, there is no heading "Filibuster by Introduction."

R. Neufeld: I rise to speak briefly tonight about the issue before us, but before I start, I suppose that the legislative interns who are in the gallery will say: "The person I'm working for didn't even know my name." You may go down in history, hon. member.

But on the more serious side, it is with interest that I have listened to the debate. I am sure those members who were here prior to 1991 will remember numerous debates around the same issues then. The government of the day was in opposition and felt that they were putting forth heartfelt thoughts about what was happening in the House. The Speaker may even have been involved, for all I know. I'm not sure. The thinking was that, yes, we're infringing on parliamentary process, and we must change things and do it a little better so we can do the people's work.

Well, I do believe that. I think there are some things that could and probably should be done sooner rather than later, and one is bringing forth a parliamentary calendar. I know that my colleague from Peace River South has advocated, for as long as I've been here, that we get around to a calendar that has some limits both on opposition and on government so that it works properly.

When people talk about being in the House -- and we have been here until as late as August -- it may be fine for those folks who live in the lower mainland or the sunny Okanagan or those areas. They are able to go home at that time in the summer and still be able to experience summer. I come from east of the Rockies in northeastern British Columbia, where I'm afraid summer is almost over by that time. Actually, although my children are gone from home, I do enjoy getting out in the summertime in my hometown and 

[ Page 4566 ]

going around town at times other than when the leaves are falling. When we leave here in mid-August. . . . I tell you, it's not too long from mid-August when there's ice on the water in the morning, where I come from.

I would like to see us move with haste -- and I think tonight is a good example -- toward a parliamentary calendar. There is obviously a need for it. The last parliament didn't see it because, of course, the government had probably a 15-seat majority, and they could just wear us out. They obviously did that on many occasions to get some of their bills through. What we find now is that we're not sitting the late hours -- 8 o'clock. To be frank, when I'm in Victoria, down here doing the people's business, I don't mind sitting till 8 o'clock. That doesn't bother me too much.

What I do take exception to is the fact that we do take time. . . . It's not up to us, but government decides that we're going to take a few days here and a few days there out of the parliamentary calendar for its own benefit. That's what's wrong. If we were talking about taking into consideration the opposition members and what they required in their constituencies. . . . In fact, when I think about that, even a few days' notice would have been kind of nice if we weren't going to sit on Thursday and Friday, rather than telling us on a Tuesday that we're not going to sit Wednesday night, and we're not going to sit Thursday and Friday. I think that members, even some from the government side -- or maybe they did; I don't know -- might have liked to know a little bit earlier so that they could set their own calendars in their own constituencies, so they could also do some things that have to be done at home. I think that's only fair. More than anything, that's probably what has prompted this debate tonight: the unfair way some of these decisions are made for the benefit of only one side of the House.

I understand there are people who aren't even involved in the Legislature, who live out in the valley, who knew -- last week, I'm told -- that we weren't going to sit Thursday and Friday. They knew last week. They're not members of the House. But all of a sudden here we are, members of the House, and we didn't find out until today. I may have made different arrangements last weekend -- to go to my constituency -- than I did. Or I might have made some arrangements to meet with some people on Thursday and Friday in Fort St. John. I might have gone to Fort Nelson, one of the other communities that I represent, further north than Fort St. John, on Thursday and Friday. So I find that it is a bit trying to follow this type of calendar.

I think we should put a calendar into place that we sit twice a year, if we have to meet the demands of the House and the demands of the people of the province -- shorter time spans, a limit on estimates debate. Let the opposition of the day, whoever it happens to be, decide which estimates they want to debate and for how long. But say there is a limited amount of hours for all estimates. At the end of that time, all of the estimates are deemed to have passed. I think that bills can be introduced into the House in the spring and put to committee so that you can call expert witnesses to deal with the bills and pass them in the fall, have the debate in the fall. Make the amendments that are needed through the summer, collectively -- together -- and try to meet the needs of all British Columbians, not just a certain few.

I think there are some ways that we can meet the needs of British Columbians in a far better fashion than we are doing tonight, at 9 o'clock at night, arguing about how late we should sit. I find that a little bit difficult. Unfortunately, it's the only option that the opposition has -- to get up and debate and have each member talk for half an hour or whatever, to try to drag it out, to get the attention of the government of the day.

I think we all have to remember that those positions change once in a while. We all have to remember that when we make our claims about how it would work better, or whatever. But I think we should work towards that. So with those few brief words, I will take my place.

V. Anderson: I rise tonight to talk about the agenda for the evening, which is: what is the agenda for the evening? It does give us the opportunity for each person to express part of the reality of why they are here. I think all the members of the Legislature, when they first came to the legislative chambers, came here with the promise and the hope that they would be spending their time wisely and effectively for the people of their communities. I know that's certainly what the people of Vancouver-Langara, where I come from, expect.

They expect us to come here and help to develop a process whereby the people of this province can be happier and can have fuller, richer and more complete lives. They expect us to look at some of the problems of our community and discover a way that we can work together with all the different opinions, ideas and visions that people have. They get discouraged, no doubt -- even as we do -- with an evening like this, when we have to protest that here, in our own planning within the Legislature, we have not been able to pull things together. We have not been able to spend our time diligently and well in developing our program and finding our way.

It made me think tonight of a work that was done by Cherry Kingsley, a young woman of our community who had had a very difficult and abused life. In that particular difficulty of her life, she had gone through struggles within her own family as a child and a struggle in the community. She had been abused and neglected, and ran away and found her own way in life. She found that she was exploited in a number of ways. She ended up in the sex trade and finally, in desperation, found her way out again.

[9:15]

Often people regarded them as marginalized. They regarded them as separated from the reality of society. As these young people tried to examine for themselves where they were and how they got there and what might happen as a result of this, people asked them when they had become marginalized. They wanted to say that they were marginalized at the time they were born, because in all of their lives -- in family, in community and in culture -- they did not get the opportunity to be loved, to be cared for, to be appreciated, to be acknowledged, to be understood. They were forced out of that circle of family, culture and community.

[ Page 4567 ]

They wandered for many years until finally these young people, who had been in the care of the ministry and of the government, found that somebody seemed to have an interest in them, seemed to be concerned about them and wanted to help them and do something good for them. What they found then was that they were caught up in health care institutions, in child welfare institutions, in youth offender systems and in mental health programs, with the result that they were isolated even more and marginalized even further.

As Cherry depicted it, there's the circle of the family, the culture and the community. They were pushed out of that. Instead of those who were trying to help them bringing them back into that culture, they pushed them further out, into institutions. They gave them titles that were not very helpful. They talked about them as street youth, as youth on the edge. They talked about them in a variety of ways, which made them more isolated and more lonely. She wanted to share with us, through their experience, that there was a way we could change -- we who are concerned about the young people of our community -- so that we do not push them further out but bring them further back in.

I thought about that as I thought about us trying to find our way here and discover what it is that's really important about what we do. Our agendas are important. How we spend our time is important. The kind of plan that a government has, that we can come here and work through to begin to produce the results which are effective in our community. . . .

We've been here since March 24. The government has brought in, as of today, three more bills -- 40 bills altogether. In this length of time, we've only dealt with 13 of those bills. Only one-third of those bills have been dealt with and completed. All of the others have only come into second reading. They've hardly begun to wind their way through here, and we expect there'll be more bills to come forward. We don't know, because we don't know the plan that's there. But we're not finding our way.

Because we're not finding our way, collectively, within this Legislature, then a lot of our young people are not being helped to find their way. And that's a concern. It's a concern because on the streets of our communities in these last few months, we have seen more youths gathering, homeless and alone and uncertain, cut off from their family and their community and their culture. We owe them something better than what we're doing. We owe them something better than what's happening here. We owe them something better in our plan -- in our opportunity to know what, collectively, we're doing here in this Legislature.

They need to know that we care. They need to know that we're not just putting on a show and going around in a big aircraft and making a bunch of pronouncements that have absolutely no meaning to their lives -- that only make them more alone and more isolated. We talk about the young people who are our future, and we talk about how the children are first in our concern. But it's hard to see that when we see what we do here, even this evening. We can justify why we do it, perhaps, and we can say it's part of the system and part of the way things are done. But things could be done better and things could be done more effectively if we planned together.

Just this last week, when I was back in my community, people were asking about some of the bills and whether we have had an opportunity to discuss them in committee. I had to say to them no -- that these bills are never brought to committee. They're never brought to be discussed and analyzed so that the ideas of all the members of the Legislature become part of the planning process.

They were amazed, because they assumed that we came here to work together -- for everyone to contribute to the planning process, for everyone to be part of committees, for everyone to have an opportunity to work out the implications right across our province of the bills that are being brought forward and have them made the most effective possible. They found it hard to believe the kind of process that we have, which doesn't allow that kind of interaction to take place. It's our children that suffer because of that. It's our seniors that suffer because of that. And it's our own credibility that suffers because of that.

It's been mentioned that there have been many plans put forward to have a calendar of events for our Legislature -- to have set times when we open and close; to work in the spring and the fall so that we have more time in our constituencies all of the year, rather than being away for many weeks at a time without any contact and then suddenly not having the time to reflect.

If we had these bills before us and if we worked them out in committee, we could go back and talk about them with the people in our community. We could hear their ideas, we could get their suggestions, we could bring them back, and there could be effective legislation. This kind of them-and-us/we-and-you process is not the best way that it could be. Yet, when people challenge that and say, "Well, what are you doing?" I have to acknowledge that somehow this democratic system which has developed over the generations is still one of the best in the world. But that doesn't mean that it can't be improved and made better.

I think it is important that we try and find a new way of working together. We need to challenge each other in that undertaking. We particularly need to challenge the government members, no matter who they are, because at the moment they are the ones that have the power and the influence and the whole machinery of government behind them. If they hold all of that power and influence and machinery unto themselves, then the logical conclusion is what has happened to so many people: power corrupts. And the more power you have, the more it can corrupt you. That's a danger for anyone who is in a position of authority and undertaking. . . .

So it's wise for us to look to our youth, who are saying to us with all plainness and honesty: "What are you about? How are you working on our behalf, and how can we participate in that undertaking?" That's what the youth are asking in our community: "How can we participate? How can we be a part of what you're about?" I think we've seen that so often in our election campaigns. The youth come forward and want to be a part of the process. They want to share, and they're welcomed gladly. But so often when the campaign process is over, the youth are forgotten as we go about our business.

It's a privilege to come here and watch the enthusiasm and vitality of the young people of our community as they come here for Youth Parliament and sit in these very chairs. They have a government and an opposition, but not in the way we have it. They have a government and an opposition that are not necessarily trying to oppose each other, but are trying to cooperate with each other for the common interests of youth. They undertake a project to develop a summer camp for young people who would not otherwise have the privilege. They spend their time volunteering to raise the funds for that, to sell the shares for that and to give the leadership for that program each year. So I think we need to listen to some of our young people, as I've had the opportunity to listen to them here in the Legislature as they come over the holiday 

[ Page 4568 ]

season at the New Year to listen to each other and find the opportunity to look forward to being in the Legislature themselves.

As we come here tonight, I think we need to reflect upon the process that we have engendered here and ask ourselves why it has broken down, ask ourselves why it's not as effective as it could be, ask ourselves why the young people of our community will bear the brunt of our mistakes and our stubbornness -- of our foolishness, if you like. I trust that we will reflect as we go through here this evening and that after this has happened, we'll find that we're more cooperative and more willing to work together, and that we get down to the business at hand and actually do it the way it should be done.

K. Whittred: I rise with pleasure to participate in this debate this evening. I am reminded that what we are debating is whether or not we should be taking two days off rather than debate the public's business. It's as simple as that. As I reflected upon this topic this evening, I thought to myself that we who work in this building come to work every single day in a rather grand workplace. What is it about this grand workplace that gives us perhaps some lessons that bring some meaning to the very point that we are discussing tonight? The fact that we have a statue of Queen Victoria on the front lawn might give us a clue that some important things go on inside this building. The fact that we have a several-hundred-foot flagpole with the British Columbia flag flying on it is another clue that somehow this building is meant for important things.

As we come into the rotunda, we find murals -- magnificent murals -- depicting the various people of this province: the workers who work and toil in the industries of British Columbia. We pay tribute to the miners and the loggers and the farmers and the fishermen -- these people who are the lifeblood of B.C.'s resources. Those things, again, give us a clue that important things are meant to happen in this particular workplace.

