[ Page 8479 ]

The House met at 2:04 p.m.

G. Abbott: It is my pleasure to introduce a special constituent today. My wife Lesley is here from the Shuswap. She is here to experience the drama and the gut-wrenching emotion of the Ministry of Forests estimates. I'd like the House to make her welcome.

Hon. A. Petter: Today in the members' gallery we have a special visitor from the United Kingdom. The Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean is the Parliamentary Undersecretary of State for the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. She is in Victoria meeting with the Premier and a number of my colleagues to discuss a wide variety of subjects from the British New Labour perspective. Baroness Symons is accompanied by her private secretary Carl Newns and by Ian Kydd, who is consul general of the United Kingdom at Vancouver. I'm looking forward to meeting them myself a little later on. I'd ask the House to join me in making them feel very welcome.

T. Stevenson: In the gallery today is a friend of mine, an individual who was a constituent until a year or so ago and who now lives in Victoria: Lawrence Aronovitch. He is the vice-president of EGALE, which is Equality for Gays and Lesbians Everywhere. This is a national organization. He has been working across the country with this organization and also overseas in Geneva. He's in the gallery; I hope we all make him welcome.

C. Clark: From the opposition side, as well, I'd like to add our welcome to Lawrence, whom the member for Vancouver-Burrard introduced. He's a friend of mine; we knew each other in Ottawa when a mutual friend co-founded EGALE with him. So I'd like to add our voice to welcome him to this fair city and our Legislature.

S. Hawkins: In the gallery today are two people that work for the official opposition. I'd like the House to please welcome Nancy Holman and Anna Wong.

J. Dalton: I see only one person sitting in the press gallery now, a colleague of mine from Langara who is the outgoing secretary of the B.C. Press Council. Would you all please welcome Mr. Gerry Porter.

M. de Jong: I know that in the precincts today there is a group of students from my old high school, W.J. Mouat Secondary School in Abbotsford. I'm not that old, hon. Speaker. . . .

Interjections.

M. de Jong: I believe there are 25 grade 10 students. They are accompanied by their teacher, who also happens to have been a teacher of mine: Ms. Kawaguci. I hope all members of the House will make these students from my alma mater welcome today.

Oral Questions

CHILD PROTECTION PRACTICES

My question to the Minister for Children and Families is: why, after four years, do we still face exactly the same problems, so that children in the province remain at risk?

Hon. L. Boone: The Quesnel situation is a very sad situation. If you remember correctly, there's been tremendous criticism coming from the members opposite, saying in fact that the ministry acted heavy-handedly in removing children from their homes. Cynthia Morton's report clearly validates the action that was taken by the ministry to move into that area, to bring in other workers and to actually make sure that those children were in fact put in a safe position.

I'm pleased to see Cynthia's report. I think the commissioner has clearly pointed out to everybody out there that was. . . . The critic herself went into Quesnel and said that people were acting heavy-handedly and that we were not acting in the best interests of children. We were acting in the best interests of children; we are making sure that children are safe. I think this validates what we've done in Quesnel.

The Speaker: The Leader of the Official Opposition, first supplementary.

G. Campbell: I can only assume that the minister has not read the report. This report is a damning indictment of this minister's actions, this ministry's actions. In fact, once again we see that Mr. Justice Gove, when he made his recommendations, made a number of recommendations and observations which we expected to be improved over the last four years. In 1995 Justice Gove said: "In more than one-third of the cases, there were indications of faulty risk assessments." Cynthia Morton went to Quesnel and did an examination. What she says is that there was "a failure to adequately assess or monitor risk to children."

Again my question to the minister is: why, after four years, don't we have a ministry office and ministry staff that understand risk assessments, that carry them out properly so we protect the children of British Columbia?

Hon. L. Boone: The Leader of the Opposition obviously doesn't understand that what the ministry did was respond to concerns that were addressed there. We had individuals who weren't acting as they should have; they were in fact acting in a pre-Gove manner. They weren't responding in the necessary way. This ministry acted. We moved in; we made sure that those children were removed, that they were protected.

