[ Page 6559 ]

The House met at 2:06 p.m.

Prayers.

Hon. D. Miller: In the members' gallery today are three members of my office staff: Phyllis Allen, Sarina Costa and Michelle Wakeman. No, there are two others: Bert Willing and Debbie Wade. I think the service they provide not only to myself as minister but to all members contacting my ministry is outstanding. I would ask all members of the House to give them a thank-you for that work.

L. Reid: In the gallery today is someone who cycled over yesterday from Pitt Meadows to spend a couple of days with his sister. His sister is Antoinette De Witt. Hans De Witt is in the gallery. I would ask the House to please make him welcome.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: We have a guest on the floor of the House, a member of the Legislative Assembly of Punjab, the Minister of Finance, Planning, Information and Public Relations for the state of Punjab, India. It's my distinct pleasure to introduce Capt. Kanwaljeet Singh to the House. May the House please welcome him.

J. Weisgerber: In the gallery today are three B.C. Reformers: David Secord, who is anticipating some activity to be announced in the near future. . . . He is joined by Brian Archer, former vice-president of the party and currently David's campaign manager, and Caroline Meredith, who is the communications director for the party. They are here in the buildings holding a number of very secret, quiet meetings, none that have ever been reported on.

Hon. G. Clark: Because I believe today may well be the last day of the session, I would ask the House to make reference, at least, to a dear and valued colleague of ours, a friend -- I hope you'll forgive me for using his name, Mr. Speaker -- Ed Conroy, Katrine and Ed Conroy are watching question period today, as Ed does every chance he gets -- wishing he was here, I know. All of us miss him a lot. He's a valued colleague and an outstanding MLA. We wish him well in his recovery, and we're confident that we will see him again here in the House taking his rightful place at the next session of the Legislature. I would ask all members. . . . [Applause.]

G. Campbell: I would like to join with the Premier in sending our best regards and our best wishes to Ed and Katrine Conroy. I think that all of us remember the contributions that he has made, and the heart of every British Columbian has gone out to Ed as he works through his problems right now. I know that he's going to come back, and I'm glad to join with the Premier and the other members of the Legislature in welcoming and urging his speedy recovery.

J. Weisgerber: I want to join with the Premier and the Leader of the Official Opposition in extending our good wishes to Ed and Katrine. The seat across from me is empty, and this is a poorer place as a result of that. We wish him well. We hope to see him back in the next session with godspeed.

G. Wilson: I'm tempted to say I want to join with the member for Peace River South, but that might be misinterpreted. I would like to offer to Ed and to Katrine our best wishes, and I certainly look forward to seeing him back in the House. And Ed, I know you had hoped that you would have seen an improvement over question period; I'm sorry about that. We'll certainly work on it for when you get back.

The Speaker: Members, you'll be happy to know that I will send a copy of the video of today's practice, as well as the excerpts from Hansard. I thank all members for their expressions of good wishes.

F. Gingell: In the gallery today is a young woman from my riding who is, among other things, a direct descendant of the British Prime Minister Lord Melbourne, a man perhaps less famous for his being a prime minister of Britain than for being married to Lady Caroline Lamb, the mistress of the poet Byron. She is an A student at South Delta Secondary School, and her name is Theodora Lamb. She is the daughter of the noted writer Jamie Lamb, and I ask the House to please make her welcome.

Hon. D. Streifel: In the gallery today is one of my valued staff, Michelle Ulrich. She's accompanying her ten-year-old cousin from Calgary, Alberta: Courtney Gerlinsky. Courtney attends Aberhart High in Calgary. With them, as well, is Mariana Migliorini, a grade 10 student attending Lansdowne Junior Secondary here in Victoria. Would the House make them welcome.

S. Hawkins: It's an honour and a privilege today to have a very distinguished visitor from Punjab, as the Attorney General mentioned, and that is Finance Minister Capt. Kanwaljeet Singh. I mentioned to him that I'm hoping to be in Chandapar later this year, and I will come to the House to see him in action. The official opposition also joins in making him feel very welcome here.

Hon. J. Pullinger: I'm speaking as the minister of sport in this instance. I simply want to use this opportunity, as probably the last day of the Legislature, to acknowledge two things. One is the North American Indigenous Games, which start on August 3 here in Victoria. It's the fourth-ever games. It's going to be the biggest and the best set of games, and there has been a tremendous amount of work by British Columbians, by government and by many others going into organizing this. I would like to invite everyone in the House and everyone in British Columbia to come and participate in what will be a wonderful cultural and sporting event.

Secondly, we have another set of games, the Canada Games, which will be occurring shortly in Brandon, Manitoba. I would therefore like the House to join me in wishing Team B.C. for both of these games the very best of good luck.

A. Sanders: In the gallery are four very important people to me: Jim, Lana, Megan and Robin Inglis. Lana and I have worked together for the last three years, every single working day of the year. She tells me that we have a better working relationship now that I'm in Victoria, because when she doesn't want to listen to me anymore, she reaches for the remote control and turns me off. I just want to welcome them here, and I hope they have a good holiday.

H. Lali: Visiting us in the galleries as part of the delegation that has come here from Punjab is the Consul from the Indian High Commission in Vancouver, Mr. Rakesh Shankar, as well as six other individuals: Sarwan Randhawa, Kashmir 

[ Page 6560 ]

Dhaliwal, Kuldip Thandi, Jarnail Bhandal, Gurbax Sanghera and Balbir Chingiara. Would the House please give them a warm Victoria welcome.

L. Reid: Also joining the delegation on behalf of the Finance Minister of Punjab are two individuals who reside in my riding, Mr. Kal Rangi and Mr. Karnail Nagra. I would ask the House to please make them welcome.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Accompanying the distinguished visitor from the state of Punjab are many of our mutual friends and his admirers, and they shall all remain nameless because there are too many of them to name. I just want to welcome them all the Legislature.

[2:15]

Also, it's a pleasure for me to introduce a constituent, Nic Sidhu, who is travelling with the Finance Minister of Punjab, and it's nice to have him here in Victoria.

M. de Jong: Sandy Powar is a friend of mine from Abbotsford, who has worked long and hard with the party I represent, the B.C. Liberal Party. I hope members will make him welcome.

Get well, Ed. Heckling is not as much fun in this House without you. We miss you dearly.

I. Chong: As the opposition critic for sport, I too would like to join the minister in offering our good wishes and successes to the participants, the coaches, the athletes and the volunteers in the North American Indigenous Games. I do hope members will take the opportunity to see the games and a number of the events scheduled, especially since much of it will be in my riding of Oak Bay-Gordon Head.

I'd also like to mention that in the gallery today we have a number of our valued staff, and I'd like to introduce two of them, whom I know we will miss very much: Mr. Bobby Virk, who has been our legislative assistant in the last few months, and Ms. Angela Austman, who has been most helpful. I ask the House to make them all welcome.

H. Giesbrecht: I notice in the gallery today a couple of my constituents. One of them just happens to be the interim constituency assistant when my permanent one is on vacation. Up in the gallery we have Tim Fenton and Vicki Fenton, who are here visiting. Would the House please join me in making them welcome.

J. van Dongen: It's a privilege for me to introduce a special friend, Fr. John Tritschler. He was at one point assigned to a parish in Mission, and we built a church together there. Since then he has been in the Northwest Territories, serving the people there, and now he is assigned to a parish in Cloverdale. On behalf of myself and the member for Surrey-Cloverdale, I ask the House to please make him welcome.

M. Sihota: This is probably the longest of all the introductions that we've had in this session.

Interjection.

M. Sihota: The last chance to spin, did the Premier say? Oh -- speak. Oh well, some days I don't know the difference. [Laughter.]

An Hon. Member: All days. [Laughter.]

M. Sihota: I'm going to do my introduction now, okay?

There are a lot of friends in the Indo-Canadian community here. I'm certainly glad to see them there -- a lot of old acquaintances -- and I think it is a delight for all members of the House to have them here.

I know it is always difficult to single out one individual, but I just want to acknowledge the work of Rakesh Shankar, who is here from the Indian consulate. He has been with the consulate for the last, I think, three to four years and has worked closely with our government on trade relationships with India. He has brought, in my view, an unprecedented level of professionalism and confidence to the work that is being done by that consulate. Given that his boss is here, as well, I thought that that should be said publicly. His work really has been appreciated by this government, and I'd like to thank him for that.

G. Farrell-Collins: I know there is talk of parliamentary reform, and maybe this is one where we could start. I will jump in, too. Some of the members have thanked those individuals who have come and helped them for the session, and on behalf of the rest of the opposition, I would like to thank Tobie, Teri, Dave, Bob, Barbara and Joanne for their efforts over the last number of months. Thank you very much. Would the House make them welcome.

F. Randall: In the gallery today we have Carlos Alentijano, who is a business representative with the United Steelworkers of America Local 2952, located in Burnaby-Edmonds. With him are interns Christopher Bastien, Matt Fortin, Katerina Glavas and Maria Glavas. They are on a United Steelworkers four-week program to acquaint sons and daughters of the members about the union and its important work.

The two major things that are their objectives are to harass the energy and commitment of sons and daughters of United Steelworkers members for the cause of working people. . . .

Some Hon. Members: Harness.

An Hon. Member: Harness the energy.

F. Randall: Did I say harass? [Laughter.]

The Speaker: This bodes well for question period.

F. Randall: Hon. Speaker, the other is to build into the next generation an understanding that the labour movement is the most effective vehicle in the struggle for economic justice. Would the House please make them welcome.

J. Doyle: I think it would be appropriate, after all this amount of introductions, to thank the few British Columbians who are at home today in our communities, who are not here. So I'd like to thank them.

The Speaker: I believe, tentatively, that that concludes introductions.

[ Page 6561 ]

May I just seize the opportunity, for fear that we don't have another chance, simply to say thanks on your behalf to all of the precinct staff, without whom, of course, we couldn't do our jobs. So I would ask members to do that, if you will. [Applause.]

Oral Questions

STANDARD OF CARE AT RECOVERY HOUSES

Hon. J. MacPhail: I actually thank the member for the question. Of course, HIV/AIDS is the most serious health risk among intravenous drug users today. The record of infection is skyrocketing, and that's why our government invested $3 million just recently in the downtown east side to deal specifically with the issue of harm reduction among intravenous drug users.

Let me specifically address the question about recovery homes. Recovery homes are unlicensed, and there is a reason why they are unlicensed. They operate very much like boarding homes. I know that the opposition would take a very different position if we were discussing boarding homes instead of recovery homes -- a concept that is delineated only by those who run the recovery homes. There is no direct supervision offered, and therefore they do not come under the auspices of the licensing facility. However, just as, a couple of weeks ago, I announced a full and complete review of the Community Care Facility Act, I have already ordered the ministry to include the issue of recovery homes under the review. That review will be well underway very shortly. We are working with the Ministry for Children and Families to ensure that the review is complete.

M. Coell: The government showed little interest earlier this week in the scandal of recovery homes that we raised -- which we raised specifically with public safety. The minister showed no interest when we raised the issue of welfare fraud. They had no interest when we raised the issue of them being unqualified staff, untrained staff and taking government welfare cheques to do bogus alcohol and drug rehabilitation. We now add public health risks. The Minister of Human Resources says he doesn't fund houses; he funds people. Will the Minister of Human Resources tell this House what he is doing to make sure that the people living in recovery houses are receiving the treatment that they are paying for from these houses?

Hon. D. Streifel: I'll try this again -- after three days with the opposition. It would be helpful if the opposition would distinguish between a recovery home and a boarding home structure. This ministry supports on a per diem basis individuals who are in bona fide recovery plans. That's what this ministry does. We do not fund the homes that these individuals are referring to. That's the extent of the involvement this ministry has with the clients. We fund the people; they choose freely where to live. We don't have a look-over-your-shoulder policy. What we do is fund the people; they choose where to live. That's the relationship we have.