[9:30]

If we look at the windows, we get even further clues that maybe we're supposed to do important business in this building. We find that these wonderful painted windows bring us messages, some of them telling us to take note of science; some, of art, literature, labour -- all of the various values that are deemed to be important. If we look a little further, we see a plaque commemorating women's suffrage: a Maria Grant and a Cecilia Spofford, who were suffragette campaigners and who worked to bring women the vote in 1917.

Finally we move into this room, where we spend literally hours every day -- all of us who work in this place -- and we look around this room. Again there are clues that maybe important work is supposed to be done here. We look around at the top of the room, and we see the men of learning. I think those fellows up there are supposed to be Socrates and Aristotle and Plato and other great learners. These are the people who are supposed to inspire us, to give us knowledge, to give us the skills of intelligent reasoning.

I look a little bit further, and I see, in the carvings around the room, the symbols of our history: the British Columbia coat of arms, symbolizing the unity of Vancouver Island and the mainland. I see it held together by carvings of dogwoods -- again giving us a clue: maybe something important is supposed to happen here. Perhaps most importantly, I see on the Clerk's table the mace, the symbol of authority of the members of this House. That symbol, which we all sit and look at every day, is the single, solitary thing that tells us that our business is to conduct the people's business, and that is why we are here.

We can look a little bit further and go into kind of the next phase. I see up there what I think was at one time known as the "birdcage" or the Speaker's gallery, which is not used anymore. It's kind of a shame, because I can recall bringing student groups over here, I think, in the seventies. The press still actually sat there, and they were much closer to the actual debate in the House at that time and perhaps got a little more intimate perspective of it.

When we put things in that context, the fact that we come to work every day in a very visible environment that is obviously made for important stuff, we have to ask ourselves why in heaven's name we are going to adjourn and take two days out of the week in order that the Premier may have a photo opportunity. When this building so desperately tells us that it is made for important debate, we ought to be getting on with that debate.

I would like to talk for a moment about photo opportunities, because I must confess that I have never really quite seen where the people's business is served by photo opportunities. Perhaps my experience is slightly limited, but I would like to tell you, Mr. Speaker, about one or two experiences that I have had with photo ops.

One of them was when a member of the cabinet was coming to make an announcement at the school where I taught. This was to be a big deal. Students had to be prepared, and many hours were taken out of the school week to get everything ready and really on cue for this wonderful photo opportunity. TV men came in, tables were laid and the end of it all was that for several days none of the real work of that workplace was accomplished. None of the work in that workplace, which was a school, was accomplished. At the same time none of the work in this workplace was accomplished, so I really have to wonder what the purpose was.

Another experience comes to mind, and I must confess that I was astounded by this one. One day, over my e-mail in the school where I taught, I got a message asking me to excuse students from my class to go to a mural-painting opportunity where the Premier was going to be, and they would get a chance to get their picture taken. I looked at it in disbelief, Mr. Speaker. I thought: "Can this be? Is the Premier of this province, who claims to care so much about education, actually pulling students out of school to go and get their picture taken?" Well, yes, he was. This was true, and I was sorely astounded that this would actually happen.

Now we're seeing it again. We're seeing another case where instead of the announcement on the business of the people being made in this House -- this wonderful House that just tells us it's made for important things -- the Premier is renting an airplane and going off to various locations to get his picture taken with, I suppose, important people, while we go home and do not attend to the people's business in this House for those two days. That is wrong, particularly when we are provided with the tools. We are here, we have work to do and legislation to debate, and there is simply no reason for this delay.

[ Page 4569 ]

When each of us ran for office, I think we thought we were going to do something good. We were going to go to Victoria, and we were going to debate the merits of legislation on behalf of the people. Is this what we're being allowed to do now? No. We have all kinds of bills before us -- bills that are sitting and not being debated because we are simply not using our time effectively. It is easy in this House to get caught up with the idea that somehow the people's business comes down to a kind of contest between this side of the House and that side of the House. That is really not what the people's business is about. The people's business should be about that side of the House putting forth legislation, and about this side of the House speaking out on it, trying to make it better, debating it and hopefully improving it, and about that side of the House being receptive to it, and about coming up with some conclusion.

One of my colleagues talked about committees. I have been -- and I'm sure every member in this House is -- assigned to several committees. I've never been to one single, solitary committee meeting. I don't think one single, solitary committee meeting has ever been held, other than the ethics committee that I'm on. The other committees, such as the health committee, the social services committee, the family committee and whatever these are. . . . Not one of these committees has ever met. I have no idea who the Chair is. This is not conducting the people's business properly. I feel that I have some good ideas to contribute to those committees that I'm on. I'm sure that many other people feel that they have good ideas to contribute. But we never get a chance, because nobody ever calls a meeting.

There are bills before this House that I have worked to prepare debate on. Those bills have not been brought forward. Instead of bringing them forward, perhaps on Thursday, we are told, "No, go home," because the Premier's going to fly off to get his picture taken. That is not conducting the people's business. I repeat: that is not conducting the people's business.

There has been mention of possible reforms to this institution that would make debate perhaps more equitable, more predictable. Certainly I support those reforms. I support a standard parliamentary session. This is something that I think would enable all members on both sides of the House to make some reasonable family plans. You would know when you were going to be here; you would know when you were going to be home. It would enable us to make some reasonable accommodation plans -- all of those little things that plague members on both sides of the House at this time. It would enable the Premier to plan his photo opportunity outside the hours of this particular timetable. So that is the kind of reform that I think would certainly enable all members of the House.

The other reform that I would certainly encourage is the one that I alluded to earlier, which is to have regular meetings of committees so that committees can go over appropriate legislation, offer appropriate amendments and offer appropriate briefings. I think that every member of the House, government as well as opposition, would be far better served.

I will conclude by simply saying that even though we are not going to be in this House attending to the people's business at the end of this week -- Thursday and Friday -- I suppose it does have its rewards. It will enable me to get back to my constituency and deal with a good deal of constituency work that perhaps I have become a little bit tardy with, having been in the House for the last several weeks.

G. Campbell: The issue we've been debating tonight is relatively significant, I think, in terms of how this House has worked and how this government approaches legislative matters in the province. It reminds me of the words that were first brought forward by the Minister of Forests, when he informed all British Columbians that government could do anything it wanted. Forget about the citizens; forget about the democratic principles that we were elected to uphold. The government can do anything it wants.

[9:45]

It seems to me that the problem we face in public life today is that we have a government that believes it can do everything with more money, with more public relations, with more press releases and with less substance. We have a government that claims to represent working people, while it has driven job after job after job out of British Columbia, while it has tried and sought to divide and divide and divide again the people of this province.

I can tell you that the major public relations event the government plans to announce on Thursday and Friday. . . . Certainly the goals that they announce will be goals that are worth considering. We want to improve the quality of life for people who live in forest-dependent communities. We want to secure more jobs for people who live in forest-dependent communities. There is no question that we as legislators in the province want to accomplish those goals.

The Premier stood today in the House and asked: "Why don't we speak with one voice? Why don't we stand together and speak out on behalf of the families of British Columbia?" We've been speaking about the families of British Columbia in forest-dependent communities in the last four or five years. We've been pointing out the problems that this government's legislation has created. What happened when we offered amendments so that jobs could be part of the Forest Practices Code, when we offered amendments so that people from forest-dependent communities could be included in Forest Renewal B.C. decisions, when we offered amendments suggesting that instead of creating an enormous multimillion-dollar bureaucracy for political manipulation, we leave resources at home in communities where people work, where people need support, so that local communities could make those decisions? The government turned a blind eye; they turned a deaf ear. They didn't care about the voices from people in the forest-dependent communities of this province.

I can tell you that we hope that the announcements on Thursday will carry with them substance, not simply the kinds of announcements we've heard in the past -- the announcements we've heard from that side of the House that said there was a balanced budget in 1995 when they knew there wasn't, the announcements that said there was a balanced budget in 1996 when they knew there wasn't. Last year the Premier sat before the cameras and announced to everyone that there were going to be 21,000 new jobs in the forest industry in the next five years, and what we've found is that we've lost 5,500 jobs in the last year.

We believe it's time that we as an entire provincial community, as the Legislature, deal with these issues, hon. 

[ Page 4570 ]

Speaker. To do that, it is important for the government to know that there are mechanisms available for the government to make sure that all of the members of the Legislature can have their say.

I can recall going to the Kootenays and visiting the riding that's currently held by the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. I went there, and people said: "You know, this Forest Practices Code makes no sense in our community." What had happened was that the minister -- this was before he was in cabinet -- had gone back to his constituents and said: "Well, I know it makes no sense, but there's nothing I can do about it."

What about deciding that we're actually going to use this Legislature and take advantage of the commitment of all members of the Legislature? Even the backbenchers from the government would like to make a positive contribution. In fact, I think their behaviour has been exemplary in terms of trying to make a contribution, compared to some of the cabinet ministers that currently sit in cabinet. What about having some of the committees of this government meet to bring together the legislators, the forest workers, the people from the silviculture industry and the young people of this province? Ask them how we might be able to move forward together, acting in concert and unison to try and build a stronger and more prosperous British Columbia -- not a British Columbia based on press releases, not a British Columbia based on form, not substance, but a British Columbia that understands that by bringing the people of this province together, there is nothing that we cannot accomplish; not a British Columbia where the Premier of the province is constantly trying to pick a fight or declare a war on one interest or another, but a British Columbia that says: "I understand that people in forest communities want to improve the quality of the environment that they live in; I understand that we need to have private sector investment in British Columbia to generate the kind of jobs that we need in this province. . . ." Instead of a Premier that says one thing and does another, and then says one thing and does another still; instead of a government that consistently misleads the people of this province. . . .

This is a perfect example of that. We sit in this House -- 75 of us, gathered together -- trying to serve the public need. We have an institution here which, hon. Speaker, you're sworn to uphold as a Speaker. This is called the Legislature. This is the place where every voice in British Columbia should be heard, and this government does everything it can to close down the voices of people who need help and assistance.

I've travelled the province in the last few months. And you know, the people of this province expect that everyone sitting in every seat in this House is doing their job to meet the needs of all of their constituents -- not a chosen or select few, but all of their constituents: the poor, the people that need jobs, the working poor, the people that work in the forests, the people that work in the mines, the people that work in the fisheries, the people that work in the retail outlets. They expect their voices to be heard.

And you know what, hon. Speaker? They understand that all of their jobs are interconnected and interrelated. I went and met with people in Golden when they were facing the huge crisis in that community, and I talked to the retailers there. You know what they said, hon. Speaker? "We don't write cheques. The forest industry writes our cheques, and they pay them to their workers. Their workers come and buy their earrings at the jewelry store, and they buy their shoes at the shoe store, and they buy their saws at the hardware store. It is that industry that generates our opportunity for our community to thrive."

People understand that. Today they fully expect -- and they deserve to expect, because they actually pay our salaries to serve and meet their needs -- that we're meeting on these issues. They're tired of the sham. They're tired of the scam that's put on by government. They are tired of a government that sets up every throne speech, establishes 14 separate committees and then never has the committees meet.

I can tell you, we're ready to meet here on Thursday on health care; we're ready to meet here on Thursday on public education; we're ready to meet here on Thursday on forestry; we're ready to meet here on Thursday on parliamentary and legislative reform; we're ready to meet here on Thursday on the ethical conduct of this government. We are ready to do that because the people of this province pay for that and have an expectation that we will meet. We are ready to serve their needs, not some false political needs which are generated by the Premier.

The Premier said today: "Is this side of the House ready to stand and speak with one voice against those who would boycott the province of British Columbia's lumber products?" You're darn right we're ready to meet. You're darn right we're ready to stand up against those. We're ready to speak with one voice, and we can help the Premier do that. The fact is that if we don't speak, no one will believe the Premier, because he has not proven himself to be truthful in the past. The House Leader told us just last week: "You must serve this week. We must work until midnight if need be. We must burn that midnight oil so we can serve the needs of the people of this province, because we have urgent business to do." And we did it. We met with them and we did it. The fact of the matter is that by Monday morning the leader of the House had decided that there was a different story. And so we found -- as the people of British Columbia have found -- that you simply can't trust a thing that this government says.