It was the opposition that went into Quesnel and said that the ministry was acting in a heavy-handed manner. It was the opposition that went into Williams Lake and said to that community: "You too could be next. You too could have your children apprehended." Shame on the opposition! Shame on them!

[ Page 8480 ]

G. Campbell: It was the opposition that asked the children's commissioner to look into the incredible problems in Quesnel. This minister has a responsibility to the children of Quesnel; she has a responsibility to protect those children. This is what the report points out. And the minister can stand in the House and tell me that this is a good idea. . . . According to one of her officers, no child protection experience was held by one of the child protection officers, and further, that child protection officer could not speak English well enough to do the work. Is that the quality of people we're putting in to be responsible for taking care of our children, hon. minister? Is that the quality of people that we're having?

The Speaker: State your question.

G. Campbell: Justice Gove said quite clearly in his report four years ago -- a simple one -- that files were not organized; they were disorganized. In the Quesnel office, there were not even child protection files that could be found; they'd gone missing.

The Speaker: Member, we need your question.

G. Campbell: How can we have a ministry that, four years after Gove's report, doesn't even have its administrative act together so that we can keep the files we need to protect the children in the province?

Hon. L. Boone: Hon. Speaker, this Leader of the Opposition asked the children's commissioner to investigate not the concern about the children who were at risk there; he asked to have this reviewed because he was concerned that the judge said that the ministry was apprehending too many children. That was the concern of the Leader of the Opposition. Not one of those individuals over there has ever said that they are concerned about the condition of the children or that they were concerned about those children who were at risk. It was this ministry that acted; it was this minister who went into Quesnel and met with individuals there. I am very proud of the work that our workers have done in Quesnel.

C. Clark: All the opposition have ever said about protecting children in British Columbia is that we wish this government would start taking its responsibility seriously and actually start protecting children. That's what we've said about it. The minister could show a little respect for the people in Quesnel by standing up and answering the questions that are put to her today.

On July 23, 1997, the former minister got up and bragged about the fact that 1,500 front-line workers in her ministry had been thoroughly trained in risk assessment. Now Cynthia Morton says in her report that there were "disturbing and deep-seated shortcomings" in the Quesnel office, including a failure to properly assess the risk to children. How can this minister tell us that in 1997, on the one hand, 1,500 workers had completed their risk assessment training, when we see this report today from the children's commissioner that that hasn't happened?

The Speaker: Thank you, member.

C. Clark: How can she ask us to believe that she is doing her job and that she is ensuring that children are protected when she doesn't even have a proper risk assessment model in place?

[2:15]

Yes, we had individuals in Quesnel who were not following the necessary risk assessment tool that we had in place. Yes, we identified them in the audit. Yes, we put in place people to act and to respond and to make sure that those children were safe. What did the opposition do? They criticized the workers who went into that community; they criticized and belittled them. They made them feel that the work they were doing was not appreciated and that they were acting heavy-handedly.

Those workers were working in the best interests of the people in that community, and I am proud of the work they were doing. The opposition member also ought to be proud of the work that they have done in Quesnel. They are currently working extremely hard in that community to repair some of the damage that the member from. . . . I don't even know where she's from, hon. Speaker.

An Hon. Member: Port Moody.

Hon. L. Boone: The member from Port Moody -- what she did when she went in there.

C. Clark: Hon. Speaker, this issue deserves a little more seriousness than the minister has accorded it. We're talking about protecting children in British Columbia, and when she says that she's got a risk assessment model in place, what she doesn't say is what Cynthia Morton says, which is that the workers aren't using it and that her ministry isn't requiring that those risk assessments be done properly. I'll remind her of the quote that Cynthia Morton uses. She says that there are "disturbing and deep-seated shortcomings" in child protection practices in her ministry. If she's got a risk assessment model and they're not using it, there is a very serious problem for children in British Columbia. How many more children -- how many more Matthews, how many more Baby M's, how many more situations like we have in Quesnel -- before this minister admits that there is a problem and works to address her ministry's fundamental inability to put in place and use a risk assessment model to protect children in British Columbia?