MONITORING ACCESS TO
GOVERNMENT WEB SITES

However, we have discovered that since February 1995, the Attorney General has been tracking the people who visit his ministry's web site, and in fact the entire list of people appears to be published on the site itself. Can the Attorney General tell us why tracking people visiting his web site is all right, when the Premier says that this is completely inappropriate?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: As I said earlier, there is a distinguished visitor from the state of Punjab here. He'll testify to the fact that I'm not only a techno-peasant, but I'm a real peasant. Therefore the subtleties and complexities of web sites and all of those kinds of issues, I do not understand. [Laughter.]

But I do want to say that if my ministry is publishing those names, that's wonderful. But I also understand that with respect to the Premier's Youth web site, CLEU has looked at it. CLEU has indicated to my ministry, I'm advised, that what has been done to date in terms of taking measures against the kind of access that was being provided is appropriate. Therefore CLEU is currently not investigating the matter at all. I am sure that the Premier is concerned about that issue, as am I, and we'll be looking further into it to see what more we can do to provide the kind of protection that the hon. member is talking about.

B. Penner: Even peasants have a concern when their activities are being monitored by the government. In fact, as the de facto NDP labour minister Ken Georgetti said recently: "Some organizations collect information about individuals by tracking which Internet sites they visit. This form of Big Brother intrusion into people's lives is unwarranted and offensive." Now, we all know that this government loves to take its orders from Ken Georgetti. Why didn't they keep him happy in this case? Why didn't the Attorney General consult with Ken Georgetti before deciding to track individuals visiting his web site?

[2:30]

CRIMESTOPPERS TRAINING FUNDING

[ Page 6562 ]

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I support the Crimestoppers program. In fact, I have participated in that program myself. This is the first I've heard of that application being rejected. In fact, I'm going to be at the Crimestoppers conference in Kelowna myself, and I'll certainly look into this matter.

G. Plant: Well, let's just take it one step further, because in fact, until this year the Attorney General ministry did agree that training was a vital component of the Crimestoppers program. In fact, for three successive years the ministry saw fit to fund Crimestoppers' training program. So my question for the Attorney General is this: will he tell the 600 delegates who will be at the convention next month with him why he has cut funding for this important public service?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I'm delighted that the hon. member raised the issue. He advised me that this application has been rejected; I was not aware of it. I support that program fully. We have to recognize that we're living within certain fiscal constraints. The ministry may have acted, based on those fiscal constraints, to limit certain applications and deny certain applications during this period. However, I will review the matter. I am in full support of that program and in support of the training. I'm going to be attending that conference myself. It's fundamentally important to us that we continue to do that work.

FORENSIC ACCOUNTANTS FOR
NCHS INVESTIGATION

Can the Attorney General give this House some assurance that the change in personnel that was announced several weeks ago will in no way further delay an investigation that is now extending into its fifth and sixth year?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Yes, His Honour Judge Jardine was appointed recently, and there is a process with respect to appointment of judges that comes through the Judicial Council and the recommendations of the Chief Judge.

I am told by the criminal justice branch that there would be no delay. I'm told that there is a letter from Justice Taggart in the possession of the criminal justice branch, which indicates that there will be no impact in terms of any delay with respect to this matter.

I want to make sure that it's expedited, and the criminal justice branch has the sole control of this particular issue. I am advised by them that this would not have any significant negative impact.

M. de Jong: I've been advised that Price Waterhouse, the accounting team that had been very closely involved in the NCHS investigation, has been let go. They had continuity of the file; they were centrally involved in that investigation.

Can the Attorney General explain to the House today why the ministry and his government have dismissed those accountants and apparently had them replaced by a group or an individual with no background in the case?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I'm certain that the hon. member knows that this area is within the complete discretion of the special prosecutor, former Justice Taggart. I have been advised by the criminal justice branch that there has been a change in the forensic experts, but I'm not aware of who the new forensic experts are.

I can get that information from the criminal justice branch, so that they can obtain that from the special prosecutor as to why this change was made. I'd be happy to advise the hon. member and the House, if the House is still sitting.

TRANSPORTATION AND HIGHWAYS
EXPENDITURES IN PEACE REGION

The shock waves from this transfer are now being felt across British Columbia. In Fort St. John, the existing motor vehicle branch office is not large enough to house both functions. But instead of keeping services where they are, in facilities that have well served the community, the government gave thumbs-up to the construction of a new building. This costly deal will do nothing to improve services and completely contradicts the minister's promise.

Will she now agree to stop this needless spending of money and put the money where it's really needed? And that's into Peace River roads and rehabilitation.

Hon. L. Boone: I can always count on the member for Peace River North to put in a pitch for his highways. I know he did so with the Premier's estimates yesterday, as well.

As you know, the transfer from ICBC took place; the second phase took place just recently. I'm no longer responsible for the motor vehicle branch, the staff in those areas or any of those things there.

However, I can tell you that as you know, we have allocated $3 million extra into the Peace River to try and deal with some of the extreme conditions that you have there. I'm bringing it to the attention of my cabinet, and I hope that we will bringing it to the attention of the northern summit when it takes place in October, so that we can really meet your concerns and try to address the very real concerns that your constituents have up there with regard to the roads.

SAFETY CONCERNS AT
WEST COAST GENERAL HOSPITAL

My question is to the Minister of Health: why does she continue to allow the lives and fire safety of patients at this hospital to be at an unacceptable and unnecessary risk?

Hon. J. MacPhail: Hon. Speaker, we thoroughly canvassed this issue in estimates, and the hon. member knows full well that the capital plan of our ministry is about to be announced.

[ Page 6563 ]

But let me just try to recall, for this Legislature, what happened 14 months ago, when this opposition party campaigned vigorously and with a lack of facts about the mounting debt that was occurring in this province. They attacked the Premier, they attacked this government, and over and over again they attacked our previous administration for increasing the capital expenditure. Now, a full 14 months later, it's a different Liberal Party we have, a weaker Liberal Party we have. But they're still advocating the same silly policies: "Don't hold us accountable, but you spend more." I say, hon. Speaker, that they have no more credibility on that issue than on any other issue.

The Speaker: I'm sure the members will join me in lamenting that the bell terminates question period -- for some time to come.

Tabling Documents

I have the honour to present the first annual report of the corporate and personal property registries as a special operating agency.

Hon. D. Miller: Mr. Speaker, I have the pleasure to table the annual report of the B.C. Ferry Corporation for 1996-97.

Hon. L. Boone: Hon. Speaker, I have the pleasure of tabling the annual report of the Motor Carrier Commission for 1996-97.

Hon. J. Cashore: Hon. Speaker, it's my pleasure to table the annual reports, 1995 and 1996, of the Labour Relations Board.

The Speaker: Before recognizing every member, to be consistent, allow me to table two reports. I have the pleasure to table, first, the annual report of the office of the information and privacy commissioner, April '96 to March '97; the second report is from the auditor general, report No. 11, "Follow-up of Performance Audits Issued November 1993 to December 1995."

G. Wilson: Hon. Speaker, I seek leave to table a report.

Leave granted.

G. Wilson: It's with considerable pleasure and some pride that I'm able to table the three papers written by John Munro, Gordon Gibson and myself, which together comprise the national unity project that was jointly initiated last fall by the Ministry Responsible for Intergovernmental Relations and my office.

Petitions

The Speaker: Please proceed.

A. Sanders: I have a petition by 5,315 individuals from across British Columbia, who have sent me a petition concerning issues of sexuality and curriculum in B.C. schools.

R. Neufeld: Mr. Speaker, I ask leave to present a petition.

The Speaker: Please proceed.

R. Neufeld: I have hundreds of signatures here on a petition, and it states:

"The government of British Columbia has recently announced a 6 percent cut in funding to the arts and proposed a further 25 percent for the upcoming 1997-98 budget. As a supporter of the arts and cultural industries within your community, region or province, you must agree that this type of deep cut to cultural funding will be very detrimental to our quality of life, especially for those of us who live in the north where so little of the funding is being distributed anyway. If you too have concerns with the drastic action the government is taking against arts and culture, please join us by signing this petition. Thank you for your support."

Reports from Committees

APPOINTMENT OF
CONFLICT-OF-INTEREST COMMISSIONER

Motion approved.

G. Bowbrick: I ask leave of this House to suspend the rules to permit the moving of a motion to adopt the report.

Leave granted.

G. Bowbrick: I move at this time that this report be adopted.

This committee was charged with selecting a conflict-of-interest commissioner. In our terms of reference, it was required that this be done on a unanimous basis.

There were a number of members on the committee, whom I'd like to recognize at this time: the Deputy Chair from Okanagan-Penticton, the members from Burnaby-Edmonds, Burnaby-Willingdon, Vancouver-Fraserview, Vancouver-Burrard, Yale-Lillooet, Victoria-Beacon Hill, Vancouver-Little Mountain, Prince George-Omineca, North Vancouver-Lonsdale and Peace River South.

We started this task earlier this spring. We had over 200 applicants for this position. The committee has worked diligently and hard. It has gone through some difficult phases, as I'm sure all members are aware. We worked very hard in the last week or so, and we interviewed a number of candidates.

I am pleased to say that we have unanimously agreed to recommend to this House the name of retired Justice H.A.D. Oliver, a former member of the Supreme Court of this province, a distinguished member of the bench, distinguished counsel, a man of integrity, we believe, and a man who will command the respect of all members of this House as well as all members of the public in this province. I'd like to recognize that Mr. Oliver is with us in the gallery today.

[ Page 6564 ]

I would just like to conclude by once again thanking all members of the committee. This hasn't been an easy task, but it's one that members worked very diligently toward, and I'm sure we'll all be proud of the recommendation we've made.

[2:45]

Hon. G. Clark: I ask leave of the House to permit the moving of a motion to appoint the Hon. H.A.D. Oliver as the conflict-of-interest commissioner for British Columbia.

Leave granted.

Hon. G. Clark: I move that this House recommend to His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor the appointment of the Hon. H.A.D. Oliver as a statutory officer of the Legislative Assembly to exercise the powers and duties assigned to the conflict-of-interest commissioner and for the province of British Columbia pursuant to the Members' Conflict of Interest Act.

With that, if I could speak just very briefly, I first of all want to commend all members of the House, in particular the Chair, the member for New Westminster, for the work they have done on behalf of this House to select someone of the calibre of the Hon. H.A.D. Oliver. Of course, he holds our lives in his hands, so this is a very important appointment for the House. The fact that it was reached unanimously, with a few bumps along the way, is a tribute to members working together to accomplish something of value to British Columbia and to this House. So I simply want to pay tribute to the members of that committee, who worked very long and hard to arrive at what clearly is an outstanding appointment of an eminent British Columbian to a very important position in this chamber. I ask all members, of course, to support the appointment unanimously.

G. Campbell: I would like to join the Premier in congratulating the committee on a difficult and rigorous selection process. His Honour Mr. Oliver has a distinguished record at the bench and has a distinguished career behind him. I can tell you, on behalf of the opposition, that we pledge not just our cooperation, but we look forward to working with the new conflict commissioner. I think it's important for all of us to have someone we have confidence in, a man of integrity and a man of honour, and I'm sure he will help us all carry out our responsibilities to the people of British Columbia. I'm looking forward to working with him in the future, as is the rest of the opposition.

The Speaker: The motion, then, is in order. All those in favour of the motion, please say aye.

Some Hon. Members: Aye.

The Speaker: I am going to ask members -- because the statute says it's a two-thirds majority that's required -- if we could be more voluble? All those in favour of the motion?

Some Hon. Members: Aye.

The Speaker: All those opposed? It would seem to me. . . . We do need a division. All right. In that case, can I forgo the ringing of the bells? Will members accept that? In that case, members, the question before you. . . .

Members, I've just been advised that two members have apparently left the chamber and may well wish to be here. With your indulgence, I'm going to ring the division bells, though I hope we will speed up the time. Is that acceptable?

Members, it seems almost incumbent on me after that last demonstration of our activities in the chamber to perhaps give Judge Oliver an opportunity to reconsider, but I won't do that. Instead, I will simply ask: all those in favour of the motion to appoint, please stand.