So now we know that on Thursday the Premier will get in his chartered jet, and he will gather together people who he's coerced and told that they must come and join him, because if they don't there will be a price to pay. The Premier will have brought forth his process of intimidation. He will bring them all together in one spot, and he will say: "Aren't I a wonderful guy? Don't you think I'm a grand fellow? Aren't I a tough little fighter? Aren't I someone who can get out there and pick a fight with somebody? Don't you think I'm a strong sort of fellow?" He'll tell everybody that. And you know what? No one will be fooled, because this same Premier has so consistently misled. He has failed the opportunity to lead; he has not grasped the opportunity to lead. Instead, he has clearly, time and time again, said one thing and done another.

The fact of the matter is that as we think about what we may be able to do in this province, if the Premier would truly reach out to all British Columbians -- if he would truly listen to people -- he would recognize that you cannot impose a single-form one-size-fits-all solution on the people of the province of British Columbia. Think what we could accomplish in the Peace River, think what we could accomplish in the Kootenays, think what we could accomplish on northern Vancouver Island, if we would simply say that we are willing to reflect the needs and the diversity of this province in a way that makes sense, if we could just reach out and work with one another.

[ Page 4571 ]

Tonight I think it's important for us to point out that this is not simply naysaying, as the Premier identified today. Tonight this is an opportunity for the government to learn from its mistakes. I can tell you that I am pleased that the government partially learned from its mistake, when the former Minister of Forests said there was no way anyone would ever be able to take money from Forest Renewal B.C. and use it for general revenues, that it wouldn't happen this year or next year or for 20 years. I am glad that the government has been at least halted in its drive to take more and more from Forest Renewal B.C. to meet the needs of a mismanaged economy and government under the NDP. I am pleased they've listened. Tonight they have a chance, as well.

So let me recommend this: let us all dedicate ourselves tonight to truly committing ourselves to the principles that we ran on -- the principle of community service, the principle of public service, the principles that recognize that this Legislature is a place for the voices of all British Columbians from all constituencies to be heard. I would challenge the government to bring forward the legislative committee on Education, Culture and Multiculturalism so that we can deal with the crisis that this government has created in the school systems across the province of British Columbia.

I would challenge the government to call and charge the legislative committee on Health and Social Services so we can deal with what has now become known in the province as the "New Deceptions" program in health care, where we can actually put patients back at the top of the list, we can listen to doctors, we can listen to nurses, we can listen to people from community after community in this province and we can start to remember how we can rebuild a health system so it works for people who are in need. Let us call that committee immediately.

We all know that in this House one of the worst-kept secrets is that this Thursday the Premier will make an announcement on forestry. The Premier will recognize that after three years of damage it is time to act. After three years of pushing job after job and community after community to a state of crisis, the government is ready to act. We can only hope that they are ready to act in the best interests of every single forest industry worker in the province. We can only hope that what the government says it may do will be followed by what the government actually does -- that they will actually deliver on their commitments.

[10:00]

The people of this province would like to believe in their public institutions again, and they will be no more fooled this year than they were last year by public relations gimmicks and fancy flights all over the province. This government has proven to be a government that you can't trust. A government that promised there would not be an expansion of gambling is now carrying out a massive expansion of gambling. A government that promised not to take Forest Renewal money is now taking Forest Renewal money. A government that promised balanced budgets was proven not to have balanced budgets.

We think we can turn a corner here tonight so that we can re-establish the integrity of this institution. We can re-establish the commitment of that side of the House to public service -- to serving the needs of all of the constituents of B.C. I would urge the government to decide that they are now going to start acting on behalf of all the people in this province -- all of the interests of this province -- instead of their special political interests which have done so much to damage not just the forest industry, not just the economy of British Columbia, not just the public education system in this province, not just public health care in this province, but people's trust and faith in our public institutions. It's time to restore that faith. This government has an opportunity to do that, and I hope they will grasp that opportunity as we move through the days ahead.

Hon. D. Miller: In terms of the debate this evening, there have been a lot of comments relative to the use of this chamber to do the people's business and the pace of proceedings and those kinds of questions. It's been a very interesting discussion from that point of view, and I commend all members for comments they have made in that regard. Having said that, I move that the House do now adjourn.

Hon. D. Miller moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 10:03 p.m.

PROCEEDINGS IN THE DOUGLAS FIR ROOM

The committee met at 2:40 p.m.

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF
HUMAN RESOURCES
(continued)

M. Coell: We were discussing income assistance programs this morning. I'd like to carry on with that this afternoon, but on a few specifics and some of the changes in regulation and policy with regard to income assistance.

One area that I realize there have been some changes in is hardship benefits, and I wonder if the minister could outline for me those changes that have come with regard to hardship benefits.

Hon. D. Streifel: As I understand the question, the member is looking for the policy changes on hardship. As of March 31, 1997, hardship assistance is not available to singles and childless couples who quit work, were fired, refused work, are not seeking employment, are not participating in retraining, 

[ Page 4572 ]

have admitted or have been convicted of fraud, have an outstanding warrant for their arrest or have assets or income in excess of income assistance rates.

On the hardship side of the policy for the disabled, only two initiatives apply. Disabled persons who are awaiting other income such as WCB, CPP, old age security or private insurance will be eligible for regular benefits; those who have income in excess of B.C. Benefits rates will not be eligible for hardship benefits.

M. Coell: I wonder if the minister could explain how many funds were allocated in the '96-97 year for hardship and what the allocation is this year now that those changes have been made.

Hon. D. Streifel: In the budget for '96-97, hardship expenditures are estimated at $99 million; in the budget for '97-98, it's $89.489 million.

M. Coell: That's very similar, so there's really. . . . Are you not expecting a savings from the reduction of hardship grants?

Hon. D. Streifel: Perhaps I could help the member with the. . . . We'll go back one more year to '95-96, when the expenditures were $130 million. The savings came after that year into the budget we've just gone through, and now the projected budget is relatively the same -- $9 million more, but certainly within the relative ballpark of the expenditure. So the savings have been realized over the '95-96 budget, and we're kind of in a holding pattern.

[2:45]

Hon. D. Streifel: This is a very broad-reaching question from the member. If the member requires further clarification, I'm sure I'll get the question up again. But in general terms, the feedback comes as a result of the work relationship in the office. You know, there's weekly meetings; there's supervisory functions that happen. So we do gather feedback in that manner. I think the second part of the question was: do we track where individuals receive assistance if in fact they've been denied hardship? I'm not aware that we do, but I'm waiting for further clarification on that.

M. Coell: I'll maybe give the minister two examples of people who I have dealt with. One example would be a couple coming in who were between living arrangements -- whether they'd moved cities. . .or they'd had a theft so that they were actually out of pocket. What I'm saying is that they genuinely fell into that situation of needing hardship. What my office has done, as I'm sure many MLAs have, is refer them to the Salvation Army, to churches, to community groups that we know of, to the food banks. So there is a group of people that I think are still in need. The other example I use is someone who may be addicted to drugs or alcohol and who just needs some extra money. Have you had any response from the police as to incidents of breaking and entering and criminal activity with regard to being turned down for a hardship grant and just going out and trying to find the money somewhere else? If you don't have any information on those two issues, I understand.

Hon. D. Streifel: Yeah, I'll try this. Without trying to be too kind of feisty or sarcastic, but in fact, watching the news the other night on the sale of prescription drugs. . . . The news commentator focuses on this individual selling pills, saying: "I guess I received the information from all of these folks on welfare, and that's where they get their stuff." We contacted the news station to find out where the evidence is, because if this is happening, as a ministry we have a real interest to participate in stopping it. So the news commentator said: "Well, it's not my fault. The police gave me the information." Well, we contact the police, and we ask in general terms: "How do you know? If you know this crime is being committed, can we help out? Can we work together?" They say: "Well, we don't know; we just kind of maybe think or suspect that."

So, hon. member, we deal with a whole lot of anecdote and stereotyping around folks who are on income assistance and who need help from us. For the most part, it doesn't bear up under scrutiny. These folks come to us because they need help. They're in desperate situations, and they recognize that income support -- or welfare, as it is known in all our communities -- is not a great way of life, and they don't really want to be there. But they're there for short-term bridging on their way to something else, and we do that.

We have no evidence, and we can't seem to gather evidence from the police that would follow the line of questioning here, which says that because of this, welfare people are out there stealing. It just doesn't seem to hold up.

M. Coell: I'm pleased to hear that. There is, however, $40 million less in hardship benefits available through this ministry, so either that money was not needed before or people are suffering -- or they're finding that support somewhere else. It would be worthwhile for the ministry to know what happened to those people. Where did they turn for support, or didn't they need that support? That $40 million is a lot of money that was being spent on an annual basis, and we don't really know whether or why it's being missed. That's the reason for my question. Once taken out of the system, was there any follow-up into the effects on the people who would have been asking for that assistance, whether they be in need or not?

Hon. D. Streifel: That's part of the discussion we had last year -- and so far this year -- about whether we track every case or every applicant, and the simple answer is no, we don't. Nor in general terms would most individuals in our country want us to have that kind of an involvement in the daily lives of individuals. It seems that we tend to get deeper into the positioning on this when somebody is in fact collecting moneys from the public purse in the form of income assistance. The ministry is virtually the area of last resort to come to for help. In most instances, in cases of personal moneys and what not, we expect individuals to be able to use that up. At the end of the day, when we discuss this ministry, it always comes down to that: because somebody needs help and comes to us and we supply help, in some way or another we're expected to track where they go after that, whether they receive help or they don't qualify to receive help.

I would think that that kind of a system would be administratively burdensome. For instance, I could ask the hon. 

[ Page 4573 ]

member himself: where are you going? He can choose to or choose not to tell me that, because he has freedom in this country. Somebody who has had help from us or has applied for help and may not make the qualifications or may have got help for a certain length of time. . . . It's very difficult to require them to: "Call us when you leave." I'm not quite sure how we could ever put a mechanism like that in place. For the most part, I don't think folks would respond. Most of them would say: "It's really none of your business" -- and I believe that it's not.

M. Coell: There are a number of mechanisms like that in the country, and Revenue Canada is a good example -- income tax, those sorts of things. There could be, if there was a desire. . . . The end desire would be more efficient use of the moneys that you have.

To look at the hardship question from the other side, what study or recommendation did the ministry have for cutting the hardship grants?

Hon. D. Streifel: As a result of tighter scrutiny in the intake into the system. . . . We have some individual cases or sections where we broke up the hardship assistance to see what we were paying out. In cases, for instance, where individuals had income in excess of the income assistance levels, there was a 77.6 percent drop in hardship funding from June of '95 in that area. Where individuals had assets in excess of a single. . .and what not, there was a 64 percent drop. Where individuals were awaiting other income, there was a 60 percent drop.

Those are the areas where the focus has been, where the big drop in the usage of hardship has happened -- it's where individuals are actually already receiving more money than the system supplies, where they have assets higher than the system permits. That's kind of how it happened.

M. Coell: I'm more interested in the reasoning behind the change to the policy on hardship, where the different groups were cut out of the ability to access hardship grants. When you're looking at a savings of $40 million, there must have been some research. There must have been a reason to change all those policies. That's the reason I'm looking for.

Hon. D. Streifel: I'm not aware of any specific study, as the member referred to, on this circumstance. Certainly there was tremendous growth within the usage of that category. When looking at some of the criteria, we tightened up the system. There's no secret that we made our system quite a bit tighter in this province, under direction and guidance from both the Minister of Finance and the auditor general. There were requirements, in a couple of the reports, that we tighten up.

We look at really being the ministry of last resort. That doesn't really describe in total who we are as the Ministry of Human Resources, but in fact, we expect folks to utilize other assets that they have and other sources of income that they have. That's what we've done, and that's one of the reasons for the shrinkage in the usage of hardship -- strictly to, in some respects, ensure that the moneys flow to those folks who are truly in need. If individuals or applicants have other sources of income they can attach, there's an expectation that they do that. As a result, we've been able to shrink the usage of the hardship system.

[3:00]

Hon. D. Streifel: We have a responsibility to ensure that the moneys we have are supplied to those that truly need our support. When we looked at our intake criteria and toughened up or tightened up a little bit on the intake criteria, we had to look at the other categories or other aspects of the ministry.

If someone has more income than the system would, for instance, view as the basic benefit, then we expect them to use that income -- and if they have other assets in the system. When we looked at the overall structure of it, there was tremendous growth in the usage of the hardship system. We looked at why this was and how that fit within the basic criteria of applying for income assistance -- to supply the need.