Hon. L. Boone: What the member fails to realize is that the problems in the Quesnel area came about as the result of an audit that was done on the Quesnel area by the ministry. We have had audits that have taken place in other jurisdictions. She really is doing an extreme disfavour to all those employees out there who are working extremely hard to make sure that the very good risk assessment tool that we use is used appropriately -- and they are doing so.

We had some problems in Quesnel. I recognize those problems; the former minister recognized those problems. We acted on them. It was the members opposite who were saying: "You ought not to do this. You ought not to go in there and

[ Page 8481 ]

The Speaker: Thank you, minister.

Hon. L. Boone: . . .for standing up and saying such a thing!

NORTHERN GRAIN-HANDLING FACILITIES

The Northern Alberta Development Council released a report last week that contains some very good news for northern British Columbia regarding grain shipments from northwestern Alberta to the port of Prince Rupert by way of Dawson Creek and Fort St. John. To quote from the report: "For all grain exports, the least-cost alternative is to truck to Dawson Creek for transfer to rail to Prince Rupert."

Can the minister tell this House what steps his ministry and B.C. Rail are taking to capitalize on this opportunity to substantially increase grain shipments through northern British Columbia to Prince Rupert?

Hon. D. Miller: That's a very good question in terms of northern development. On May 8, as the member may be aware -- in fact, he participated with us in announcing a joint agreement between B.C. Rail and CN Rail on the interchange in Dawson Creek -- for the first time in history, the freight rates were equalized between the port of Vancouver and the port of Prince Rupert. In the working group we're got with the government of Alberta -- I'll be meeting with Minister Nelson in Edmonton on Monday, I hope, to further these discussions -- our vision is to capture all of the Peace River grain, from both B.C. and Alberta, funnel it down our B.C. Rail line to the CN line at Prince George and out our underutilized northern port at Prince Rupert. I think that our agreement was fundamental with respect to the findings of the report.

The Speaker: First supplementary, the member for Peace River South.

J. Weisgerber: The minister will be aware that critics have labelled the agreement between B.C. Rail and CN as too little, too late -- believing that the major grain-handling facilities under construction in northern Alberta have already captured that market. The minister is aware that the report says: "A feasibility study by the Northern Alberta Development Council has found that trucking to consolidation sites at Grimshaw, Rycroft and Falher is the most costly alternative." Will the minister agree today to work with northern communities, particularly those in northeastern B.C., to expand grain-handling facilities in that region -- to capitalize on this opportunity for an expanded agribusiness in northern British Columbia?

Hon. D. Miller: Certainly I will make that commitment. I should also advise that the B.C. Minister of Agriculture has been working with people in the agricultural sector in South Peace. It's our common view that Dawson Creek can once again regain the status of the northern grain capital of western Canada, but there are some impediments. While we've had reasonable cooperation with CN in terms of the two interchange agreements that we've announced -- last October, the Prince George agreement announced by the Premier, and in May, the Dawson Creek agreement -- CN has now advised that they intend to short-line their northern Alberta railways. If they don't do that in a way which sees Dawson Creek as the load-out centre, then we've got a barrier. I'll be attempting to meet with Mr. Tellier to try to resolve that issue. I appreciate any support that the member might give as we really make it a common cause in terms of northern development.

Orders of the Day

In Committee A, I call Committee of Supply. For the information of the members, we'll be debating the estimates of the Ministry of Municipal Affairs. In this chamber, I call Committee of Supply B. For the information of the members, we'll be debating the estimates of the Ministry of Forests.

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

Leave granted.

Hon. G. Clark: Just before they leave the chamber, it's my honour to introduce to the House members of the school community from St. Joseph's School in my constituency. I've been elected for 12 years, and I think they've been here almost every year since I've been elected. It's a great pleasure to welcome them once again to Victoria. I look forward to the meeting outside. I ask all members to make them most welcome.

The House in Committee of Supply B; W. Hartley in the chair.