Motion approved unanimously on a division. [See Votes and Proceedings.]

Orders of the Day

INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT
AMENDMENT ACT, 1997
(second reading)

This brief bill at first glance may seem a minor amendment in a session that has seen many important pieces of legislation considered and passed, but I want to take just a minute to reflect on what this bill represents and on some of the history behind it.

Members will know that the Industrial Development Act was passed in this chamber in 1949, and that act facilitated the development of power generation for smelting of aluminum by Alcan in the northwest region of this province. Members will also know that in the latter part of the 1980s and the early 1990s, Alcan's plan to generate more power from the Nechako River became, to put it mildly, the focus of considerable public attention and of a great degree of concern.

As a result, this government ordered a review of the Kemano completion project by the B.C. Utilities Commission, and in 1995 it was decided that the Kemano completion project, as the new power generation facility was called, would not be built. That decision, however, left many important questions unanswered.

What did this mean for Kitimat and for the existing smelter there? What did it mean for the economy of the northwest, where Alcan had promised to build new industrial projects? What did it mean for the Nechako River and its important salmon resource? These are all tough questions. There are no easy answers, and there are good people with honest points of view who have proposed various answers to those questions.

It's our government's job to deal with these tough questions. Just as we made the tough decision to stop and ask the British Columbia Utilities Commission to consider the effect of the Kemano completion project when questions were put by the public, so also we had to deal with the questions and issues that arose when the project was halted.

Starting in June of 1995, we sat down with Alcan and began a long process of resolving the many details associated with moving forward without the Kemano completion project. There were some strong reactions when we began our discussions. Some people said that we simply shouldn't be dealing with Alcan at all and that we should just walk away 

[ Page 6565 ]

and let the company and the northwest of the province fend for themselves. There were some who said that we should do whatever it took to get the Kemano completion project or another project very much like it built.

I must say for the record in this chamber that the federal government refused to have any part in this discussion. It simply chose to ignore the impacts on the Nechako River of the decision not to build the Kemano completion project and associated works. That's not acceptable to us. We believe that these are the tough types of situations that government must deal with. We can't walk away and ignore the economic realities of life in our province. We've been talking with Alcan and working with them for over two years now. We believe that we are near an agreement that will protect the existing smelter operations in Kitimat, create significant new job opportunities in northwestern British Columbia and ensure local input into management of the Nechako River watershed.

This bill we are debating this afternoon is a small step to facilitate what we hope will be an agreement in the very near future. It will provide us with the flexibility to work with Alcan and reach a settlement with them which will give them a fair price for the power that they would otherwise have received from the Kemano completion project, power that will facilitate economic development in the northwest.

Clearly any agreement that we reach with Alcan will be very complex and detailed. Those details will be available to the public when we reach a settlement with the company. However, this amendment facilitates the finalizing of our discussion. I know that the official opposition has advocated that a fair settlement with Alcan should be reached. So I fully expect that they will support this minor amendment and eventually the agreement that we will reach with Alcan. I look forward to the comments of opposition members.

G. Campbell: I am going to be brief. I believe that it is important for us to move forward. Often we are told that the opposition can never find anything they can agree on with the government. This happens to be an area where I believe we can agree. When the opposition took the lead and said it was time to cancel the Kemano completion project, we also had a second part of that, which was that we should have a full upfront negotiation, a tough negotiation on behalf of the province and on behalf of the taxpayers of British Columbia to make sure that this was done fairly and honestly with all concerned.

I believe that this act does not in any way finalize or constitute a deal. It is simply a piece of enabling legislation which allows the government, I assume, to be able to move forward toward a negotiated settlement with Alcan. My comments today in no way suggest that we will agree with any settlement that comes forward, and I know the government wouldn't expect that. I know that the people of British Columbia would not expect that. But they do expect us, I believe, to move forward with regard to this negotiation so it can be successful, so it is possible to strike the best possible economic, social and environmental arrangement that we can for the people of the province of British Columbia and particularly for the people in the northwest of the province, who clearly have felt the impacts of these decisions.

I believe one of the critical things we've had is the Northwest Communities Coalition, which has been willing to work together and to look for areas of common agreement and to come forward with recommendations and solutions on how we can move forward together in the province with regard to this decision. I believe that when we suggested that the Kemano completion project should be cancelled, we were correct. I believe that when the government decided that they would cancel the Kemano completion project, they were correct. And I believe it is important that we negotiate a settlement that is in the best interests of all British Columbians. This is a very small step that enables the government to do that. We will be supporting the legislation on that basis, hon. Speaker.

[3:00]

In one way or another, I've had to deal with the issue behind this bill for about the past 20 years. That may sound odd, but Bill 53 has an issue underlying it that I've had to deal with for that length of time. It first arose as Kemano 2 when I was a rookie councillor for the then district of Terrace. At the time some of us called for an environmental inquiry into the project; that didn't happen. In hindsight, maybe it should have. It might have avoided much of the controversy that surrounded the processes that have evolved since: the 1987 settlement agreement, the final cancellation of the project and all the anxiety that resulted for the people in Kitimat. It was one of those issues which divided the people of Kitimat from the rest of the province.

The cancellation of KCP was popular in the province. As the Leader of the Opposition mentioned, it was even popular among their members. It's safe to say that it was not popular in Kitimat. For me, the possibility of finally getting a negotiated settlement as a result of this piece of legislation is very encouraging. Bill 53 facilitates such a deal. And while it's too early to pop the champagne corks, this bill is an excellent step forward for the province and particularly for the people of Kitimat.

For those of you who at times have not been able to understand the support for Alcan and KCP from the people of Kitimat, let me give you a bit of information to put the issue of Alcan's security of investment in perspective. In 1986 Alcan spent $44.8 million on goods and services supplied by northwest B.C. It spent about $91 million in B.C. totally. Kitimat Works employed nearly 1,900 people in 1996; the total payroll and benefits is $136.2 million. These are good-paying jobs, and, I might add, they are also union jobs. Kitimat Works is directly responsible for 28 percent of the jobs in Kitimat. If you consider the multiplier effect, it's much more significant. Kitimat Works paid $7.5 million in property taxes in 1996; of that, about $5.7 million stays in the region. Kitimat Works contributed $234.8 million to the B.C. economy in 1996, about $186.7 million of that in the northwest region.

Let me conclude by thanking the Premier for taking charge of this issue between B.C. and the Kemano completion project when he took over the helm of government. He made a commitment to the people of Kitimat; he made a commitment to me. Bill 53 is another major step forward in fulfilling that commitment.

Let me also thank the Leader of the Opposition for his words and for their support of Bill 53. It's too early to speculate on the positive impact of a potential negotiated settlement between B.C. and Alcan. It's too early to speculate what that would be, particularly for Kitimat, but it should be well worth the wait. When the settlement is reached, hon. Speaker, I'll have a lot more to say.

[ Page 6566 ]

The Speaker: Seeing no further speakers, the minister's comments will conclude second reading debate.

Hon. P. Ramsey: I'd briefly like to thank the member for Skeena for his comments. Those of us who live in the northwest or in the Nechako valley know how important this issue has been to our constituents over the years -- perhaps from different perspectives -- and how difficult it has been to move forward on finding resolutions to the issues around Kemano completion that satisfy all.

I would also like to thank the Leader of the Opposition for his comments of support. I think it is important that we move forward in negotiations to resolve these many issues. With that, I move second reading.

Motion approved.

Bill 53, Industrial Development Amendment Act, 1997, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration forthwith.

INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT
AMENDMENT ACT, 1997

On section 1.

Hon. P. Ramsey: I move the amendment to section 1 that is in the possession of the Clerk.

[SECTION 1, by deleting "Section 1 (b)" and substituting "Section 1 (1) (b)".]

Section 1 as amended approved.

Title approved.

Hon. P. Ramsey: I move the committee rise and report the bill complete with amendment.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; the Speaker in the chair.

Bill 53, Industrial Development Amendment Act, 1997, reported complete with amendment.

The Speaker: When shall the bill be read a third time?

Hon. P. Ramsey: With leave of the House now, hon. Speaker.

Leave granted.

Bill 53, Industrial Development Amendment Act, 1997, read a third time and passed.

Hon. G. Clark: I call summation of the estimates of the Ministry of Environment.

REPORT ON COMMITTEE A ESTIMATES:
MINISTRY OF ENVIRONMENT,
LANDS AND PARKS

There are three issues my colleague wishes to put on the record. The first is around fish protection. We are certainly of the opinion that there is some direction lacking in terms of how best to handle this issue. I know this issue was raised extensively in the estimates process, but if the minister has any concluding remarks in terms of where this province might go around that issue, we would welcome them today. We believe the entire package of streams, rivers and foreshore management requires some concerted effort on behalf of this government and some ongoing explanation of their vision. We have always believed that there are some issues around implementation on behalf of this government, and these issues are a concern to the official opposition today.

The second issue my hon. colleague wishes to put on the record is around the urban salmon habitat program. The contention is that this government is behind in their funding of that program, and we would welcome this minister's comments on what the future plan for that habitat program might be and what it looks like for the communities of this province that rely on that program and for the jobs that are directly related today to salmon habitat -- there are a number. There are currently communities, individuals and their families who rely very strongly on those jobs. The uncertainty that this lack of funding places on their lives is something we would wish this minister to address, as well.

Probably the third issue that we wish to touch on today is around the issue of water licensing. We do believe that this government has had a lack of a meaningful process in that area. It seems that if indeed there's a process that this government is prepared to commit to, they need to communicate it more effectively. Some of the issues around water licensing today are unclear. There are individuals who don't know why the process works as it does, and when they seek explanation from ministry representatives, those explanations, if you will, are not the most forthright and certainly not the most candid.

A fourth issue I would put on the record is around the issue of ministry funding. The contention on behalf of the official opposition is certainly that as one moves further away from Victoria, the funding cuts become more severe, that the level of funding reduction to an area or region of the province such as Skeena is approximately 22 percent today -- huge issues around conservation, around enforcement, around staffing, around people in the field who directly deliver environmental protection programs. Conversely, there is a zero budget reduction to the minister's office. That's an issue. We do wish this minister would reflect on that in her closing remarks as well.

Certainly this government has gone on record and has taken great delight in terms of creating new parkland in this province. I would commend this government for that initiative. Where I think it falls down is in the lack of responsibility around the enforcement individuals in those parks, the level of staffing in those parks, the opportunities to create programs in those parks that indeed may allow more individuals to have better access to that new parkland. So again, there are some issues around enforcement, there are some issues around maintenance, and frankly, there are some issues 

[ Page 6567 ]

around. . . . If you're going to create a new park, have the foresight to fund it appropriately so it is in the best interests of British Columbians, who are, frankly, either providing the land or providing the tax dollars to create that parkland. The designation of a park takes us halfway down the road; full access and uses of that parkland are a priority for British Columbians.

We in the official opposition benches support the designation of parkland. What we would like to see from this government is a greater commitment, or perhaps a clearer commitment, around how best to access and use that parkland. Today we believe that a lot of the opportunities are simply not available because those parks have not been staffed appropriately.

Those are my concluding comments, hon. Speaker. I thank you.

Hon. C. McGregor: It's my pleasure to respond to the member opposite and to her comments -- in general terms, let's say, anyway. I think the remarks that the hon. member makes were well canvassed during the estimates process. So I just want to briefly summarize some of the key points that the member raises here today. I must say that I certainly appreciate the tone and tenor of her remarks, which I find in remarkable contrast to her colleague the critic for this portfolio.

Let's speak first to fish protection. I think this government has clearly shown its leadership on the matter of fish protection with the introduction of the Fish Protection Act and Fisheries Renewal B.C., in addition to the strategy we've worked through with the federal government to really take on a much stronger role as a province in the management of fish resources. The initiatives we've taken as a government, including the urban salmon habitat program, watershed restoration programs and other fisheries-supporting programs, including the preservation of stocks and the restocking of fish stocks around the province, clearly show our long-term and financial commitment to fish. In fact, we have had a fourfold increase, from $23 million in '94-95 to nearly $103 million in '96-97. We will, of course, continue to improve and expand our role in that regard.