Through the whole process it was paramount that we protect children and families, that we look at the structure where there's children involved. We did protect children in these circumstances, and at the end of the day, we ensured that those folks that apply for and receive assistance from this ministry truly need it.

M. Coell: I just have one more question on the hardship allowances. If the minister has at his fingertips the trend over the last five or ten years with the usage of the hardship system -- the number of people or just the dollar figures -- it would be of assistance to me.

Hon. D. Streifel: Some of my earlier words focused on the $130 million budget for expenditures in '95-96 -- and down to 80 and now 89. So from that area, it's dropped dramatically. For the other years -- I don't know how far back the member would like to go -- I'll make sure he gets that information.

M. Coell: The other change that I know my office has dealt with, with a number of people this year, is the elimination of the flat-rate earnings exemption of $100 that had been in place for many years. It's the policy change that. . . . If a person earned $100, they got to keep that $100. Now, if you earn $100, that comes off your income assistance cheque. I would be interested in what the rationale was for that change. I have some other questions as well.

Hon. D. Streifel: I'm just trying to find my way through this. First of all, I think I'm going to start something here. I've tried this in a couple of venues, and I'm going to ask the member to be a bit patient with me on this one, in that the way income assistance clients receive moneys is viewed in many different ways by the ministry.

This gets to be a bit hazardous ground for me, but when I look at it. . . . I'm told it can be quite confusing in, for instance, the difference between an individual who's on the disability 

[ Page 4574 ]

category. . . . I believe they have a $200 earnings exemption plus the 25 percent of earned income and something else. And employables used to have something, and family maintenance was treated in a different way.

What I've asked staff to do is deliver for me a report on this, with a view, I guess, to seeing how the whole program works within the system we have today. We do focus a lot on moving individuals into the workforce with the cooperation of other ministries.

That wasn't part of the original decision to change the earnings exemption, nor does it directly answer the member's question. But this is just to signal to the member that I'm aware that this is somewhat controversial and comes up on a very regular basis, whether I'm walking in downtown Mission or it's in correspondence that crosses my desk.

I'm really in the very early stages of trying to gather some information on the many aspects of the moneys that are retrieved. So I'll leave it at that to see if the member wants to flesh out any other questions without getting too far. . . . I've signalled a bit of future stuff.

M. Coell: The elimination of the flat-rate earnings, I think, triggers a number of things. I mean, you're dealing with people who are living on not very much money. The idea in that was to encourage someone to maybe take a part-time job, maybe to have a paper route, maybe to deliver groceries. They could keep that money and maybe use that for the betterment of themselves or their families. It was $200 in the case of a family. I just can't understand how the government could benefit from that, because it destroys the incentive to go out and work just a little bit, even part-time.

So you've got a whole bunch of people giving up jobs, for the most part -- because why work? They work and then the government just takes $100 or $200 off their assistance cheque. I just wonder what the logic and rationale were for that decision.

Hon. D. Streifel: The enhanced earnings exemption was maintained. That permits an individual to retain 25 percent of earnings in any 12 months over a 36-month period. So that's part of the program that was maintained.

The other aspect of the member's question has to do with why. Frankly, the program wasn't working to entice individuals to move into the workforce. So when we cancelled the earnings exemption, there were modest savings somewhere in the $8 million bracket, I believe, which was reinvested into training -- to help us train.

What has come of that, I suppose, is that the moneys we cobbled together from inside the ministry, through the change and sometimes the cancellation or the modification of specific programs, as well as new moneys that had come in and programs that have moved to the Ministry of Education, Skills and Training and such. . . . We've seen that those, along with the B.C. family bonus and a number of initiatives that are of multifaceted focus, have reduced our caseload by almost 10 percent from the measuring date. It's the largest drop in 20 years. That's quite remarkable.

So there has been a large uptake on the training and education aspect of where some of the moneys inside have been redirected -- and from the other ministries. There has been a huge uptake of that, as well as the reassignment of some of the benefits from within the ministry to help form the B.C. family bonus -- that and Healthy Kids. There has been a dramatic uptake of that by families in order to move off the system.

I guess, when you compare the earnings exemption that was in general terms designed to, in a way, entice individuals to go to work -- to get a little taste of work, I suppose, was what that old program was originally struck for -- it didn't work. But what we're doing now is working. Folks are leaving the system to go to work. They tell us that this is what was lacking in the old system: support to get training, support to do the job search -- all the areas where the feds have really just scattered. They've bailed out everywhere. We are doing that as a result of a need to change who we are and how we deliver on behalf of our clients. So all of that went into the rationale and into the thinking. In hindsight, comparing the earnings exemption versus the amount of focus we have on training, education and pre- and post-employment assistance, I think the system we have now is much better, and it is working.

M. Coell: I don't have any disagreement with programs which are put in place to get people into the workforce and employed. I guess what I'm looking at is: what was it that was wrong with this system? I get people in my office who have given up part-time jobs. They're still not -- for whatever reason -- getting employment. From my perspective, wouldn't you be better having a paper route -- having something that got you active and kept you active while you got into these other programs? I'm not saying: "Don't do those other programs." But why cancel this at the same time? What was the motivation for the cancellation of this? I agree with all the programs the minister said; I just don't see how this affected them. I don't draw the comparison that the minister does. If he could comment on that.

Hon. D. Streifel: Well, to try again. . . . Simply put, the old program didn't work. If the individual that the member references still has the opportunity to take advantage of the 25 percent earnings exemption, and if. . . . Is that happening? I don't know. The individuals in question have the opportunity to take advantage of many of the other programs. The old program didn't work, and I guess, at the end of the day, we have to start looking at how much money an individual can earn or retain from other sources before it affects income support. That's also part, in general terms, of how we assess our system overall. So the old system didn't work, and the new structure is working. People are leaving to go to work, and they're leaving with support to go to work. I believe it's a much better system.

M. Coell: Another area that I'd like to canvass is the changes that affect alcohol and drug recovery houses. These would be individuals who are dependent on alcohol and drugs and are in recovery but need support. If they were on income assistance, they would have been receiving $596 a month some months ago. That has been cut back, I believe, to $500. So they have seen a drop in monthly income of about $96.

The reason I bring this up -- and maybe I'll give a bit of detail -- is that there are approximately 1,100 people in the province in what are called recovery houses -- a supportive, homelike atmosphere for people addicted to alcohol and drugs. Most, if not all, of that $596 would have been paid over to the house, and that would have paid their room and board. Most of these houses would have between eight and 12 people, so you're running a household of eight to 12 on $6,000 or $7,000 a month.

[ Page 4575 ]

You've now taken a large sum of money out of the recovery houses, and this is causing some problems because they're saying to some of the residents: "You need that $596, or you'll have to move out." You're seeing some people having to move out of supportive treatment programs. I would be interested in the minister's comments. The ministry may well have not been aware of that effect, but it's been drawn to my attention and possibly also to the ministry.

[3:15]

Other than that, I believe we need a multifaceted approach to substance abuse treatment in British Columbia. Perhaps we could get on with accreditation of some of the treatment facilities, and we could get on with some other form of funding. Most of it is outside this ministry. But suffice it to say that I'm aware of the circumstance. We're in close contact with the community involved. Again, I've asked my staff to explore options to address this.

M. Coell: I'm glad to hear that, because I think that some of the cuts that have taken place in this ministry will inadvertently hurt numbers of British Columbians. I promise not to keep the minister here until July in order to get those reports; I'll rely on him to share them with me at a further meeting.

One of the problems is that a decision made in this ministry for these cuts -- a significant cut, I think. . . . When you're looking at almost a 20 percent cut to someone's monthly income that is that low, that is a significant and potentially harmful amount. In this instance, these are people who are well into the recovery process. They're people who I would say are fragile and need support of some kind. With the alcohol and drug programs being removed from this ministry, I don't know how you coordinate that sort of decision with the effect that it has on a significant number of British Columbians.

I wonder if the minister could outline for us the coordination that may be taking place with the alcohol and drug programs through the Ministry for Children and Families. A lot of these people do have families; they're probably not living with their families now, but their families may be on assistance, as well. You mentioned you were starting. . . . What sort of coordination do you see between alcohol and drug programs and this problem that we're looking at?

Hon. D. Streifel: I think the answer to the first question is a lot easier. There's no effect on a family when a spouse is in this program. We haven't effected the full transfer yet, so it would be very difficult to predispose or predetermine what coordinating effect or process there will be once these programs are moved to Children and Families. I can only suggest that we have a very good track record of working with other ministries on programs that have gone over there. I would expect that we will deliver on that track record, whether we view the circumstances of the Ministry of Education, Skills and Training and the placement of our clients in the training programs. . . . Wherever we work, our work is of a very cooperative nature. I would expect that the same thing would come forward when these programs are transferred.

The hon. member should be aware that I have had discussions on this very issue of the treatment centres -- the funding, the per diem issue, the accreditation and all that -- with many of my colleagues in cabinet. The Attorney General, in particular, views this as a very serious issue. We have coordinated some discussions between the Attorney General and this minister in order to reach a solution as quickly as possible, recognizing that it's all not this ministry's territory.

M. Coell: My reason for bringing it up is to flag it for the minister. It is something that we on our side of the House feel is important. I am pleased to hear that some preliminary discussions have taken place. I would suggest, however, that there will be a large number of people affected. They are in a situation where their lives are starting to get back on track, and it would be a shame to see people have to move out of those supportive situations and fall back into a downward spiral. I'm pleased that the ministry is at least looking at what may happen after the July date. We're talking about addiction here, as well; we have some questions regarding gambling addiction and the funds that were put forward to the ministry in the budget regarding that.

Hon. D. Streifel: Just before we move on to the next member, I'd like to take the opportunity to respond to the comments from the member for Saanich North and the Islands. In my past life I spent a great deal of time and effort as a union business agent convincing companies, employers, that individuals were worth saving. I negotiated some of the very first drug and alcohol treatment programs within the collective agreements I dealt with, and negotiated and addressed circumstances where sometimes you had to get the attention of an individual in order to convince that individual that they needed help. I was very close, hands-on, with that kind of formulation of collective agreement clauses -- certainly in relationship with our employers.

When this came to my attention -- the line of questioning and the comment the member has brought up -- I took one of my very rare days off and went up to the Miracle Valley Centre in Mission. I met with Captain MacDonald; I toured the facility. I talked to the folks who are in the process of treatment -- recognizing the value in the member's comments that here we have somebody in transition, a very serious transition in their lives. I wouldn't find it acceptable if we were to interfere inadvertently in that transition. So, again, that's why I get on it.

When it was brought to my attention, I was on the problem immediately and asked my staff to come up with a solution in the interim while we worked on the overall discussion and circumstance around the funding, accreditation, per diems and all of that. This ministry does put a tremendous amount of money into the per diems and support for these individuals in these treatment programs. I want that to be carried on. I want to be able to facilitate the smooth transfer to another ministry while the support stays in place, and through recategorizing within the ministry.

K. Krueger: In mid-March the Ministry of Employment and Investment announced a massive expansion of gambling in British Columbia. This should be anticipated to add to the 

[ Page 4576 ]

workload of this ministry in that, according to two Angus Reid surveys commissioned by this government, one in 1993 and one in 1996, approximately 4 percent of the population of British Columbia is presently afflicted with at least problem -- and in many cases pathological -- levels of gambling addiction. When people become gambling addicts, they often can't stop indulging in the behaviour until every asset is gone -- all their credit is used up. Very often they have beggared their families and turned to crime to support their habit. On average, three out of four pathological gamblers turn to crime. There are tremendous consequences, and certainly people who depend on the Human Resources ministry can be expected to be some of the people who suffer those consequences.

My first question for the minister is whether he had opportunity to commission any studies or review any existing studies with regard to the likely effect on his ministry of the gambling expansion before it was announced.

Hon. D. Streifel: I would refer the member for questions on gambling to the appropriate ministry. The Ministry of Human Resources does not participate in gambling, gaming or in that aspect at all. For the most part, I would suggest that any questions pertaining to gaming are out of order in the examination of my estimates.

K. Krueger: Perhaps the minister didn't hear the first part of my remarks because he was consulting with his advisers on something else. The point I was making was that there is more than a reasonable expectation that gambling expansion will affect his ministry. Therefore I would hope that he was given the courtesy of an opportunity to have input to the Minister of Employment and Investment before the gambling expansion decision was made, let alone before the announcement was made.