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF FORESTS

(continued)

G. Abbott: When we left for the lunch break, we were talking about Tweedsmuir Park and, in a more general way, about the response of the ministry and the government to issues around beetle and other insect infestations and their consequences to the forest resource in British Columbia. I have pretty much completed my questions around that. I don't know if the minister had any follow-up or concluding comments he wanted to make with respect to that. Perhaps we completed it.

The next topic I want to deal with is the issue of wood waste: the phase-out of beehive burners, cogeneration and so on -- issues all related to that area. Before we begin that, though. . . . My colleague from Chilliwack had other duties this morning at the time we were discussing the Ministry of Forests campsites issue. He has questions related to the issue with respect to his own constituency. I hope the minister would be prepared to respond to those.

B. Penner: I will be seeking the minister's indulgence to visit the topic of Forest Service campsites again, at this stage, during debate this afternoon.

Prior to becoming a lawyer in Chilliwack, I worked for some time as a park ranger for the Ministry of Parks in the

[ Page 8482 ]

My question to the minister relates to the issue of how the transition between Ministry of Forests responsibility and Ministry of Parks responsibility has been handled over the past year. In my community -- at least, when people talk to me on the street -- there's still some confusion about just who is responsible for those campsites that are outside of their original park boundary -- what we think of as Chilliwack Lake Provincial Park campground. There are about 100 campsites in total within the park. But as I've just mentioned, there are three or four locations with numerous sites within them that have been Ministry of Forests responsibility for the last 30 years or more. I'm just wondering if at this stage the Ministry of Forests is still taking a hands-on approach to those previous Forest Service campsites or if the Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks has already assumed responsibility for those new sites and is actively patrolling them.

[2:30]

B. Penner: I'll attempt to seek clarification from the minister. Is the minister aware as to whether or not responsibility has been transferred from his ministry to the Ministry of Parks for the Paleface, Post Creek and Sapper's Park Forest Service campsites?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: If it's been declared a park, it is the responsibility of the minister. I'd have to check into it and get back to you on the details.

B. Penner: I would appreciate receiving some clarification from the minister's office on the transition. I know that the park boundary has already been expanded. We passed the legislation last summer; presumably, it's been proclaimed. If that's in fact the case, then the boundaries have been expanded. I'm just wondering if responsibility has, in practical terms, been transferred to Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks personnel and what savings have resulted to the Ministry of Forests, in terms of it no longer being responsible for those sites. The information I received from people who have used those sites this spring is that there are still no camping fees being charged for those sites that were the responsibility of the Ministry of Forests. However, with the recent announcement of new campsites in the provincial park system, I'm led to believe that what will happen is that the Ministry of Environment and Parks will now start charging a fee for what had been Ministry of Forests campsites at Paleface, Sapper's Park and Post Creek campsites. That's something I'm interested in.

Last week there was a report, dated June 5, in the local newspaper in Chilliwack, the Chilliwack Progress that 22 old-growth cedar trees on public land had been cut and removed, without permission, from Chilliwack Lake Provincial Park. I think what the reporter was referring to in that citation is the former boundary of the provincial park. It was a fairly small area, which basically consisted of a campground, boat launch, beach area and some day-use facilities -- picnic areas. Reading this newspaper report makes me believe that the 22 old-growth trees have actually been removed from the provincial park grounds. But it's immediately adjacent to the Forest Service areas. Whose responsibility is it to supervise and investigate that kind of activity? If it's occurring on provincial parkland, does the Ministry of Forests still get involved when people are illegally removing timber? Or is it entirely the responsibility of the Parks personnel if trees are going missing from Parks property?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: If the jurisdiction over that land is with Parks, then Parks is responsible. They would contact the local detachment of the RCMP and the compliance and enforcement staff of the two ministries. The Ministry of Environment, in this case, would probably be the one that would do the initial investigation. The whole range of theft investigations could then be kicked in. Ultimately, it might involve the log-theft unit of the RCMP. It may not get to that point, because there is investigation staff at the local level.