The issue of water licensing, which the member raises as well, particularly arises from what was called the Ward report. In this report, which was well canvassed as well during the estimates process, I made clear to our critic that we were following through as a government on our commitment to engage in a review of all major licensees over a period of five years. So I would assure the member opposite that we are indeed looking very carefully at the issue of water licensing.

On the issue of regional funding, I think the member overstates the case in terms of the effect on regional operations. I want to assure her, as I did the member for Port Moody-Burnaby Mountain, that the process of downsizing within the ministry was one done through the gaining of efficiencies, where we combined regional operations from the Lands and the Environment portfolios to really create a more streamlined process, where we were dealing with issues more holistically, in fact. Instead of having separate management streams for habitat protection, fish, wildlife and so on, we recognized the necessary integration of all of those issues and how they are best dealt with in an integrated fashion through our staffing process. We believe that the measures we've taken will increase protection for environmental matters, pollution prevention issues and so on. I give the member that assurance, as well.

[3:15]

Finally, I very much appreciate the member's remarks around our protected areas and parks, as she clarified the official opposition's position on the creation of parks. I was disturbed, frankly, by some of the comments I heard from the opposite side during the debate around our Park Amendment Act in particular. I was very glad to hear the member make a comment about joining with us in the goal of achieving more protection for the unique land base we have in British Columbia. I do appreciate her comments about our need to find new ways to better manage those resources, because clearly we do have some financial challenges in that regard. We will be making an announcement shortly about a process through which we will have the opportunity to have that discussion publicly, about how to better manage and how we might involve communities more, in fact, in the management of our parks system.

In closing, hon. Speaker, I'd like to thank the staff that worked with me and did a great deal of preparation in putting together the information necessary to support me through the estimates process. I really would like to thank them. I'd also like to thank the members opposite who participated in the process with me, because I thought that many of their concerns were very thoughtful and that they were put forward in a constructive way. I look forward to working with them in the future on issues of mutual concern.

Hon. P. Ramsey: I now call the summary statements in the estimates of the Ministry of Education, Skills and Training.

REPORT ON COMMITTEE A ESTIMATES:
MINISTRY OF EDUCATION, SKILLS AND TRAINING

Specifically, in the K-to-12 system the concerns that I and the minister share are the cuts to education that have come in the 1997-98 budget. Specifically, there's been a 0.78 percent efficiency cut, which, in all other languages, is a cut in funding. There is also a 0.18 percent cut in funding in amalgamated districts, plus half of their administration budget there; a 0.01 percent cut -- or no subsidy -- for CPP and WCB to school boards; and a 1 percent inflation rise. In September we could be looking at schools that will face a $160 million shortage in education funding, with possibly up to a 3 percent decrease in the funds they had this time last year to educate the same students.

Most specifically, in the schools districts right now we're looking at $43 less per student to educate those kids in British Columbia. Again in September, once this House has long gone to sleep, the parents of British Columbia may be having some difficulties -- that they will be approaching their school boards and the minister and myself with -- with respect to education in B.C.

In British Columbia we have a positive body count in terms of people who will lose their jobs when September 

[ Page 6568 ]

comes. Of the 900 layoff notices issued to people losing jobs in the education field. . . . The minister and I have gone over those layoffs, and in fact there will be increased jobs for teachers come September, which I believe to be a very good thing. This will come as a result of increased school openings that will occur in the September calender year. Unfortunately, there will be 200-plus CUPE workers laid off. We will not have use for their services because of what are called funding efficiencies that were put into the '97-98 budget.

Capital projects are an interest to all places in British Columbia. At this point, of all the hundred projects being thought about, talked about, dreamt about and built, there are two schools in British Columbia where there is actually any dirt moving. One is in Williams Lake, and one is in Fernie. Although those are both in NDP ridings, I know the minister would not say that it has anything to do with the circumstance. I'm looking forward to the chronological order of how many schools will be built. I will be watching to see whether we in fact have any more schools built in the '97-98 year. The minister and I will be discussing that in the next session of the House.

The OCG report was very important in education. The OCG report has showed us in many ways that we need to look at accountability in the public school system and provide for our taxpayers an accountability system that they can understand and measure -- on those things that are measurable. There are things in education that are not; I concur with that. But there are things that we could do a better job in, and their advice is well taken.

My projections through the estimates in terms of K to 12. . . . I project that fast-growing areas such as Surrey, Richmond and Vancouver are going to have problems when September comes. We will all have to deal with those as they come. There will be concerns in ESL because of cuts to that area, as well as to administration and special education. We as MLAs will all have to help our school boards to deal with those facts and help them through those problem areas. September will be the time when things come to some kind of head, I suppose; that will be the time. Unfortunately, the House will no longer be in session. I think it's probably a very sad thing that that's the case.

In terms of the colleges and institutions, from the estimates many of the recommendations of the task force on critical issues in institutes financing colleges and institutes were proven to be very excellent recommendations. Of the 20 institutions, four have been unable to balance their budgets. Eleven of the 20 institutions have been unable to make the target enrolments that the ministry has set out for them, in terms of students. There are 234 full-time employees, in the two-year period from '95 to '97, who will lose or have lost their jobs. The net effects of the changes, which have been diverse but have occurred in the education system, have been negative in terms of level and quality of student services.

Hon. P. Ramsey: We did have a very thorough canvassing of the estimates of the Ministry of Education, Skills and Training this year. I think those estimates served, for those who wish to read the debates, as a good report on this government's commitment to education and making education one of our top priorities.

The estimates reflected the fact that we have, in the area of post-secondary education, frozen tuition and other fees for the second year in a row to make sure that British Columbians who want and need training and education can get it, whatever their financial circumstances, and make sure that advanced education remains the right of all British Columbians, not the privilege of an elite few.

The estimates also talked about our challenges in producing another 2,900 seats at our colleges and universities this year. Contrary to what the member said, I believe that those targets will be met. That means that over just the last two years we will have seen an increase of nearly 10,000 spaces for students in British Columbia's colleges, universities and institutes.

This is a record of which all British Columbians should be proud. At a time when other provinces faced with massive federal cuts to post-secondary education funding have been closing programs, reducing the size of their universities and colleges, and increasing tuition at the rate of 15 and 20 percent a year, this province has chosen quite a different course. It reflects our commitment to education as one of the building blocks of a strong economy and strong communities, and to the creation of decent family-supporting jobs in our province.

On the K-to-12 side, I must say that I think we had a good debate on many important issues facing us. Contrary to what I may say in the next couple of minutes here, I think the critic for the Liberals and I agreed on many of the priorities that we see as important in ensuring that all our children receive a world-class education in our public school system.

I believe that we have that now, with an excellent cadre of committed, dedicated, well-trained teachers, with trustees and administrators that are committed to local decisions and delivery of education, and with a ministry that, although much smaller this year -- some $13 million smaller than it was last year -- is committed to ensuring that first-rate education is delivered.

Where we do disagree, I think, is on whether a $30 million increase in education funding in the 1997 school year, which is what school districts are getting, really amounts to, as the member just said, a $160 million cut. That's interesting math that perhaps we should have a remedial unit on for the Liberal opposition.

We debated the sixth year of increases in public education -- an increase of nearly 21 percent in funding over six years -- while the rest of the provinces in this country jointly have cut education funding by 6 percent. We were able to provide for our school districts the highest per capita funding for students of any province in this country, and that, again, is a record we should be proud of in this chamber.

I've said very candidly in estimates -- I'll say it again here in the summary -- that as a former educator myself, I surely recognize that those who work in our classrooms and our schools would like to see even more. I will say to them clearly: I share their concern for quality education. I believe this budget will provide that, if school districts are willing to work, as we are, to make cuts in areas that do not affect the delivery of classroom services.

Finally, I must take exception to the member's characterization of the most extensive construction program for the K-to-12 public education system that this province has ever seen. We are now in the fifth year of significant building expansion in the K-to-12 system. We spent over $1.7 billion building new schools and replacement schools around our province. As we speak right now, it is not two schools that are under construction, but dozens. Hon. Speaker, I would invite the member opposite to come with me to perhaps just one of the 22 new schools that are going to be opened in British 

[ Page 6569 ]

Columbia this September, or to just one of the 37 new projects that will be going to tender and beginning construction in the 1997-98 fiscal year.

We have set ourselves a very ambitious program here. As I said in estimates, it is a challenging one because, while we are building new schools and replacement schools at an unprecedented rate, we also face very rapid enrolment growth. An additional 10,700 students will enrol in our public school system in September. I think they will find a first-rate education system committed to giving them the skills that they require to both succeed in the economy of the twenty-first century and to become productive and contributing members of British Columbia society.

With those comments, hon. Speaker, I am very pleased to wrap up the estimates of the Ministry of Education, Skills and Training.

The Speaker: And wearing a new hat, Government House Leader.

Hon. P. Ramsey: I now call the summary statements of the estimates of the Ministry for Children and Families.

REPORT ON COMMITTEE A ESTIMATES:
MINISTRY FOR CHILDREN AND FAMILIES

I think the estimates of any ministry are extremely important, because it's a time when the people of British Columbia get to ask questions of the government, through the opposition, directly to the minister -- on policy, on the money spent, on the procedure and the staff of the ministry.

This ministry is new. It has its origins in the story of Matthew Vaudreuil and of the enquiry that came of his life and his death. I think we always need to keep that in mind when we canvass the Ministry for Children and Families in the future.

This new ministry has the support of the Legislature. It has the support of the opposition and of the government, because its central theme is the protection of children. The theme is that we must do everything we can to make sure that children are safe in our society. I believe we will be judged by how we treat the young and the fragile in our society. The ministry is broad. It encompasses programs from four different ministries. It brings in the programs of Health, Women's Equality, Social Services and Human Resources. It brings in Attorney General programs, alcohol and drug programs and community health programs, all of which have their basis in the development and protection of children.

[3:30]

I don't want to paint a glowing picture of this ministry because it's one we support. It's one that we know has serious problems, and I think the government is interested in hearing our concerns and our suggestions. The ministry has had many problems. They have been addressed in this chamber during the year and were readdressed during estimates. I think the major areas where our emphasis lay was on child protection, caseloads, risk assessment and what the minister and the ministry is doing on the front line, on the doorsteps of British Columbia, where children and families live. This was the most important area for the canvassing of estimates this year -- not that any other area was not important; they were.

The ministry is going through a process of looking at the caseloads of child protection workers and social workers to see if they're overworked and to see what kinds of equipment and support they need. I believe we have a good baseline on that from the data we received from estimates. The ministry has embarked on a risk assessment tool that will be used by all child protection workers, and hopefully all staff of the ministry will take part in its use in the future. It is not being widely used now, but the training has taken place.

I think the programs are vast in this ministry. I say that because of the number of staff that were present to assist the minister. That shows that it's a big ministry. It's a large ministry in terms of dollars and of staff and of programs, but it also has a very big task. That task is to make children safe, to make them healthy, to make sure their families are healthy, to make sure they're supported and that the programs offered are valuable.

That's how I view the estimates process. It's one where we on this side can gather information from a variety of sources, from professionals and users of the system -- which we did -- and bring that to the minister. I am grateful for this opportunity to sum up the estimates of the Ministry for Children and Families, I look forward to the estimates in the years to come, and I thank the minister.

Hon. P. Priddy: I want first to thank the members of the official opposition and the third parties that came in and asked questions, but primarily it was the official opposition. I want to thank them for what I believe were very thoughtful and respectful questions about children and families, and I was both very admiring and very appreciative of that. I also want to take a minute to thank all of the staff who work with me in this ministry, who spent a very large amount of time getting ready for estimates.