My question is whether this ministry specifically conducted any studies projecting the likely effect on their caseload and on the people that they care for before the gambling expansion announcement was made.

Hon. D. Streifel: The ministry did not conduct any studies.

K. Krueger: In the announcement made by the Minister of Employment and Investment on March 13, there was provision for a program for assessment and treatment of gambling addicts in British Columbia -- long overdue. It still hasn't come to fruition, but it's heartening that some funds are going to be channelled in that direction. We know that the Ministry for Children and Families was charged with the responsibility of bringing that on. My question for the minister is whether his ministry has any role in assisting with that, or whether it's purely the responsibility of the Ministry for Children and Families.

Hon. D. Streifel: The member is correct; that's under the auspices of the Ministry for Children and Families.

M. Coell: I would like to move on to the appeals procedure for income assistance. I think an important part of any government program is when a person is turned down -- how they appeal that, and how effective the appeal procedure is seen by the community and by the individuals in the system. There were some changes in a bill last year. I wonder whether the minister, now having had almost a year of that appeal process, would like to offer any thoughts or comments on it. Then we have a number of questions regarding the appeal process.

[3:30]

V. Anderson: I'm wondering if the minister could give us an indication of how many appeals were held during the last year, how many of them resulted in an affirmation of the appellant and how many were turned down as a result of the appeal.

Hon. D. Streifel: On the member's question about the number of appeals from December '95 to April '97, the total number of appeals received by the board was 426. The number initiated by the Ministry of Human Resources was 139; the number initiated by clients was 287. So those percentages are 33 percent and 67 percent. I believe that may be enough information; the member will ask more. . . .

V. Anderson: I think that what the minister gave me was the appeals to the appeal board. The question that I asked was about the number of initial tribunals that put the clients, in regard to appeals of decisions that were made in the first place regarding them. . . .

Hon. D. Streifel: The total number of appeals to tribunal in '96-97 was 6,278.

V. Anderson: Could you indicate how many of those 6,000 were in favour of the client and how many were in favour of the original decision of the ministry?

Hon. D. Streifel: The total of appeals. . . . Let's see. For the ministry, it was 5,128; for the client -- the appellant -- it was 1,150. It was 82 percent and 18 percent.

V. Anderson: Is the minister saying that it was out of those 1,150 that 426 went to the appeal board?

Hon. D. Streifel: The 426 number is found in the 6,278 number.

V. Anderson: Okay, I see what you're saying in that regard. With regard to the appeal process, there are a couple of things I was wondering about in relationship to the appeals regulation. What is the training that's given to the chairs of the tribunals? How long and how extensive is that?

Hon. D. Streifel: For the information of the member, there are approximately 500 individuals in 27 communities around the province who have successfully completed the training. Those individuals are trained in the process of natu-

[ Page 4577 ]

ral justice. They're trained in how to be a chair -- very similar to the training that I've gone through in the past, under two or three different circumstances. As well, they're trained in the law -- the legislation and the application of the law.

V. Anderson: What's the training with regard to the difference between the legislation and the regulations when you're interpreting the decisions in the tribunal? As I understand it, the legislation and the regulations and the interpretation of the regulations can be quite different. What's done in regard. . . ? In my experience, that's often where the difficulties lie: the difference between the legislation as it was laid out, the regulations and the interpretation of the regulations by different levels. What's the training in that regard?

Hon. D. Streifel: I'm endeavouring to get a specific answer for the member. Does he want to know how we train folks to separate the difference between regulation and legislation? Is that correct? In theory, there is no real difference. The act -- the legislation -- is the broader aspect of the law. The regulation is section by section; that's how it's laid out. The regulation can't necessarily conflict with the legislation, as I understand it, because legislative counsel helps draft the regs to conform to the legislation. So I guess that's what I'm trying to answer. That's how the process works. I'm sure the member is well aware of that. That's the training package, I would think, that's included in the training on the legislation, on how the regs conform to the act.

V. Anderson: Is there an orientation manual for this training, and if so, is there a copy of it available? I'd be interested to have it if it's available.

Hon. D. Streifel: I vaguely remember that we did this last year. The question came up on the training manual, the guidelines. Could the member have it? I believe that the answer last year was yes. If we didn't deliver it, my face is red. We'll ensure that the member gets a copy of it.

V. Anderson: Thank you. I'd appreciate that very much.

I have another question about the regulations. I noticed that when notification of appeal. . . . The question is: how is the other party notified of the appeal? At least two business days before the setting of the hearing, the chair must notify the parties. It seems to me that two business days is very short notice for the time of an appeal. Knowing the difficulty of many of the clients, particularly, and knowing in the past about the time of the volunteers who are trying to help in the process, and staff and everything else. . . . It seems to me that two business days is very short notice. I wonder if this has been changed or how you've found it in practice.

Hon. D. Streifel: I'll just ask the member to clarify. I understood the member was referring to the appeal board, and my staff understood the member to refer to the tribunal. So if we could get clarification on that. . . . For instance, the reason for the existence of the tribunal process is to achieve a speedy decision. And it would seem kind of odd to fly in the face of that by delaying these appearances at the tribunal for a week or ten days or five business days, which could flow over a weekend or so. The whole process is designed to be somewhat speedy, and it seems to work.

V. Anderson: Yes, in a variety of ways, there are ten and 15 days and a variety of things in between. But I'm just wondering about this one point. It's in the tribunal itself, that the chair may give two business days' notice. I just wanted to comment, and perhaps the minister will review that. I don't want to push it further at the moment. But you might review that, because it seems to me that in practice it's quite short.

[3:45]

Hon. D. Streifel: On the member's first comments on the two business days, if the member certainly has any specific concerns, specific cases and a large number of them that have missed the two-day window, we'd certainly be willing to look at that. But in general terms it seems to work. On the second question, being the change last year, yes, one member can hear on the appeal board.

V. Anderson: I have the poster about your right to appeal, and I was just wondering if the information on this is current. I will read it:

"What to appeal. You can appeal a decision that denies, reduces or stops assistance or benefits if you feel the decision is wrong." Then it says: "All types of benefits are subject to appeal. These include monthly assistance, health care benefits, supplementary benefits, day care, employment and training benefits, homemaker services and crisis grants for emergencies."

Hon. D. Streifel: I don't have the benefit of viewing the pamphlet, the production date on the bottom or a run date, and I want to try to stay out of the quagmire on this one. So I would suggest expanding the question just slightly on the other side -- what's not appealable. And that's access to employment-related programs, employability program benefits -- welfare-to-work recipients have access to programs after the youth guarantee -- access to community living, residential programs, expenses related to participating in community living residential programs and appeal benefits paid while awaiting appeal outcome. That's the "not" side of what's appealable.

It appears that this poster is out of date.

V. Anderson: It's interesting that it's out of date, because it's only very recently that I got this information from the ministry, when I was inquiring about the appeal process within the last month. I got that as part of the information sent to me. That's why I was curious about it; I had a feeling there had been some changes.

When we're talking about appeals. . . . I have been asked for clarification from the minister on a policy which may or may not prevent this particular question going to appeal. There are no names involved, so it's a process one, written for one of the persons by an advocate.

"My client, who was previously on 'unemployable,' and has recently had her application for special needs accepted, but has had the extra $96 per month, which she received under the 'unemployable' classification, denied her. Her FAW, with whom I have not yet had an opportunity to speak, explained to my client that she no longer qualifies for the extra $96 because she has a child in her care and therefore is not technically a 'single unemployable' person. For this client, special needs means only that she does not have to actively seek employment."

[ Page 4578 ]

Hon. D. Streifel: I'll try this one. As the member suggests, the folks who brought this forward and the member are somewhat confused by this. The information I have is that if we're dealing with a single parent, there wouldn't be an effective change here. So I would ask the member to bring that information forward in another manner. The layout didn't quite make full sense as it was read out. We have no effect on individuals with families.

V. Anderson: I'll make a copy of this available to you and ask if you would follow it up. I and the other people would also appreciate knowing the answer as a result of that.

That's all I have for the moment.

M. Coell: I wish to proceed with the appeal board. I wonder if the minister could tell me what the budget for the appeal board is for the year.

Hon. D. Streifel: The budget for '97-98 is $629,000.

M. Coell: I wonder whether the minister would have the actual budget for last year, as compared to this year.

Hon. D. Streifel: The actual expenditure for '96-97 was $357,000.

M. Coell: I wonder if the minister could comment on the increase in cost from $357,000 in '96-97 to this year's $629,000.

Hon. D. Streifel: The question being the reason for the increase? We have a higher number of appeals than were anticipated.

M. Coell: Would I be correct in assuming that you're just anticipating a larger number of appeals? Or they have already appealed last fall or early this spring? That would give you that number.

Hon. D. Streifel: The first year of operations is where we realized a higher number of appeals then we had planned for. So this year we are budgeting a higher amount in anticipation of a higher number of appeals again. We have increased the size of the appeal board to be able to hear more appeals, and I would expect that this whole process of cleaning up the backlog and moving in that direction has added a bit to the costs, and that's why the budget is higher.

M. Coell: Was $357,000 the actual '96-97 budget, or was it the estimated budget?

Hon. D. Streifel: I think it was the actual expenditure. The budget was $295,000.

M. Coell: That clarifies that for me. The overrun has caused a relook at how many you can anticipate this year. That's still a large jump, from $357,000 actual to $629,000, so obviously the appeal board is being used a lot more than anticipated. In earlier comments, it was interesting that the appeals were falling -- about 18 percent, I think, was the number for the appellant and 80 percent in favour of the government.

Hon. D. Streifel: That's the tribunal side.

M. Coell: My next question to the minister would be: what are the numbers for the appellant versus the government in decisions from the appeal board?

Hon. D. Streifel: The split on the decisions from the appeal board are about one-third to two-thirds on balance for the government. Appeals initiated by the Ministry of Human Resources are 33 percent of the 426. Appeals initiated by the clients are 67 percent. When you get into the number of cases resolved over this period of time and when you split those out, those being found in favour of clients are 36 percent, and for the Ministry of Human Resources it's 64 percent. So the percentages flip from the initiation of the appeal to the decision-making.

M. Coell: I wonder if we could move on to the tribunal. I'm wondering about the costs of that and if the minister has that for 1996-97, as well as the actual and this year's.

Hon. D. Streifel: We expend $70,000 on training for the tribunals. The other expenditures are realized in staff time, and we don't include that in the expenditure side of this. It's pretty difficult to categorize, by individuals paid.

[4:00]

Hon. D. Streifel: I'm not sure if we have the anticipation for the next year, but this year it was. . . . Was it 6,278? Hang on -- the total number of cases referred to tribunal was 875.

To pick up on an answer on the budget side of it, in '96-97 the actual expenditure, including training, was $230,000; the '97-98 budget is $240,000. It's at STOB 20 in the estimates book.

M. Coell: I wonder if the minister can refresh my memory. There are 500 people, I think, trained to be members of the appeal board.

Hon. D. Streifel: For tribunals.

M. Coell: For tribunals? Okay.

How many people are trained as part of the appeal board? I'm getting confused as to the number on the appeal board, and they may be the same people or some of the same people.

Hon. D. Streifel: It is an 11-member appeal board, including the vice-chair. The position of chair is currently vacant.

M. Coell: Has that 11-member appeal board heard 6,000 cases? There's where I'm needing some clarification as to who is hearing those cases and how many people are trained to hear those cases.

Hon. D. Streifel: The first question that prompted our sojourn down this alley was on the total number of appeals. 

[ Page 4579 ]

That number is 6,278, and that comprises 5,403 administrative reviews that are on appeal. There were 875 referrals or appeals to tribunals. So it's the 500 trained individuals in the 27 communities that do the 875 tribunal hearings. I didn't get this on my jacket, so it must be correct. The 11-member appeal board does the appeals -- if I remember, that number was 426 appeals received by the board. So the two equations are: 11 into 426, and 500 into 875.

M. Coell: That is very helpful and clarifies my understanding perfectly.

I wonder if I can touch base on how those people are selected for the appeal board as well as the tribunals. Have there been any changes in policy since we talked about this last year? I guess that's what I'm looking at.