We talked in the estimates -- and I think the hon. member referred to this -- about this new ministry, which is the largest organizational change in child welfare in North America, and which is now about ten or 11 months old. It took about 20 years to get here, and Judge Gove said it will take at least several years for all of the changes, or a significant number of the changes, to take place. What we did have an opportunity to do, which is important, was to talk about our progress down that road of change and to talk about what the markers might be along the road of change, so that everybody knows how far we have gotten in different areas -- not just 75 people in the Legislature, but families and citizens in British Columbia who care very much about children. I think we have made good progress down that road, but there is a long way to go, and there's lots of work to do. There is no question about that.

The member referred to the size of the ministry, and he's quite right: it's large, and it has come from a number of places. It reminds me a little bit, I guess, of a new blended family. It takes time for that family to learn to work together, but we will absolutely do that. The possibilities of having multi-

[ Page 6570 ]

disciplinary teams, which is just sort of a fancy way of saying "everybody who cares about the child" -- alcohol and drug people, probation people, public health people, social workers -- all at the same table, talking about the same child with their family, offers extraordinary possibilities that have never been possible before. We just sort of sent people from place to place. I think this offers extraordinary possibilities.

We also talked about what's next. You've told us what you've done in ten or 11 months; so what next? That's a very legitimate question, I think.

Often the easiest change -- and we referred to that in the estimates -- is the organizational change. And that's complete: 20 regions. People have heard me talk about this before.

On top of the organizational change, the cultural change is every bit -- I almost want to say more, but maybe that's not fair -- as important, because that's what people feel. They may see the organizational change, but individual children and families feel cultural change. So part of the "what next?" is helping that cultural change to happen.

The member referred to the importance of canvassing, and of the work that is going on in how we work to have the child protection system work with every degree of excellence that is possible within the ministry. The member referenced the risk assessment tool. Whatever the number I used, I don't want to use it again, in case it's different than the one I used in estimates. . . . I think that in the last several months about 1,350 people have had risk assessment training. There was a recent news release that the province of Ontario, which is struggling with these very issues that we struggled with two years ago, has just adopted our risk assessment tool. But we have to establish markers there, too, to know how we are doing -- is it successful, are people using it, is it working, and is it manageable for workers? -- and those things that the member referred to.

One of the things I want to say is that while we will do everything we can do to do whatever Judge Gove and the transition commissioner and all of us have talked about -- about child protection and doing that as well as we can -- our real goal is to put ourselves out of work. Not for all of this ministry but for large parts of this ministry the goal is to put ourselves out of work. And the only way we're going to do that as it relates to child protection is to begin as we are this fall -- and we talked a bit about it in estimates -- to do really good early intervention and prevention. We want to see healthy children growing up in healthy families supported by strong communities. That's surely what we all want to see in our communities across the province.

One of the potential projects we talked about is experienced parents going in to visit new parents. We all bring home this little bundle from the hospital, but we don't all have the same set of skills to be able to parent this little person. Things like that which support new families are so important. When we talk about new parents or single parents being isolated, they don't have to live in rural or remote areas to be isolated. They can be just as isolated living in the middle of a city. So it's our job to be able to reach in and begin that early intervention and prevention work.

The member said that it's our responsibility to keep children safe, and he's quite right. It's also everybody's responsibility to keep children safe. It is a collective responsibility. Of course, it's government's responsibility, and we'll take the responsibility that is ours. But it's also the responsibility of business and the schools and the corner store and the neighbours and the people who live in the neighbourhood and of everybody who knows children. It is everyone's responsibility to do that.

In conclusion, this is not an easy task, but it is a task I am very pleased to be doing. It has had its bumps along the way. But let me tell you I absolutely believe that it will work. There is a quote that people have heard me use before sometimes that says: "Every child needs someone in their life who is irrationally committed to their future." Well, there are 75 people in this Legislature and 4,500 people who work in my ministry plus many others, I'm sure, who are irrationally committed to the futures of children in this province. That's why I believe that this will work. We will get further down the road, and I again thank the member for his participation.

Hon. J. MacPhail: I call estimates summary for B.C. Transit.

REPORT ON COMMITTEE A ESTIMATES:
B.C. TRANSIT

We discussed a variety of topics, and many of them revolved around the auditor general's performance audit when he reported on B.C. Transit. He reported primarily on managing operation productivity, management and the customer focus of that corporation. His report was not complimentary. It said that there's a great deal of room for improvement in those areas.

The corporation had a study done back in 1992 on the productivity improvement initiative brought forth at that time. When we see the auditors general's report of '97 -- I guess it came out then -- we haven't seen a great deal of change over that period of time. I was hoping that maybe with the heads-up they'd had in the report by Mr. Dillon in '92 there would have been more progress made in that particular aspect.

The absenteeism that was reported by the auditor general is an issue I raised a few years back. We find there's a problem with high absenteeism rates, particularly in a couple of the operations centres, although it does not indicate that all bus drivers working in operations at the centres are all absent a great deal of the time. In fact, I find that quite a number of them weren't absent at all during a year's period, and that's very good. But the number that are absent too long and too often is significant enough to affect the effectiveness of the corporation. In looking at two of the centres, I also found that the overtime rates seemed to be consistently high. To me, that seems to indicate again that possibly there are some problems either in staffing or in absenteeism.

That brings up the question of downtime of buses. It's another issue the auditor general brought up and something I raised in years past, as well. The problem we seem to be getting from B.C. Transit is less on-the-road time than almost all other transit operations in North America.

The maintenance of the fleet also came under discussion. Last January, for instance, we found that close to 20 percent of 

[ Page 6571 ]

the bus fleet was down, and somehow the management of the maintenance of buses. . . . The minister pointed out that we're dealing with an aging fleet here, and circumstances seem to have come to a head at that particular time in the winter, when the bus system seems to be most in need of every bus that can be put on the road.

We also raised issues dealing with safety, and I brought up the issue of wheel blocks. Also, an issue that isn't recognized by the public that often when talking about safety and transit is the safety of the operator. We seem to have an increasing number of operators who are assaulted by passengers, and that's also an issue that has been addressed. It needs to be addressed further.

Fare evasion is an issue I've raised a number of times. It's an issue that relates more to the SkyTrain operation and now to commuter rail; but nevertheless, I believe the minister and I differ on the degree of evasion that is taking place there.

Capital projects came in for some discussion, as well. We had the light rapid rail, the Lougheed-Broadway proposal that's coming up. We wish that project well, and also the rapid bus project to Richmond, and we're looking forward to bringing those projects to fruition. After all of the minister's and the corporation's comments on the cost-effectiveness and the ridership that will be there, we hope that that will all happen.

Some of the downside during our discussions revolved around management, because we seemed to have some problems. There seems to be a fairly large turnover in the excluded staff over the last few years. The departure of Mr. Corrigan and his pay during the time he was in the part-time job that developed into a full-time job -- with the car and his severance package -- all came in for discussion and, from my side, some criticism.

I was also interested in Richmond. The airport service to Vancouver from the large metropolitan airport located on Sea Island in Richmond is not really satisfactory. We did agree on frequency of service, reliability, fees, costs and comfort -- all things the Transit Corporation is attempting to do.

[3:45]

Transit has become as important to me as my Health portfolio. In fact, public transit is a health issue, and I see that there is a natural coming-together of the two issues. There are the management issues that the hon. member has raised that need to be addressed, and I have committed to addressing those issues. The corporation is well on its way to bringing about much-needed change. Of course, we do look forward to the upcoming negotiations in the spring, where even further workplace change needs to be addressed through the collective bargaining process.

We are in very difficult times in terms of the limited resources available for capital planning and the incredible pressure on our capital budget for expanded transit. That's why we have entered into discussions with the greater Vancouver regional district, not only to determine a better way to fund and govern our public transit system but also to find a better way to build the much-needed infrastructure -- the building of light rapid transit, for instance, and how we do that and who pays for what.

I am hopeful that we will be able to set aside the differences at the greater Vancouver regional district level that have separated the provincial government and the GVRD in the past around moving forward on light rapid transit. Our government will move forward. We are committed to moving forward, and we will move forward to build light rapid transit. I am hopeful that the GVRD will join with us in managing that much-needed project.

I am committed to ensuring that next year the member opposite will not have to ask the same questions, but that he will actually be able to begin to ask new questions; I say that with a little bit of trepidation. Nevertheless, he has done an excellent job of advocacy, and I am committed to moving forward on the issues, as is he.

The Speaker: Thank you, minister -- now the Government House Leader.

Hon. J. MacPhail: That concludes estimates summaries. I now call Committee of Supply. For the information of the members, we will be debating the estimates of the Office of the Premier.

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

ESTIMATES: OFFICE OF THE PREMIER
(continued)

Hon. G. Clark: Could I ask leave to make an introduction?

Leave granted.

Hon. G. Clark: We have on the floor of the chamber today a distinguished visitor to British Columbia, Dwain Lingenfelter. Dwain is the Deputy Premier of Saskatchewan, a longtime friend of mine who is very active in the province of Saskatchewan -- holds a variety of portfolios, a very senior member. I'd ask all members to welcome him here to visit and watch what I know is a dynamic and exciting debate on the Premier's estimates.

G. Campbell: Welcome to our guest and friend from Saskatchewan. I'm glad you have a number of portfolios. So does the Premier, evidently, and we're going to have to talk about a couple of them briefly here.

I want to go back to the issue of legislative reform that we talked about yesterday. I know that the member for Peace River North made some recommendations to the Premier with regard to that. I know that other members of the Legislature are equally concerned with regard to this. What I would just like to outline briefly for the Premier are some of the changes that I think that we should be considering. Hopefully, we will be able to move forward on this. I reviewed some of the estimates discussions we had last year. As I said yesterday, I think the efforts that were made by the Aboriginal Affairs Committee were commendable, but I would like to move beyond that for a minute.

I guess to start with, the critical principle that I base these reforms on is the principle that the Legislature is actually a public place -- not a private place for the members of the Legislature but a public place where the public's business is done. I think in doing that, we should bring ourselves up to date, get ourselves into the 1990s. I think we can do that, 

[ Page 6572 ]

where there's a will. I'm interested particularly in the process that the Premier might suggest for us to move forward so we can have some legislative reforms in time for the next session.

First, it seems to me, in terms of dealing with the public's need, I think, for both some sort of certainty and clarity about what we're doing, I have advocated for some time, as have other members of the Legislature, a legislative calendar which fixes when the throne speech will be made, which fixes when the budget speech will be made. I believe those are two critical times for the people of the province. It allows the government to set out an agenda clearly; it allows us to have a clear opportunity to debate that agenda. A fixed budget day would allow us, and I think all people, to properly proceed with establishing a budget for the province without the need for special warrants or anything like that.

As I mentioned last year, and as we have gone through in the past, the Premier, certainly when he was not Premier, felt that special warrants were "an abuse of the democratic process" -- to quote his words. I believe a fixed throne speech day and a fixed budget day would help us to eliminate that. As well, I understand and I have heard from the Premier and the House Leader that they are not pleased with the estimates process. It seems to lack focus, and at times -- I find this hard to believe -- they have actually felt that the opposition hasn't used the estimates process as well as it might.

I believe it is important and fair and equitable for the government to say: "Yes, we will make some legislative reforms that will constrain us, and you on the other side of the House in opposition have got to agree to make some reforms that will constrain you, as well." I would just like the Premier to know -- and the Government House Leader, for that matter -- that we are certainly willing to consider that. I believe that if we looked at a set legislative calender, where we dealt with budget matters in the spring, the government could bring forward legislation that would implement its budget and might even table legislation so that we and the public would have a chance to look at it throughout the summer. And we could have a relatively brief fall session where we could consider that. I think those are some amendments and some legislative reforms that are worth considering.

Finally, one of the things that I believe we sometimes forget here, particularly those of us who live in the lower mainland -- the Premier does and so do I -- and who have our families there. . . . We forget about the travel time and the demands that we put on people from all over the province to come and serve in this Legislature. I would like to suggest that we look at the legislative week in a different way so that we can control how many days we're here. You don't have to lose the number of hours we're here at work. In fact, we could probably be more effective in some of our work, but we could give people the chance to be in their constituencies more and at home more, give people a chance to actually have a life -- at least a small life -- say on a seventh day, one day a week where they're with their families, where they're not imposed on by public business. I think we should be looking at those things, as well.