Hon. D. Streifel: There's a whole variety of methods for someone to participate on a tribunal. They can be put forward by the clients, by advocacy groups or by us. Some folks may even approach and ask: "How can I do this?" They're put through a bit of a process and training. The appeal board appointments, as I understand the selection process there, are by recommendations from within certain communities or from community interests. They go through the agencies, boards and the commissions branch. We're looking for folks with specific qualifications. These folks have an interest in this, and they go through the ABC branch and end up on the appeal board.

There's a little bit of a different process. . . . I don't think the tribunals are appointed through agencies, boards and commissions, but the appeal board is.

M. Coell: Are the appeal board appointments by order-in-council or by the ministry?

Hon. D. Streifel: The appeal board are OIC appointments.

V. Anderson: I want to clarify this with the minister. I thank him for the clarification that 5,000-some were administrative reviews of the 6,278. But then I heard him say that there were 875 actual tribunals. Previously I had understood him to say that 1,150 out of that 6,278 were tribunals. So I'm just getting clarification between 1,150 and 875 as far as the tribunals are concerned.

Hon. D. Streifel: When we broke down the 6,278 for the member, we were looking for the number of total appeals. Out of that 6,278, the number that were found in favour of the ministry was 5,128, and the total in favour of the appellant was 1,150. So I believe that's where the number 1,150 comes from.

With that, hon. Chair, would it be possible to have a five-minute recess? I think it would be much appreciated by all and sundry if that could be arranged.

The Chair: With agreement of the committee, how about coming back at 4:20?

Motion approved.

The committee recessed from 4:08 p.m. to 4:21 p.m.

[W. Hartley in the chair.]

V. Anderson: Following up with the minister, if I understand this correctly, there were 875 tribunals, and the cost was $230,000 for tribunals. That would run somewhat over $200 on average for each of the tribunals. Now, I know that each of the tribunal persons gets paid, if I'm right, $50 and $50 and $75, so there's $175 right there. Do the tribunal members -- the persons coming to the tribunal or the ones conducting the tribunal -- get paid expenses?

Hon. D. Streifel: Subject to qualification, it's our understanding that the tribunal members receive the honorarium and not expenses. The clients, I believe, do not receive expenses.

V. Anderson: Then the cost of the appeal board was $357,000 last year, if I understand rightly, and there were 426 appeals. So if my mathematics is relatively accurate, that was $900 for each appeal -- $200 for the tribunal and roughly $900, on average, for each appeal.

Hon. D. Streifel: The number of appeals, 426, is a calendar reflection of December 1995 to April 1997. As it's broken out, the cost per case resolved from December '95 to January '97 is $1,348, and the cost per case resolved from October '96 to January '97 is $741.

V. Anderson: For clarification, is that $741 the average cost of each appeal, counting staff time and other expenses?

Hon. D. Streifel: The total cost of $741 is all-in expenses per case from October '96 to January '97.

V. Anderson: I think the minister is quite right in expecting an increase in both tribunals and appeals for this current year. I would expect that it will be driven particularly by the change in the "employable" category. There are some 27,000 people, and probably 10,000 of those will appeal the decisions that are coming through. Has the minister taken that into account? My understanding is that that's likely what will happen. Is that one reason they have doubled the amount of money for appeals? Have they also doubled the amount for tribunals for this year? Did I get those figures right?

Hon. D. Streifel: No, we didn't factor that into the increase in the budget for the appeal board at all.

I would just caution the member -- no, I don't have to caution the member. The member is well aware that in general terms, what's reported in the media isn't necessarily accurate -- the 27,000 and how reclassification happens. Actually, we won't know the numbers until the end of this month.

V. Anderson: We'll probably be dealing with that later on in the estimates, so I won't get into that at this point and confuse the issue.

In regard to the appeal board, 64 percent of the cases brought to the appeal board were overturned by the appeal board in favour of the ministry -- as I heard the figures. Has the minister factored out the cost saving by setting those cases aside against the cost of running the appeal board itself? Of those 64 cases, how much money was saved against the cost of the appeal process? What I'm trying to factor out financially, apart from everything else, is: is the appeal board a plus or a negative in the undertaking?

Hon. D. Streifel: We don't run the numbers in that manner; it would be contrary to the purpose of the appeal 

[ Page 4580 ]

board. The purpose of the appeal board is to uphold the law as it is, and that's what the board does. We don't balance off the cost versus the savings in this manner.

V. Anderson: I understand the minister's logic, but if he remembers, we had a fair discussion last year about the whole validity of the appeal board process itself as against the tribunal. I think there's still a fair bit of concern out there about the direction and the extra costs of the tribunal compared to what we had before, the extra cost of the appeal board compared to what we had before and also the satisfaction to the client. I don't think the community has resolved that. I think if there was some evaluation of the process, that would be helpful to our understanding of whether the process is really helping. When we make a major change like this, it seems to me that there should be some kind of evaluation process to demonstrate both for ourselves and for the public whether we've moved in the right direction or not, either to validate it -- if it does so -- or to indicate that it needs to be revived.

I'm asking if the minister is perfectly satisfied by whatever evaluation he's done that this was the best way to go. Or has he any suggestions for improving the process?

Hon. D. Streifel: To answer the question in simple terms, yes, I am satisfied that the law is being upheld; and yes, I'm very comfortable with this form of process. It's been the bulk of my work life within the trade union movement. When there's a disagreement as to the application of a contract or a certain set of rules, then there has to be a way to satisfy one side or the other as to who feels that there's been a grievance or who is aggrieved.

In this case, we have a tribunal system that moves on to the appeal board. It's not very much different from the comfort I have within a grievance procedure and an arbitration procedure. In that case, the arbitrator is obligated to decide upon the application of the law, which is the collective agreement, and here the appeal board determines the application of the law.

I think for the member to suggest that we may look at some form of evaluation of whether we are going to save money in this process devalues the purpose of having laws. This is a law that's structured and written. If we were to just look at a simple balance sheet of savings versus expenditures. . . . I think the member may actually agree with me that we have to take an extended value here. If we ignore the law, then we are bound to change the law, and then how does that affect the expenditures versus the savings? If the member is suggesting that we have to go out and change a bunch of laws. . . .

We examined this area very deeply last year. I understand the member's deep concern and deep compassion for this area of the community, and I have a great deal of respect for that. But at the same time, I also have a respect for laws as we structure them and live by them, and this is one of them.

[4:30]

I put two questions, both at the same time. Has the experience been that people can cope with that written form? Is the material quite effective and easy to deal with, or has there been a lack of clarity in the material presented? The other question is: since it's reviewing material rather than setting up interviews and dealing with the time of that, in one sense it's curious to me that the tribunal itself is a $200 process and the appeal board is almost an $800 process. There's quite a variation in cost between those two processes.

Hon. D. Streifel: Within this process of the appeal board, the registrar makes the final determination of when a case is ready to be referred to a panel. If, during that run-up to the referral, further information or further clarification is needed, then the registrar, I guess, acquires that information. Then when the registrar is satisfied that a case is ready to be panelled, it's referred to the chair. The chair of the appeal board assigns the case to one of the members for decision.

Again, I understand the concern the member has in this area. I have an interest in ensuring that these processes work. If the member has specific concerns where there's evidence that there has been a problem in the presentation, then I would certainly encourage the member to bring them forward to me, if we're going to stay within the general aspect of the questioning. I have a great deal of respect for the member's questions on this, as I remember from last year as well.

M. Coell: Just a few other questions on the appeals procedure. I would be interested in hearing whether a time limit on appeals has been implemented. When a decision can be appealed if someone is rejected, do they get three months, six months or a year before they can appeal that? Has there been any discussion of changing the appeal timing procedures, as well?

Hon. D. Streifel: It's 30 business days to appeal a decision. The information is contained in the act.

M. Coell: My question was: has there been any thought of extending that or changing that time period?

Hon. D. Streifel: In fact, the 30 business days reflects a change and an extension from the first provisions. The first provision was 30 days. We viewed that there may have been some difficulties. We have now extended it to 30 business days, which is really quite a significant extension. Given whatever calendar month we could be dealing with -- long weekends, stats, other weekends and what not -- we generally would have a significant extension built into the 30 business days.

M. Coell: One of the issues that I think we deal with on a regular basis is citizens feeling that the decks are stacked against them because of the resources that government has on an appeal. I would be interested to hear. . . . I would imagine most appellants don't hire their own lawyers and bring their lawyers with them to discuss an appeal. They probably bring a friend or an advocate or someone who has some information. How often does government supply outside lawyers for our staff for appeals?

Hon. D. Streifel: At the tribunal level we don't have lawyers representing the ministry. It can happen at the appeal level. But I think it would be worth reminding the listening audience that the reason for the establishment of the appeal board was to avoid the arduous presentation in the courts. If we feel it may be intimidating for some individuals to appear at a tribunal or proceed through this appeal board process, imagine the daunting intimidation of trying to get through the court structure and system.

[ Page 4581 ]

M. Coell: My concern was and still is sometimes the feeling that applicants are overwhelmed by the staff presence that we have as government. I think that's a genuine concern that many people have. I was just interested to know if we were supplying lawyers to develop a case, and they weren't. I'm pleased to hear that we're not.

I want to touch on a number of other issues relating to people receiving benefits. Earlier this year, we were informed that people living with HIV and AIDS who were receiving a federal government supplement were having that deducted from their provincial assistance. I just wonder whether that is still the case or whether the government has come to some accommodation with those folks.

Hon. D. Streifel: We view the access to other forms of income as income. If an individual, for instance, has access to CPP disability, regular CPP benefits, old age security benefits, private pension or any other forms of income, we expect the individual would attach that income. Then that would determine what support level is supplied by the ministry.

M. Coell: I'm sorry to hear that, because I think there are cases. . . . I think the member for Delta South brought one to question period today, about a lady who has a pension because of thalidomide that isn't the government pension but is a pension from a drug company, through one of the life insurance companies. There appears to be a number of people who fall into that category, who are receiving compensation not for something that they chose but for something that happened to them medically, whether it be HIV or thalidomide.

I really think the ministry might want to look carefully at how those people are treated, in that their circumstances are quite different from someone getting a senior citizen's pension, which we all get when we reach 65, or someone receiving a military pension. You would normally absorb those costs in the rates.

I think they are a group in our society that, through no fault of their own, have medical benefits to subsidize and to help with that disability, whether it is a life-threatening or a long-time disability. I would recommend to the minister that he revisit this issue and look at the dollar figures that might be affected. I think they may be relatively low, but it may show a bit of compassion for people who are disadvantaged medically in our society. I leave that with the minister.

I wish to now move to the closure of welfare offices and premise that with my recollection of the early nineties when welfare offices were being built and leased throughout the province at a fairly bold rate of construction, I might say. Then in 1996 a halt was put on expansion, possibly due to some other decisions that government had made, and there was a press release that 14 welfare offices would close. I just wonder if the minister could outline whether those offices are indeed closed and whether all of the personnel have moved into new offices or whether they have just moved into offices with other people who are providing income assistance.

Hon. D. Streifel: Well, we have successfully closed 13 of the 14 offices to date. The one that still remains open is in Richmond. The ministry's intention is to close one of the Richmond offices and consolidate into one. It has proven to be very difficult for us, quite frankly, in that Richmond, being a very fast-growing community. . . . Real estate space in the area that we want is relatively scarce. So that has presented a problem for us. I have been monitoring it virtually on a weekly basis in order to ensure that we live up to our public commitment to the 14 office closures.

[4:45]

We have effected the savings that we announced; it was $9 million, with a bit of a downsizing in FTEs as a result. With the closing and streamlining further in headquarters, there was an additional $2 million in savings. The initiative was almost entirely focused on cost-saving measures, along with thinking and rethinking how we deliver our service to our clients. Much more of our contact with our clients is electronic. There are electronic funds transfers for deposits; there are many contacts through telephone and mail. We're able to steward and manage our cases and caseloads in some areas, because, frankly, there's very little contact for a large portion of our clientele that may be in the disabled category or in other categories that require little contact.

It was all put into the thought process behind downsizing the number of offices. We did at that time have a very dramatically falling caseload in numbers. That continues, although it's a little more modest in the reduction of numbers; but that drop in the caseload is still continuing, and we're expecting further drops and other delivery methods.

M. Coell: I think when we started estimates, we talked about the 138 offices and how many of them were shared. The minister has said that none of these offices were shared. Have you moved into offices, or has there been a transfer of other offices into offices shared with Children and Families?