I would like to start by asking the Premier if he has any suggestions about how we might proceed so that we can move to a resolution of these matters, say between now and the end of this year, so that in 1998 we could have some significant improvements in the way the Legislature works, not just for the MLAs but for the public -- so the public is informed, the public can participate, and we can move forward with the kinds of reforms that we've all at least given lip service to over the last couple of years.

Hon. G. Clark: I have no hesitation saying, and I think the members know, that I'm quite supportive of an agenda on parliamentary reform. I don't want to repeat what I said yesterday, but there needs to be goodwill on both sides to move forward. That's been somewhat lacking, and I'll accept some responsibility for that. We have some committees of the Legislature right now which don't function very well, that can't even get together to meet and talk about the business of the chamber. So when that is the atmosphere, it's extremely difficult to break through and make some more fundamental reforms. It's not impossible, but it's much more difficult.

So I think we can't. . . . We're not going to have the kind of discussion here which will lead to resolution, but I can give the members and the Leader of the Opposition an undertaking that I'd be happy to try to follow up after the session adjourns, perhaps either meeting personally or with members of my caucus meeting with designated members of the Liberal caucus to work on some possible changes. These changes can make this place more effective for the taxpayers -- for the voters -- and for members, in terms of civility of debate and discussion leading to better public policy and better debates. Perhaps that's the best way of approaching it.

I give a commitment that we will try again to proceed with a process to review the rules of this chamber, rather than commenting on any specifics, because I think the members know I agree with some of the things the Leader of the Opposition suggested, and others I don't agree with.

[4:00]

Very simple things, like dealing with the estimates process, potentially allowing witnesses and things like that in committee on estimates would be a potentially very worthwhile thing and get it out of this chamber, the way most parliaments have. We have a visitor here from Saskatchewan. We could probably learn from some Saskatchewan processes. I know they have a time limit on estimates debate, and we don't.

So I think we do have a chance to take a fresh look at it. I've been trying to do that for a year, without success; I'll accept some responsibility for that. I commit to trying again.

G. Campbell: It's always good to find that the Premier finds times that he disagrees with me. He'll be surprised to know that there are times when I disagree with him. However, having said that, I am glad to give the Premier my undertaking that I am willing to sit down with him. I am willing to canvass members in my party on this side of the House to look at various areas of significant reform in terms of the Legislature.

I also think it's important for us to understand as we do this that there are independents in the House as well as members of the government and members of the official opposition. They also may well have comments.

It seems to me that we could maybe start this process off in a constructive and useful way by the Premier calling us 

[ Page 6573 ]

together. I'm glad to try to make myself available to the Premier, as I have over the last couple of weeks. Unfortunately, our schedules did not match. But I am glad to try and make myself available in the near future, to itemize an agenda that we could follow through on and to itemize a process that we could commit ourselves to on both the government side and the opposition side of the House, so we can make some significant changes.

These changes are not about who can score political points. They're about how we can make the Legislature work better, how we can include more British Columbians in our discussions, how they can know what's taking place. I am glad to work with the Premier with regard to that, to set an agenda.

I invite independent members of the House to contribute to that, as well. I know that the member for Peace River North last night suggested that we may well want to ask the member for Peace River South, who has had some experience, to chair this kind of a committee -- a committee to establish an agenda, to look at areas where we disagree. Fine, let's put them aside for the time being. Let's look at areas where we do agree; let's try and move forward on those. Maybe we can move forward in time for 1998, so we don't have the same discussion next year.

That would be my commitment to the Premier. I look forward to his invitation to meet at the earliest date available for him. If I can move on, unless the member for Peace River South would like to. . . . I'll yield the floor to the member for Peace River South for a second, with regard to this issue.

J. Weisgerber: Certainly the whole issue of parliamentary reform is not only a passion of mine, it's part of the platform of the party I represent. It's not so much that we believe in how the Legislature should operate, but moreso that we believe that our parliamentary institutions in this country, both in British Columbia and in Canada, need to be reformed, to change, to evolve in a way that they have evolved across the British parliamentary system wherever that's practised.

It's important not to come to a discussion about parliamentary reform with sort of bottom-line positions: "You've got to do this," or "You have to do that" or "We won't talk unless this, this and this are agreed to."

I could stand here most of the afternoon talking about the changes that I would like to see in our parliamentary system. That might make me feel good. I suspect it would not be in keeping with the interests and wishes of most members today, so I will restrain myself. But I certainly would be happy to participate in whatever role there might be for me to represent myself and other independent members in some discussion, some changes of our standing orders, some changes to the way that we function as parliamentarians. And it's encouraging for me to see that we now use the Douglas Fir Room, which was refurbished before I came here for the purposes of dealing with estimates. It now, at long last, is being used for that purpose. So progress sometimes is much slower than one would like to see, but progress does occur.

I believe that British Columbians would be well served, that parliamentarians would be well served and that our constituents would be better served by some fundamental changes. I agree with the Premier; I don't think this is the place to negotiate those changes. But I think it's important for us to go on record from all sides of the House, indicating not only our support but our enthusiasm for reforms to our parliamentary system. So I am pleased to hear the Leader of the Opposition and the Premier apparently coming closer to starting to talk about this important topic.

Hon. G. Clark: I won't take any more time in the House, either. Member, I sometimes joke with my caucus that I think both of us have been in this chamber almost 12 years, and very few members have served that time. So I feel like a grizzled veteran when it comes to these questions.

An Hon. Member: You look like one too.

Hon. G. Clark: I'm starting to look like one too.

But I say that given the fact that that member has that kind of experience and has seen, really, the deterioration of the way in which the rules are enforced in the House. . . . And I don't say that in a pejorative way or a critical way to anybody. But when we first entered this chamber together almost 12 years ago, we took about a quarter of the time on estimates. And nobody accused the then opposition, of which I was a part, of being an ineffective opposition or not spending enough time on estimates. I never had any complaints about it -- never had any members of my constituency phone me and attack me for not spending another hour in debate on this estimate or that. We are now two -- and this year, I think, three -- times the average amount of time in estimates debate as when I entered this chamber.

The members rule the House, and so collectively we have allowed this to happen. Maybe members want it to happen, and that, I guess, is something for members to consider. I think it's ridiculous, and I think from the comments from the member, he somewhat agrees. So the challenge is not to restrict debate and restrict the opposition's ability to hold the government to account, but if we could somehow get it back to a more reasonable amount of time in estimates debate, which we had in this chamber for about 40 years until just the last five, where it's gone in quite a dramatically different direction. . . .

The advent of the Douglas Fir Room, another chamber, has not shortened the time on estimates debate; it's extended the time. It's gone in the complete reverse direction. In fact, we spend more and more time in estimates discussion and less and less time in many cases, frankly, on substantial and perhaps even somewhat controversial legislation.

The opposition can determine that. I have no inclination to lecture the opposition on their tactic or otherwise; it doesn't bother me, nor does it hurt the government. But in terms of the effective nature of this chamber -- its legitimacy, the sharpness of debate and discussions, and the opportunities to highlight government errors or weaknesses -- clearly we've moved into a situation now where there's a good opportunity to try to revisit the way the rules work so that they can be more effective, both for government and for members.

I also have the personal view, which I've repeated on many occasions, that we don't make enough use of the talent in the House of those members who are not members of the executive council. And I feel, of course, particularly strongly about government members who are not in the executive council; but I will grant from time to time that there's some expertise and some ability among the opposition members. There clearly are issues which we can canvass in a non-partisan or multipartisan way, which could be worthwhile to public debate in British Columbia and worthwhile to influence government policy and the public in terms of government policy. Clearly this chamber -- this forum -- doesn't lend itself effectively to that kind of debate.

I've been on record on this before. I listened to the members last year. Clearly we have not made any progress, other than the fact that there are more committees meeting now 

[ Page 6574 ]

than there were 12 years ago. But I'm quite prepared to try again with a small group. Rather than a formal parliamentary committee, my suggestion would be smaller informal discussions amongst designated members from independents, from other parties, from opposition and from government, looking at ways where there is agreement. I take the Leader of the Opposition up on that. If there are things we don't agree on, we should put them aside. I think there still could be many things that we could agree on which would show progress and lead to a better place.

G. Campbell: I just want to mention one thing, because the Premier does tend to focus on estimates, and that's fine. I understand that's one of the things he has a gripe with. I can tell you that when the House has been sitting for 60 days and suddenly the entire legislative agenda is dropped on the House to be dealt with immediately, that does not encourage public debate or public understanding of what the issues are either. Clearly one of the issues we have to deal with is: how do we in fact encourage debate? Was debate encouraged this year when the House was called back in the last week of March and the budget was thrown together with the throne speech? I don't think that was encouraging debate. Frankly, it was a way of truncating debate. Now, we may well have been able to go on, etc. -- we still had to go through special warrants. The Premier is on record as being opposed to the use of special warrants as being antidemocratic.

I agree with the Premier. There is an agreement. So we can build on that, and I think a legislative calendar would help us do that. I take the Premier's concerns or thoughts with regard to the estimates process, and I think those are worth considering for all of us in this House. I believe we should put the same considerations into how legislation is dealt with and how the public is included in legislation.

The last thing I'd like to say is that I agree with the Premier 100 percent that 75 people are elected to this assembly and that we have to use all of the talents of all of the people in this assembly and bring them to bear on public issues. I think maybe multipartisan is a good way of defining it. I don't expect anyone to go into a committee and say, "I don't have a political position," but I think we can use our committees in a way that encourages public comment and brings people together, where we look at areas that we can move forward on in unison. There is not one person in this House that does not claim to be concerned about the quality of health care in British Columbia, but we do nothing to include British Columbians in discussions and policy development in analyzing how well we are doing. Certainly we hear from the opposition that things are not as good as they should be, and certainly we hear from the government that they're better than anyone can ever hope for. But the public doesn't feel that. The public feels that they're excluded. So I would like to see ways that we can bring them in and include them.

One last comment. I think it's important for the public to know that what they do matters. One of the worst things and one of the worst undercurrents that take place in public debate is when you go out and talk to people in Cranbrook or in Merritt and they say: "No one cares about what I think. No one cares what's happening to my kid in school. No one cares what's happening to my mother in the hospital. What's the point?" With true reform, we can show people not only that we care but that we legitimize their concerns and that we deal with them in a constructive and straightforward way.

I know that one of the issues with regard to that is: what's going to happen with the Aboriginal Affairs Committee report? A lot of people in British Columbia, not just legislators, offered their assistance to us in dealing with that. I think it's important that we are able to tell people what the results of their activities will be.

So I look forward to the meeting with the Premier so that we can move forward with regard to this. I know that my colleague from Matsqui has a couple of questions with regard to the Aboriginal Affairs Committee.

Hon. G. Clark: I do want to comment just very briefly. I want to go on the record as saying that I certainly agree that the government would. . . . Clearly, if we were to have a calendar, the government has to commit to a starting time which is agreed to. The government then gives up the right and flexibility to come back to the House, and the opposition would give up to some extent the right to end the House at a certain time. I would say further for the public record that there would have to be a reasonable period when the government would have to bring in all its legislation. If it brought it in after that date, then the opposition would have the right to extend the sitting past an agreed upon date or something like that, so there would be some flexibility.

[4:15]

M. de Jong: One of the issues we just heard referred to in the dialogue between the Premier and the Leader of the Opposition was this whole question of giving people an assurance that their views are being heard and being acted upon. The Leader of the Opposition made the reference to the Aboriginal Affairs Committee report, and I should tell the Premier that in my view -- at this stage of the game at least -- that is very much a good-news, bad-news situation.

It was just about one year ago today that the Premier and the Aboriginal Affairs minister stood in the House and proclaimed that the committee would be activated and would go about its business, and it was charged with a specific purpose. We did that work. I see two of the members, one from Vancouver-Burrard and one from North Island, who were part of that committee process. It was not only interesting, it was in large measure enjoyable. I think a product that is helpful to the government -- or should be helpful to the government -- has emerged from it both in the main body report and in the suggestions contained in the minority report.

But the question I get -- and I think his colleagues and the member for Peace River South would get -- from all of those people that have spent a lot of time either observing or making submissions is: where are we going? What's going to happen? You know, you spent almost a half a million dollars. I think that by and large, people saw it as a useful process, but they saw it that way on the basis that something was going to be done, that the recommendations, be they in the main body 

[ Page 6575 ]

of the report or in the minority report, would be responded to, even debated, in this Legislature. My sense is that that is what this exercise was all about: coming back to the government with a list of recommendations, a report that could be the subject of debate in this Legislature.

We are unlikely, I speculate, to see that debate this session. But what can the Premier say to the literally hundreds, if not thousands, of British Columbians who offered their time to this process about where we are going from here? And what assurance can he offer that this Legislature will debate and consider -- and that his government will consider -- the recommendations contained in the report?

Hon. G. Clark: You're not the first person to raise this. The Chair of that committee, the member for Vancouver-Fraserview, has been in to see me a few times with a very simple question -- that is: "Okay, where's the government's response?" So I'll just say where we're at on that.

There are over 70 recommendations from the committee, and I think the vast majority of them are superb. And there are some recommendations in the minority report, which the majority disagreed with, but which were thoughtful responses, I think. So what the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs is doing is preparing a government response to each of the recommendations. That will then go to cabinet for deliberation. We intend to take some time looking at the recommended ministry, if you will -- a government policy response to the recommendations and to the minority report. Once the cabinet has had some discussion about that, we will release -- I think it's fair to say -- a detailed response to the report, a formal government response to the report, which will then form part of either government policy or certainly public discussion.

I will say that it was my intention and my hope that we could have had that done by now and brought in for some debate and discussion in this chamber. That was certainly the wish of members of the committee and myself, but it wasn't possible. I'm not going to use this opportunity to complain again about the timing of the session, etc. But I think that if it were earlier in the session and we had a bit more time and we were sitting, say, optional Wednesdays, we could put aside a day or an afternoon to have a discussion about the recommendations report. It would have been better to do that. That is what I hoped we could do. We weren't able to do that this year.

Again, I say that government's response has not been quick enough, obviously, and we've been sitting awfully late in the session to find the time to have that debate. We're planning for September, I believe. Hopefully, my discussions with the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs are in the fall. We will produce a formal response to the committee's recommendations, including the minority report, for public discussion.

M. de Jong: The Minister of Aboriginal Affairs offered -- in response to a question from the member for Peace River South -- a tantalizing bit of information, based on his personal view of the question of ratification. I'm certainly not going to go through 70-some-odd recommendations or minority recommendations, particularly in light of what the Premier has said, and ask for the Premier's response. But there are some broad themes, a couple of which are fair and legitimate, to put to the Premier, given that we're unlikely -- at least I'm not aware of any plans for this Legislature -- to meet in the near future, particularly leading into September.

Fish are very much on the Premier's mind and the minds of British Columbians these days. Part of that relates to our management, as a province, of that resource. The committee had some specific things to say about our management of that resource and our approach to it as part and parcel of treaty negotiations. Quite simply, it said this: the province should consider negotiations that don't take place on a table-by-table basis but approach this in a way that is more consistent with how fish are managed, and that is on a watershed basis.

That strikes me, as a member of the committee and also as a layperson, as making eminent sense when you're talking about a resource that is moveable, transferrable and is more concerned with the environmental ecosystems than artificial boundaries that governments or societies might create. As part of his overall plan towards better management of the fishery, is the Premier disposed to look favourably upon recommendations that point in the direction of watershed-style, regional-based management of the fishery?

Hon. G. Clark: This is a completely legitimate line of questioning. In a sense, it is a delicate question. We're in negotiations with aboriginal people. We have set up a treaty commission process to do that. I support that. The former leader of the Reform Party is partly responsible for the way in which it's set up; I don't know if he wants to hear that or not. We're in negotiations with first nations. We intend to carry on with that, subject to some recommendations flowing out of the Aboriginal Affairs Committee.

On the question of fisheries, this is a very, very delicate question both for aboriginal people and for non-aboriginal people, and one which I am very sensitive to. We have a fishery strategy for British Columbia that talks exactly about the kind of management the member's referring to -- watershed-based, looking at the resource. I would say that it's very important that any treaty negotiations, which tend to -- gently, if you will -- impact on fisheries or fish habitat, must conform with a strategy that fits with the public policy goals that we are pursuing on fisheries.

In a sense I'm arguing -- or suggesting to you, somewhat obliquely -- that I agree that these can't be isolated treaties without reference to the impact either on ecosystems or on other public policy goals, like the conservation of the resource, equity or ecosystem management. At the same time, the way the treaty negotiations work out is that we are negotiating them on a nation-by-nation basis or aboriginal organization or band or whatever basis. As government we have the responsibility of setting the overall framework for public policy on natural resource management in the province, and we can't compromise that in our treaty negotiations.

Our position is, as the member suggested, broader-based, ecosystem-based fisheries management. Then we overlay our negotiations. Our mandate, the mandate we give to our negotiators, must fit with those overall public policy goals.

M. de Jong: During the past number of weeks, I've listened with interest as the Premier made comments relating to his observations about the federal government and the vigour or enthusiasm with which they may or may not be protecting British Columbia's interest in any number of issues, debates and discussions that are taking place presently on the international scene. I found myself relating those comments from the Premier back to some of the discussions we had as a committee, in entertaining submissions from people around the issue of certainty of language, finality of language and self-government.

I make this observation to the Premier for his reaction. One of the things we discovered, for example, when you 

[ Page 6576 ]

consider the finality language that is embodied within a treaty, is that the position the federal government appears to have adopted with respect to the treaties that are now being negotiated in British Columbia is significantly different from the approach it took in the Yukon and the approach that was taken previously in other parts of the country.

It is possible to say that the language that is tried, tested and true relating to cede and surrender appears to have been abandoned by the federal government in favour of something very nebulous that they are presently incapable of describing. The attitude seems to be: "Don't worry, British Columbia. We're going to experiment with something that we think might work."

I'm curious to know what the Premier's reaction is to that approach by the federal government. I have to say that it's seemingly with the support of the provincial negotiating team. How comfortable is he, knowing that the federal government is abandoning a strategy that has worked in the past in favour of an ill-defined strategy that no one can offer me any assurance will accomplish what it is we desire in the realm of certainty and finality?

Hon. G. Clark: These are very good questions from the member -- what am I saying? -- because they go right to the heart of some of the debate and discussions in which we are engaged fairly intensely, particularly around the Nisga'a agreement, the final treaty and how we resolve that. Essentially, it's not true that the provincial government has supported Canada's position -- nor have we opposed it, however.

I think it's fair to say that Canada's position, as I think you've correctly stated, has been somewhat different from their previous position of surrender, if you will, or extinguishment. We have said we are prepared to look at alternative language that accomplishes the certainty we require. We haven't put forward any, and we haven't advocated any. The federal government, at least historically, as you know, has been driving a very particular view on extinguishment. In British Columbia, they have said, sort of broadly, that they think there are alternatives to that, and aboriginal people, of course, are interested in looking at alternatives.

We are obviously in negotiations, and we're prepared to look at all the alternatives, provided they provide the certainty we require in British Columbia, because the impacts of uncertainty fall in some respects to the province. That's all I can really say at this time, because this is an issue that has not been resolved at the table publicly or with aboriginal people, and that's one of the reasons, if not the key reason, we don't have a treaty right now with the Nisga'a. It's one of the key points in dispute.

My personal view is a fairly pragmatic one. I don't believe we have to stick slavishly to the extinguishment language that has existed elsewhere, but I do very strongly believe that we have to have language that provides certainty in British Columbia or we will not have a treaty. We're not entering into treaty negotiations to not have this resolved or to have some question about the certainty of the treaties at some future date. As I say, we try to be pragmatic in the sense of saying that we're open to looking at alternative language, but it must accomplish some basic objectives. The basic objective that we're most concerned about is certainty with respect to how this will apply.

[4:30]

Once again I suggest to the Premier that the federal government has adopted an approach here on the question of self-government that is far different from that which it adopted in the Yukon, where the self-government agreements are not part of the treaties -- are indeed separate from the treaties and don't therefore, as it is my understanding, attract the constitutional standing that they will under the model we appear to be pursuing in British Columbia. He, as the chief executive officer of the executive council, will understand better than anyone in this room the challenges that it could potentially pose in terms of the jurisdictional squabbling that could take place then at a constitutional level. All those comments are equally applicable. The Premier may want to address that from the perspective of one who will be left, at the present time, to live with the consequences on behalf of British Columbians.

But the other issue that I want to put to the Premier -- again, my colleague from Peace River South put it to the Aboriginal Affairs minister -- is the question of ratification, not so much of the committee report but, of course, the ratification of treaties themselves. The point is worth emphasizing that it was the committee as a whole -- the majority, unanimously -- that recommended that treaties on the scale contemplated by Nisga'a and other tables of negotiations, those documents, those agreements, are of such import that they warrant being presented to this chamber for a ratification vote. I think that is what the government intended to do; I believe that is the policy.

But the committee went further and said that for reasons of legitimizing those agreements, those votes should take place on a free basis, unconstrained by party discipline. The Minister of Aboriginal Affairs offered, as he termed it, his personal view on that point. I suppose, having had that view from one member of cabinet, it is fair and legitimate for me to ask for the view of the head of that cabinet.

Hon. G. Clark: I hesitate to make any announcements today, given that we're formulating our response to the committee, but I will. There will be a free vote in this chamber on the Nisga'a treaty, should we arrive at. . . . The committee has done good work in that regard. I agree with the findings of the committee.

The government has rejected a referendum on the question, which I know some members opposite share. That's a position which we took during the election campaign; it was a point of division during the election campaign. It was canvassed. But sufficient discussion in this chamber is clearly warranted -- and free of party discipline is also warranted, because of the magnitude and significance of it.

G. Campbell: I welcome that comment from the Premier.

I have only a few more minutes of questions, a couple of short questions for the Premier on a subject that he knows is something of concern to the opposition. As the Premier knows, we have been quite concerned about the expansion of gambling in British Columbia and the process by which his government decided they were going to do that. One of the things we have discovered in estimates debate is that one 

[ Page 6577 ]

minister after another admitted that there were no studies done prior to the decision to expand this gambling. The Minister of Women's Equality, the Minister of Human Resources, the Minister for Children and Families, the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs, the Minister of Municipal Affairs, the Minister of Health -- all replied that they had done no detailed studies, no impact studies, of what would take place with the kind of expansion of gambling that we've seen in British Columbia, advocated and imposed by the government.

So my question to the Premier is: when we are doing something that is going to have the kind of social significance, the kind of long-term social and economic cost, the kind of long-term cost to families that we know the expansion of gambling creates, doesn't the Premier believe that it would be better for us to make those policy decisions after we have done detailed impact studies on these issues, so that we know what the costs are prior to making that kind of major policy decision?

Hon. G. Clark: While no original study was done, the ministries and the government reviewed related literature in fields around the world, really, about the problems with gaming.

I guess where there's a distinction. . . . I guess it's how you characterize it. We have now, after the changes we've announced, the most restrictive gambling policy in Canada and, I think, the most restrictive gambling policy in North America -- after these changes. So while there has been an expansion of gaming in British Columbia, we should put it at least in the North American context, or at least in the Canadian context. This is indeed very modest by Canadian standards. So the problems of addiction of gambling, which are clearly real and there across the country. . . . Our advice is that they will not be as significant in British Columbia, because we're not pursuing the same kinds of policies as other provinces.