Hon. D. Streifel: The question being: did we transfer any of those closed offices into shared offices? No. I might offer a bit of clarification on the answers from yesterday. In some of the rural areas, we still have some shared space. I mean, it's a matter of convenience. The 13 of the 14 announced offices that are already closed were stand-alones in service delivery. Trying not to add confusion but to stretch for clarification, sometimes there were offices on one floor of a building that were ours, and two, three or four floors up there was another office that wasn't our office or that we never shared space in. We just happened to be in a coincidental building. Those other offices may in fact still be there, but ours are gone. That's the whole process. It was a very time-consuming, intense process to sort out which offices would be closed.

M. Coell: One of the things that I found very frustrating -- and I must admit that I wasn't elected to provincial office at that time -- was watching the building of all of these new offices, some quite major buildings in greater Victoria, and then seeing closures two years later. I found that frustrating, and I'm sure the minister did, as well.

Two services have been developed that I would like to spend some time canvassing, because I think that the potential is great. I agree with what the minister said -- things like telephones and electronic banking do streamline a lot of what government does. I would be interested in hearing his com-

[ Page 4582 ]

ments on the electronic-banking streamlines. I have a number of questions regarding individuals and the use of it, but I would be interested in hearing an overview of how he sees the process working and what effect it has had on individuals using our systems.

Hon. D. Streifel: There were multiple reasons for offering electronic funds transfer -- I guess, in some respects, because we can. It's not really that old a service in some respects. With that in mind, we looked at which part of our caseload and which part of our clientele would in fact benefit from it. There's a safety aspect. You don't have cheques and cash hanging around. It's modest enough, I guess, the support we supply. So we piloted it within our disability community. I understand that November 1996 was when we went in with the pilot. As of February 1997, 15 percent of the clients had been offered the service, had taken up the offer and had participated in it.

It has had an effect in areas of other jurisdictions where there's been a higher uptake, and we expect to grow into the higher usage of electronic funds transfer. It would reduce the instance of lost and replaced cheques, lost cash and those kinds of circumstances. That certainly is part of the reason. It's a safety factor for the clients, as well. It's quite an annoyance to have to come back after you've lost your cheque or have had it stolen. As well, we transfer the funds into the banks and the clients avoid the 2 percent to 3 percent cheque-cashing charge, which is quite normal for the money-exchange kiosks, the Money Marts and whoever else does the quick cashing.

As of February -- these are fairly old stats, but if the member wants them, I can give them anyway -- the disabled status that we have is 5,399 enrolled in EFT. That's 20 percent. In non-disabled, we have 899 enrolled. For total enrolment, there are 6,298 enrolled in this, and we now offer it across the province -- I have a nod; yes, that's correct -- in all areas.

M. Coell: It seems quite low for an added service, and I wonder whether the minister would comment on why we haven't had more people take advantage of the system. There are many reasons why people would. I can remember long lineups of people outside Human Resources offices to get cheques. I think it was probably very degrading for people to have to line up outside an office, and there are still things that could be done a bit better. To me, this would be a service people would appreciate, and I'm a little surprised to see only a very small number. I wonder if you could add any thoughts as to why that might be the case.

Hon. D. Streifel: As I understand it, the uptake has been slow in all the jurisdictions where electronic funds transfer has been offered. The jurisdictions have assessed the reasons for that, and over time, they have ramped up the efforts to attract their clientele to electronic funds transfer. There is a side benefit to the ministry and to the taxpayer as well, but there always will be some concerns within part of the clientele. I mean, some folks don't have a bank account. They don't want one for all kinds of personal reasons, and a number of individuals I've met and spoken with have suggested that they don't trust government and don't trust banks, either.

We're preparing to ramp up the information that's available on the positive reasons. I myself have met with interests in the banking community to discuss the no-charge minimal accounts for our clients, and we're working with the banks to deliver that. We're currently encouraging our clientele in every way to participate in this, and we are going to be increasing the encouragement and the information flow. It's a very positive benefit for income assistance clients, and the bonus, I suppose, is that it's a benefit for the ministry and the taxpayer.

V. Anderson: Following up on that, the minister mentioned negotiating with the banks and the credit unions. I presume they are included in this, because I know that in the past, there have been a couple of difficulties there. One is that some people are not used to banking, so it's a new experience for them. I'm wondering what is being done to help them. The other is that banks have not been too accepting of small accounts -- of people coming in on a regular basis with additional cost charges for every cheque. When you get only $500, writing out small cheques means that the cost items are pretty high.

Is the ministry able to work out arrangements with banks or credit unions -- one or the other, or both -- that would be helpful to facilitate persons moving into this process? With that, how many areas of the province have been. . . ? You say it has been offered only to a certain number at the moment. What percentage of those it has been offered to -- and I guess I'm trying to figure out. . . ? It is not many, but is that because people aren't interested? What is the process of helping them to get onto it?

Hon. D. Streifel: I met with some of the folks at the Canadian Bankers Association. I think that that's the group; it had to do with banks. They have agreed that they will help us on some pilots in areas to attract clientele. They have agreed that they can structure the kind of account that can be zeroed through the process of the month and then be refilled without closing when the electronic funds transfer happens. I understand that the difficulty with the credit unions is the requirement that an individual have minimal shares -- anywhere from $5 to $25 -- in the account throughout the month, so the account can't be zeroed.

The member's words are very valid. We have individuals who are living on minimal income, and they don't have a lot of reserves, so multiple service charges for numbers of cheques and these processes would be a detriment and a deterrent to the use of this service. We are doing all we can in cooperation with the banking community to ensure that this convenience is available for our clientele and that they participate in it, because at the end of the day, it's much safer. It's offered across the province in every region and every area, with the exception of those communities that don't have banks, and there are a number of those around. They don't have access to electronic banking or even a physical bank.

M. Coell: The bank in Vancouver that the government was involved in, Four Corners bank -- is there any dealing with that bank for the downtown east side Vancouver residents opening accounts? Has this electronic banking system been a program that they have had some interest in?

Hon. D. Streifel: Yes, the Four Corners bank is a participant in this program, along with all the other banks in the area. They do quite a number of things in order to attract clientele to use their bank. It was established for the use of the residents of the downtown east side. I understand that their reception area is very conducive and friendly to families and kids. When I spoke to some of the officials -- I hope I'm not putting them on the spot here. . . . I understand they display baskets of apples for the consumption of their clientele and stuff like this. They make it a very friendly place to be, and so in that way they attract customers and clientele, as well.

[ Page 4583 ]

[5:00]

I think, firstly, that for those folks who don't have a bank account and aren't saving money and aren't planning. . . . It's the idea of planning ahead, even if you're saving $25 a month -- of having that goal and a plan. I think that's important. You'll never have that with your money in a sock and using it day by day. There's a whole psychological effect of having a bank account, having your money in it and, for many people -- especially in the downtown east side -- being safe. There is just too much. . . . Some of the hardship grants in the past were to do with violence, losing cheques and criminal activities related to that.

So I would encourage the minister to push this system. I know it's a cost saving for the government. Every time you don't have to print a cheque and you can electronically send one, you save between $6 and $8. So it would almost be worth the ministry's while to have a program that paid the bank charges for a period of time -- six months or three months -- if someone opened a bank account. An initial pilot project could be developed that said that if you open a bank account and make use of this system, we will give you an extra $50 towards the service charges for the six months -- actually set that up with the bank. That would encourage someone to become involved in the system and, I think, in a very small way start a level of hope and planning and goal-setting that isn't there with cash in your pocket and the danger that goes with that -- for anyone. Whether you're a downtown-eastsider or walking around Victoria, if you've got $500 in your pocket, you're a walking target. I just wonder whether the minister has given any thought to a program like that or whether he would consider it.

Hon. D. Streifel: I beg the member opposite not to send that Hansard clip to the banks. The deal we're working on with the banks would see that they would supply or provide these accounts at no cost. I think that's a better situation, quite frankly, than us dipping in and adding a little extra to the bank's profits. I don't want to get into that kind of stuff. We're making good progress. In fact, the banks are going to cooperate with us to provide the service for our clientele, and I applaud them for that. I think that's a very responsible position to take on this issue. They look at the safety aspect of it, as well, as we do, and the overall need to save some money and make the system more effective. That's the process that we've followed, and it's working quite well.

I expected the member maybe to get into. . . . Some jurisdictions have talked about making electronic funds transfer mandatory, and I understand that that's contained in some other literature that we've seen in the past. We haven't done that; nor, I think, would I consider that -- for a variety of reasons. The privacy of individuals and their own personal circumstances. . . . I really wouldn't want to add to the burden. We're first of all going to try the positive side of attracting our clientele to using this service because of the good reasons. If we don't get enough of an uptake, we would have to, at that time, reassess. But I'm pretty sure we'll be able to manage it; other jurisdictions have.

M. Coell: I would encourage the minister to keep negotiating -- or whatever method that they need to use -- with banks and trust companies. I also think that because this is so low -- 6,000 people -- you might need financial encouragement for someone to take it up. I wasn't necessarily thinking of the bank getting the money but allowing the individual some reason to get into a bank, get into a. . . .

Hon. D. Streifel: Share in the savings.

M. Coell: Yeah. And possibly, as the minister says, share the savings with the client. I think that's an excellent idea. Anything that would move people in that direction would be helpful. I think there are some tremendous benefits. And I appreciate the government not taking the heavy-handed approach and forcing everyone to do it, because I think that in the long run you can have a better effect doing it the way you're doing it. You may find that a year from now, or two years from now, when people come to apply, that is the only way they'll be able to get into the system. But the people who are there now. . . . I think you're moving in the right direction.

I'd like to move on to the new definition of handicapped status as it relates to the B.C. Benefits program, and the changes that took place with GAIN last year. There are also a number of changes in the amount of money that people who are unemployable receive if they are handicapped as well. I wonder whether the minister could comment on the effects of Bill 15, the Disability Benefits Program Act. I think it was one of a handful of bills last year that was unanimously approved in the legislature. I would be interested in hearing his comments as to whether he's satisfied with the implementation of that bill. I have a number of other questions on specific aspects of the bill, as well.

The Chair: Just before I recognize the minister, I caution members in regard to discussions around legislation in this committee.

Hon. D. Streifel: Thank you, hon. Chair, for the caution.

This legislation has been in effect for some time, and it's part of the makeup of the ministry. I would be pleased, with full acceptance from the Chair, to enter into some form of discussion with the member on this issue. Simply put, in general terms, yes, I am satisfied with what's happened since the proclamation of the Disability Benefits Program Act. But at the same time, I'm fully aware of the concerns from the community that works very closely with us -- the ad hoc group that came forward to develop this act with us. I'm cognizant of their concerns, and in that respect we are monitoring the usage of this act.

M. Coell: One of the changes in eligibility was that in the past a person needed to have a lifelong disability, and now those requirements no longer exist. Is the disabled community satisfied with that change after having this in effect for well over a year now?

Hon. D. Streifel: I'll be somewhat cautious in speaking for the disabled community and on whether or not they're satisfied. They did work very closely with us in developing what has come to be the broadest definition of disability in the country. Along with that, I believe we had a 13.1 percent increase in April 1996 of individuals accepted under the disability category. Along with the definition that's acceptable under this act, there's a recognition of episodic illness. The biggest hurdle that the community had to face in their lives was that they had to be permanently disabled. It was an abomination in human relationships.

I faced that as a union business agent. We were dealing with benefits for an individual that was not permanently and 

[ Page 4584 ]

totally disabled. There were times when there were high levels of activity and mobility, and numerous other. . .you know, just functions. We had a terrible time in that part of my life, trying to get some sense and reason into the insurance companies and other boards. I'm very pleased that we were able to work with this community to recognize the debilitating nature of episodic illness and address it under this act.

M. Coell: In dealing with episodic illness, is the movement from adolescence through to 18-plus. . . ? Someone could be on income assistance but might be covered, or the Children and Families ministry could deal with problems related to that illness. I'd be interested in knowing what relationship, what crossover, there is between those two ministries now when someone is no longer eligible for benefits from Children and Families but is requiring assistance from Human Resources.

Hon. D. Streifel: MCF would help the individual apply for disability benefits under this act. We would work with MCF and with the client in these instances.