We have announced, as members know, an addiction program, a program to deal with problem gaming -- a $3 million increase in funding. We will be monitoring that. We are concerned about it, but we don't anticipate the kinds of problems in other provinces because we don't have the expansion. We did canvass the research -- or our ministers canvassed the research and the government did -- before making the modest changes that we made. We have done original research in that regard. If the member is suggesting that perhaps we should have, perhaps we should have. But we will obviously take this seriously and monitor it very carefully.

Again, because there is no dramatic expansion of gaming contemplated in British Columbia, we don't anticipate the problems being dramatic, either.

G. Campbell: The Premier says it is not a dramatic expansion of gambling. I believe, and I know many, many people in British Columbia believe, that in fact it's a massive expansion of gambling. The challenge that we face is when the Premier says that these reviews were done, unfortunately many of the ministers responsible to the people of this province weren't aware they were done, because they were not able to answer questions in estimates with regard to this. We canvassed this fully during this session with regard to the preparedness of ministries. They were not prepared. Even today the Premier is suggesting that we have a program that is provided to take care of those who happen to have an addiction, and we heard from the minister the other day that the program wasn't up and in place. In fact, the program of $2 million that was announced on March 13 was cut to a program of $1.7 million. Today we hear from the Premier that it's $3 million.

The fact of the matter is that the government is not prepared for this, and there will be substantial long-term costs. Impact studies should have been done, because the impacts of this are going to be on people and their families in this province. There are going to be long-term social costs, and there are going to be long-term public costs that we have to deal with.

Having said that, let me just move to the next section of this. The government has gone to great pains to say that it will not be expanding gambling without checking with municipalities first. We know that already there have been two referenda: one in Dawson Creek and one in Abbotsford. Both of those communities rejected the expansion of gaming into their communities. The problem I have -- and I address this to the Premier -- is what happens is that the province has made a decision which costs communities money to protect them from the expansion of gambling. So my question to the Premier is: would the province be willing to fund. . . ? Since the province will be the beneficiary of any gambling revenues that may be coming forward, why would the province not be willing to fund these referenda at the local level if they are really concerned about how local communities feel with regard to an expansion, when we know that there are huge social costs associated with it?

Hon. G. Clark: I'm just checking, but my understanding is that there are discussions or negotiations underway with municipalities for a sharing of the revenue, any incremental revenues. That's personally my view: there should be some sharing of the revenue with respect to gaming operations for the municipality, in part to deal with any potential cost increases that might be caused. Secondly, there should be some revenue going into problem gaming to deal with that, and then, of course, because the charities are a key component of our gaming policy -- unlike virtually anywhere else in the country -- they get the lion's share, and then there's money for the province. So it's our view that we give some local control over that, and if they choose that, then clearly some of the revenue would go to municipalities. If they don't choose that, then I don't see why the province should participate in paying for the option. We don't pay municipalities for any other decision they might make. We don't require referenda, either. It's up to the municipality to make a determination as to how they want to proceed. As the member knows, many municipalities have charity gaming operations now, and they have been going on for some time. It's really looking at the new opportunities that exist in British Columbia for charity gaming that is the subject of some discussion -- or for broader destination gaming, in the few instances where we might allow it.

G. Campbell: I would suggest to the Premier that if in fact the justification for the municipalities paying for the referenda to stop this massive expansion in gambling is that they may someday get the benefits, the province should be paying for those referenda until such time as that revenue-sharing agreement has been made.

I'd like to move to one last issue with regard to gambling. As the Premier knows, the expansion of slot machines is something that has caused grave concern in local government across the province. In keeping with the province's stated position, I believe that it would be up to municipalities to decide whether they want to have gambling expansion or not; 

[ Page 6578 ]

that it would be appropriate for the provincial government to say to municipalities: "You may also decide whether you will have slot machines in your communities, or not."

You simply can't look at the expansion of gambling -- small, large or massive, like the one we have -- and not recognize that there are social costs. There are huge social costs. Even though just 4 percent of the people tend to become pathological gamblers, there are major social costs. Slot machines are a major way of generating addiction to the gambling habit, and it seems to me it would be worthwhile for the province to say to the local governments: "If you do not wish to have slot machines in your community, you may say: 'No, we will not have them.' " We know those social costs end up on the streets of communities across the province -- not in the government in Victoria, but across the province.

So I would ask the Premier, is he not willing to say to local communities: "Yes, we will allow you to prohibit the use of slot machines within your boundaries"?

Hon. G. Clark: I appreciate there are strong views on this subject in British Columbia, but we're talking about casinos. These are not places for meditation; they're casinos. So adding different gaming opportunities in casinos is a. . . . It's not like we're putting slot. . . . We are the only province in Canada that is not allowing casinos in corner grocery stores; we're not allowing casinos in places where minors can be. I think we're the only place in Canada that's doing that. It's very restrictive. We're not allowing VLTs in British Columbia. We're going to allow a limited number of slot machines in casinos, so I think it's a pretty modest position.

Again, it's objectively the most restrictive gaming policy in Canada. We have also said that municipalities have some influence over that; some have rejected them, and they are free to do so.

G. Campbell: I had hoped for some movement there. One good announcement could be followed by another one, and we could actually get some real momentum going here in this House.

We've had a number of discussions over the last couple of days, and I just want to touch on one last issue. As we look at the province and we look at what's taking place here. . . . I know everyone in this House feels we live in a spectacular place with huge opportunities. I have a major concern about the direction that our economy is taking, the direction that we're going with regard to the debt in this province; about the deterioration of service that we've seen in health care and in public education, and the concerns that people feel across this province. Take off all the political hats and throw them away, go and talk to people in the communities. There are concerns out there.

[4:45]

I look to the Premier to take some leadership with regard to these things. I look to the Premier not to say we had a debt management plan and we'll now throw it out, but to remain committed to the plans that are put in place, so there's a sense of certainty where we're going in British Columbia. There is no question as you read the comments from agencies, which last year the Premier used to support his position, that they are equally concerned about the deterioration of the quality of life and the standards of government as set in British Columbia.

On this side of the House, we are ready to work with the government. We are ready to offer solutions. We are ready to make sure that we provide the quality health care and quality education that people in this province deserve. I hope as we move through the months ahead that we are able to find common ground that we can build a stronger future on. I commit our side of the House to doing that. I look forward to working to make sure that that happens.

What we know for a fact is that we cannot continue down the path that has been set. We can't continue down a path of higher taxation, higher debt, deteriorating health care, deteriorating education and look with any kind of pride to the young people, the next generation of British Columbians, and say we've delivered the province in better shape than the way we received it. That's what I think all of our goals should be. That's what our goal is on this side of the House. I invite the Premier and the government to work with all British Columbians to help achieve those goals.

Vote 8 approved.

Vote 1: legislation, $29,268,000 -- approved.

Vote 2: auditor general, $6,875,000 -- approved.

Vote 3: office of child, youth and family advocate, $1,148,000 -- approved.

Vote 4: conflict-of-interest commissioner, $178,000 -- approved.

Vote 5: Elections B.C., $6,971,000 -- approved.

Vote 6: information and privacy commissioner, $2,446,000 -- approved.

Vote 7: ombudsman, $4,675,000 -- approved.

Hon. J. MacPhail: I move that the committee rise and report resolutions.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; the Speaker in the chair.

The committee reported resolutions.

Hon. J. MacPhail: I move that the reports of resolutions from Committees of Supply on May 1, 8 and 21, June 4, 9, 12, 16, 23 and 25, and July 3, 8, 9, 16, 23, 29 and 30 be now received, taken as read and agreed to.

[ Page 6579 ]

Motion approved.

Hon. J. MacPhail: I move that there be granted from and out of the consolidated revenue fund the sum of $20,160,521,000. This sum includes that authorized to be paid under section 1 of the Supply Act (No. 1), 1997, and section 1 of the Supply Act (No. 2), 1997, and is granted by Her Majesty toward defraying the charges and expenses of the public service of the province for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1998.

Motion approved.

Introduction of Bills

SUPPLY ACT, 1997-98

Hon. A. Petter: This supply bill is introduced to provide supply for the operation of government programs for the 1997-98 fiscal year. The amount requested is that resolved by the Committee of Supply after consideration of the estimates. The House has already received, taken as read and agreed to the report of resolutions from the Committee of Supply and, in addition, has resolved that there be granted from and out of the consolidated revenue fund the necessary funds towards defraying the charges and expenses of the public service of the province for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1998. It is the intention of the government to proceed with all stages of the supply bill this day.

Bill 54 introduced, read a first time and ordered to proceed to second reading forthwith.

Hon. A. Petter: This supply bill is the final supply bill for the 1997-98 fiscal year, the first having been passed on March 27, 1997, when the Legislative Assembly authorized appropriations for three months, and the second having been passed on June 26, 1997, when the Legislative Assembly authorized appropriations for one month. This bill, which is in the same general form as the previous supply bills, requests a total supply of $20,160,521,000 for voted expenditures as outlined in the schedule to the bill.

Finally, I point out the requirement for passage of the supply bill in order to provide for the expenditure of the government for the 1997-98 fiscal year. I move second reading of Bill 54.

Motion approved.

Bill 54, Supply Act, 1997-98, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration forthwith.

SUPPLY ACT, 1997-98

Hon. A. Petter: I move that the committee rise, report the bill complete. . . .

The Chair: Hon. minister. . . . The minister is keen, a little ahead of himself.

Section 1 approved.

Schedule approved.

Preamble approved.

Title approved.

Hon. A. Petter: I can be accused of being guilty of anticipatory democracy. I move that the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; the Speaker in the chair.

The Speaker: When shall the bill be read a third time?

Hon. A. Petter: With leave of the House now, hon. Speaker.

Leave granted.

Bill 54, Supply Act, 1997-98, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

The Speaker: Members, I am advised that the Lieutenant-Governor is in the precincts, and I will therefore ask members to please remain in their seats until his arrival, which I further understand is imminent.

[5:00]

Law Clerk:

Child, Family and Community Service Amendment Act, 1997

Technical University of British Columbia Act

Builders Lien Act

Industry Training and Apprenticeship Act

School Amendment Act, 1997

Forests Statutes Amendment Act, 1997

Emergency Communications Corporations Act

Power for Jobs Development Act

Industrial Development Amendment Act, 1997

Clerk of the House: In Her Majesty's name, His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor doth assent to this bill.

Supply Act, 1997-98.

In Her Majesty's name, His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor doth thank Her Majesty's loyal subjects, accept their benevolence, and assent to this bill.

Hon. G. Gardom (Lieutenant-Governor): Mr. Speaker, hon. members, I gather there's going to be a happening soon. So may I please take this opportunity to commend all of you upon your deliberations on behalf of your constituents, and to wish each one of you and your families and all British Columbians a very happy summer -- at last it has arrived.

[ Page 6580 ]

His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor retired from the chamber.

[The Speaker in the chair.]

The Speaker: I note the Lieutenant-Governor has divulged the well-kept secret that there will indeed be a reception upon adjournment, and I hope all members will be able to attend.

Hon. J. MacPhail: In anticipation of the motion that I am about to move, I would wish on behalf of each of us sitting in this Legislature today that we take the following months to reconnect with our families and celebrate our communities and enjoy the summer. But most of all, I would hope that everybody be safe and conduct themselves in a safe manner as they travel throughout the province.

With that, hon. Speaker, I move that the House at its rising do stand adjourned until it appears to the satisfaction of the Speaker, after consultation with the government, that the public interest requires that the House shall meet, or until the Speaker may be advised by the government that it is desired to prorogue the second session of the thirty-sixth parliament of the province of British Columbia. The Speaker may give notice that he is so satisfied or has been so advised, and thereupon the House shall meet at the time stated in such notice and, as the case may be, may transact its business as if it had been duly adjourned to that time and date. And moreover, in the event of the Speaker being unable to act owing to illness or other cause, the Deputy Speaker shall act in his stead for the purpose of this order.

Hon. J. MacPhail moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 5:04 p.m.

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