V. Anderson: I'd like to go back just for a moment on the banking. One of the concerns on the banking has always been the area of the mobility of persons who are on welfare. Is there some kind of category or way that the ministry has thought of for dealing with that? The normal population moves 25 percent or 30 percent of the time. Those with disabilities are part of that normal population, and they move at least that much, if not more often. That has always been a concern, so if the minister might comment. . . .

And the other question was the saving. What is the asset exception level at this point? That has something to do with the saving.

Hon. D. Streifel: I think access would be somewhat easier under an electronic system of banking -- for instance, I've been in some peculiar places where I've accessed my account with a card. Whether you're in this neighbourhood or a neighbourhood four or five kilometres away, the electronic crossover is there.

The asset levels: a single, no dependent, under age 55 is $500; a couple, no children, under age 55 is $1,000; a single-parent family with one child is a $5,000 asset level; a two-parent family with one child is a $5,500 asset level. I can slow down a little bit if the member. . . . An applicant with one dependent who is disabled has a $5,500 asset level, and an applicant with one dependent who is over age 55 is $5,500. To that, we would add $500 for each additional dependent child.

[5:15]

The other part of that is that a lot of people have had difficulty with identification cards and facilities. Am I to understand that, at the moment, when a person applies for income assistance, they have to have three sets of identification? If they don't have those, does the ministry help them in finding the funds for them to secure those, as part of their application? And are those the identifications they would then be able to use for banking?

Hon. D. Streifel: On identification, the requirements are that at least one adult in a family must provide two pieces of identification, one of which must have a photo on it, and each adult must also provide a social insurance card; one piece of identification is required for each child. That's when a family applies. We will -- how do I put this? -- fund the production or the retrieval or the acquiring of one set of identification.

V. Anderson: Does one piece of identification have to have some proof of residence, at this point -- an address? What I'm talking about is a local address.

Hon. D. Streifel: Does the address have to be on the identification? Not as I understand it. We pretty well have to know where the individual is living, because there may be a home visit involved. But it may help if I offer up some examples of what an acceptable identification is.

An acceptable photo ID would be B.C. identification, driver's license, passport, original citizenship papers or immigration documents with photo. That would be simply the photo stuff.

Acceptable secondary identification would be birth certificate, B.C. CareCard, citizenship or immigration documents without photo, credit card, native Indian status card with photo, acceptable identification for cheque-cashing purposes, and common client identification.

V. Anderson: Dealing with persons on handicapped benefits, at the moment under the new system, as I understand it, once they're on that there's no need for them to renew or to follow up on that. It's permanent unless something changes drastically in their lifestyle. Is that true for people on handicapped benefits or disability -- that it follows through without a yearly check-up anymore? Or do you report in particularly?

Hon. D. Streifel: The designation is permanent, I think, for the purposes of the member's question. There may be circumstances in an individual's life that may happen -- a marriage or maybe some other needs, or whatever -- which may require an additional application or a review. But we don't go through a yearly review process in these cases.

V. Anderson: So perhaps we can look at the new designations which came in recently with the shift from the unemployable category to the employable category and the different parts of that employable category. Perhaps I could begin by saying that nothing has caused so much difficulty and concern to the agencies in the community in many years as has this change, particularly in the time frame in which it has come in. They're working around the clock trying to help persons who deal with the transfer and the application forms in this regard.

Having looked at the application form, at first glance it doesn't seem to be that complicated, but when you deal with the realities of people's needs and circumstances in the community, it's turning out to be very complicated. Particularly, it's turning out to be very complicated with regard to the need of medical doctors to deal with this mass of numbers of applications at this point. Doctors are reporting back. They're very frustrated and very discouraged, because they also don't understand the different categories now between disabled and special needs and temporary and employed. Could the minister comment on their experiences with this and feedback on the difficulty people have dealing with this?

[ Page 4585 ]

I guess one of the questions I might ask is: because of the difficulty and backlog coming in, is there any chance that there might be an extension for a month or so and a time of grace for people to be able to. . . ? I know they're working hard on it, but they just aren't going to get it done. They've been having day-long sessions dealing with persons. They had six of them dealing with it, and they were only able to do 40 in a day; then they had to go and get more material and come back again.

So the advocates and the agencies have spent hours and hours trying to cope at this point, and they don't see any way that they could get it accomplished by the end of June, even though they've tried desperately to do it. Is there a possibility of grace in. . . ? It would be gratefully received and esteem for the minister would go up considerably if this was possible.

Hon. D. Streifel: Although we had a three-month transition when we announced the change of, I guess, requirement under the unemployable category, I recognized it in discussions with my staff and in my own concerns that even though we have three months. . . . I was worried at the time that we might have a last-minute crunch. So I would say to the hon. member and those that he will communicate with that I am well aware of the volume that has yet to be produced or assessed by the end of the month. We haven't yet made a decision as to whether or not we will be extending. . .or offering an amnesty or a grace period, as the member suggests.

The first part of the comment the member made had to do with some of the largest turmoil that we faced. And from my perspective, the first month or so of this transition period was gobbled up on all sides by trying to refute misinformation about the category and about a general rate cut and all kinds of things. So I would suggest that all sides expended a tremendous amount of energy on misinformation and combatting misinformation, and now that we're down to the crunch of serving the needs of those that might be served under the new criteria to determine what a special need is, we're getting on with the job.

V. Anderson: I agree wholeheartedly with the minister that there was a lot of misunderstanding and miscommunication by probably everyone concerned. Has there been anything put out by the ministry for the medical profession? Because they're the ones who are caught up in this -- in having to write varieties of explanations. They were used to the previous application for disabilities, but now there's one standard for disability, there's another standard for the temporary, and there's another one for special needs.

Is there or has there been something put out for the medical profession to help them? Because they're getting phone calls, and they write a report, and they come back to them and say: "No, this is the wrong report." And, of course, they're busy and frustrated, and it's not going down too well with them. Could that be rectified?

Hon. D. Streifel: The answer is yes. We did communicate with the medical practitioners on the breakdown of the criteria and the needs. I would be pleased to offer a copy of that communication for the hon. member's perusal as soon as we can get it.

V. Anderson: Could the minister highlight in a little more detail the category of persons with special needs? According to the information we have, there were some 27,000 persons that would be affected by this, and about 10,000 of those would go automatically into disabilities -- if I understand that. Then there were 17,000 who were unemployable, and that would then have to be down into the employable category, special needs and temporarily excused. Could the minister explain a little bit about the special needs category, first off?

Hon. D. Streifel: In my previous comments I referenced the misinformation. The 27,000 in the split-out is the first piece of misinformation we had to deal with, because those numbers are not the ministry's numbers. I've stated on many occasions and to all and sundry and to whatever press would even report on this that in fact we won't know what the numbers are until we've finished the three-month transition period.

The criteria for a special needs application are: the duration of the condition; you have to be under age 65; you have to have confirmed by a medical practitioner that your problem will last at least a year and that the condition would prevent employment; the medical condition results in extra costs and requires ongoing assistance to perform daily living tasks; and no other sources of funding is available to pay for those extra costs or assistance. It's not exactly complicated, but I know it was very, very worrisome and very troublesome to the member and to the community involved.

V. Anderson: I guess part of the concern out of the community is: what does it mean by "no other sources of assistance"? Does it mean that there are no community agencies to help? Does that mean there's no family to help or that family is in another province? Does that mean that they can go to a food bank? Those are general terms, so what is the definition of that phrase? A little further explanation. . . .

Hon. D. Streifel: The reference is to sources of income: maybe another form of pension, CPP, Workers Comp, an ICBC settlement. That's what the reference is.

[5:30]

"Clients and doctors are equally frustrated with a cumbersome administrative process. In many ways the definition for special needs is more restrictive than the definition for disability benefits. For example: to obtain disability benefits it simply must be shown that a person requires extensive assistance to perform daily tasks or requires continuous and unusual monthly expenditures."

Hon. D. Streifel: I may ask the member for clarification on his last presentation, in that the disability category is far more. . . . I mean, it's permanent, in a way, with the recognition of episodic illnesses. The level of support both needed and supplied is much higher. A special needs category could in fact be limited to a year, in that an individual may only need help for a short period of time, may need medical assistance.

So from that aspect, I disagree with the comments as they were read that the special needs category is more restrictive in entrance than the disability category. If that were so, hon. 

[ Page 4586 ]

member, then those applicants who are being accepted under special needs -- somewhat over 4,000 -- would in fact have qualified under those comments for the disability category.

V. Anderson: Perhaps, so that we don't get caught in the discussion, I could just refer the minister to advocacy access: contact them, because they're the ones that are working with us on a daily basis. This is the B.C. association for disabilities. I think it would be helpful if you contacted them, because as of this week they're finding this confusing. If you spoke to them directly, having raised it here, that would be appreciated very much, if you are willing to do that.

Hon. D. Streifel: I take the member's words very seriously. I'll have staff contact this group to see if we can offer some clarification or at least become aware of their criticism or analysis firsthand, to determine if there is a solution.

V. Anderson: On the temporarily excused category, could the minister explain how that works at the present time?

Hon. D. Streifel: There are certain circumstances in an individual's life where there is an interruption in their process. There could be a circumstance where somebody is in a job search program with the ministry as a requirement of receiving a benefit. In that circumstance, if an individual can't fulfil that requirement or that obligation, they can be temporarily excused due to a short-term circumstance.

The circumstance could be an illness, leaving an abusive spouse, participation in a drug and alcohol program -- part of the discussion earlier -- participation in a mental health program, a temporary medical condition or a child of a single parent, which precludes the parent from leaving the home for work. Those are some of the criteria that may in fact qualify an individual to be temporarily excused from their obligations.

V. Anderson: I appreciate the response. Could the minister indicate whether some other special things are available in these categories of employable, special needs and the temporarily excused? Are things such as diet allowance, crisis grants, clothing allowance and those kinds of things applicable in these categories?

Hon. D. Streifel: In fact, that would be applicable to all the categories -- upon application and qualification, of course.

V. Anderson: In the basic medical benefits. . . . I know that's available. But what about eye care and dental coverage, under basic dental, for these persons? What's available there? I know there's been some concern about people being able to get dental work done and also about eyeglasses. Just how does that work at the moment?

Hon. D. Streifel: Under the employable category, dentistry -- dental services or emergency services only. In the other categories, the range of ancillary benefits is available.

V. Anderson: How do you define emergency service with regard to dental work? Dental work that needs to be done which, you might say, is not emergent at the moment, but if it gets left it becomes more emergent and more expensive in the long run, until it has to be dealt with, or until the teeth are pulled out rather than being filled. . . . If that's what the category is.

With regard to glasses, if you're not able to work or read without glasses, are they covered if they're necessary to do your studies or whatever is involved in that area?

Hon. D. Streifel: For the information of the committee, with emergency dental services the application is relief of pain. I will try to retrieve for the member the information on how that's specifically applied.

V. Anderson: If you could comment, I was also asking about glasses -- if they're needed for reading, for the ability to work or to walk or to drive or whatever the case may be.

Hon. D. Streifel: Optical care isn't part of the employable category ancillary benefits or extra benefits. But if an individual were eligible for the transition to work and benefits, the individual may opt to purchase glasses in order to achieve employment or to fulfil that.

V. Anderson: The other item I was wondering about. . . . In the employable category, is a person able to earn money with exemption, and up to what amount? Is the $100 exemption still available for a single person to earn? And at the same time, is the $200 still available for families to earn in these categories?

Hon. D. Streifel: The $100 earnings exemption has been eliminated. In fact, an individual may opt for an enhanced earnings exemption of up to 25 percent of income for 12 months over a 36-month period. That's for the employable category, or those folks who are working. For the disabled category, there's a $200 earnings exemption in addition to the enhanced earnings exemption that's available.

V. Anderson: The enhanced earning exemption is 25 percent. If you're getting $500, is it 25 percent of $500, or is it 25 percent of what you earn? The enhanced earnings exemption of a single employable -- is that 25 percent of the $500 they receive? If they earn $400, they then keep $100? That's what I'm trying to get at. What is it 25 percent of?

[5:45]

The member has left us with a question that needs one more piece of the answer. If the member would like, I could bring the whole answer back after the break, or I could give a portion of the answer and then come back later with what's known as the escape level.

An Hon. Member: After.

Hon. D. Streifel: Thank you very much.

With the indulgence of the members, I move the committee rise, report progress and seek leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 5:47 p.m.

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