B. Penner: I'll be concluding my remarks shortly. I would just like to close my involvement in this debate by saying that I think it is a positive step for those Forest Service campsites that I've mentioned to become developed and more regulated. My experience in working there in the past as a park ranger was that we basically had things under control on the provincial park side of things, but anything was possible just across the gravel road where the Forest Service campsites were. That caused some problems. Occasionally, there would be thefts of property within the provincial park, and we strongly suspected that the perpetrators were just across the gravel road in some of the Forest Service sites. It was always a concern to us that there wasn't more in the way of patrols taking place in the Forest Service campsites. There would be almost as many people, if not more, in those various Forest Service sites, yet they didn't seem to have the same level of protection. I realize also that they weren't paying fees directly themselves, either, for that use.

That area around Chilliwack Lake receives very heavy usage over the summer months, and with the growing population in the lower mainland, I think we can reasonably anticipate that use will continue to increase. I think it is a positive step, and I look forward to receiving information from the Minister of Forests relating to how that transition took place. It's something I take an interest in.

G. Abbott: I'd like to turn to the issue of the burner phase-out and to the broader issue, as well, of the disposal of wood waste from our mills in British Columbia and one of the potential solutions to some of those issues, like expanded cogeneration facilities.

This is not a new issue. It's been an issue since relatively early in the 1990s, when a former Minister of Environment of this government set out to phase out beehive burners in

[ Page 8483 ]

While it has been over five years, now, since all the burners were to have been phased out, it still remains an issue in some communities and in some companies -- the changeover from beehive burners to alternatives. I think it is a particularly difficult issue in the spring of 1998, because the industry is in a very difficult, precarious financial position. Some companies which had hoped to undertake beehive burner phase-out with more expensive methods of disposing of their wood waste have been forced to set aside those plans as a consequence of the difficult, sometimes precarious financial position that they are in.

I think it all comes back to a responsible government, hopefully, putting in place a reasonable, viable alternative to beehive burners, if it is the resolution of that government -- as it has been -- to phase-out beehive burners for reasons of the social good. What has actually happened in response to the burner phase-out edict are three or four different things. In some cases the mill owners have actually converted from their beehive burners to other methods of disposal. In some cases they have had to get extensions to do that; they've had six-month or longer extensions in order to put those alternatives to their beehive burners in place.

In one case that I'm aware of in the Columbia-Shuswap regional district, the then Minister of Environment actually overturned an extension from a regional manager in Kamloops to extend the opportunity for a company to operate its beehive burner. What occurred in that case was not the change from beehive burner to an alternative form of disposal; in that case, we have the company on a regular basis trucking their wood waste to a larger burner some 30 miles away in order to have it burnt up there. The practical effect of that, I think, is to defeat the whole notion of what is trying to be achieved here: namely, cleaner air. We are not achieving anything in that particular case. The company is expending a lot more money to haul this material than they can afford, particularly given the current state of the industry. The environment is certainly none the better for it; the material is just being burnt up in a different spot. Furthermore, large amounts of diesel are being burnt up to get the material there, and no one gains. There is no practical alternative in place for this company to deal with the situation. So that's the second waste.

Some people have been trucking the material around to get rid of it. Some have shut down their burners and replaced them with others. Some have simply sort of bought some time. Some have achieved extensions from the ministry. But what really needs to happen here, particularly in the southern interior, is that additional cogeneration facilities have to be put in place to accommodate an alternative to beehive burners. And that hasn't been done to this point, largely, I think, due to the reluctance, recalcitrance, refusal of B.C. Hydro to acquire power that is generated by cogeneration. Now, I know that the minister and I are going to engage in a very interesting debate here around what B.C. Hydro should or should not be doing, at least to some extent. He'll tell me that it's not his ministry, and that fair enough too. But it's an important issue, and it's an issue that's central to the forest industry in those areas where the cogeneration alternative is not available.

I'm going to make an argument here. . . . The minister can tell me what he thinks of it, but I want to make the argument, because I think it's an important one. If we as a society conclude that in the greater interests of the social good and the environmental health of the province and its communities we resolve that beehive burners should be shut down and that even though companies have made a considerable investment in those beehive burners over time, we are going to oblige them to do something else, then I think the tit for tat, the response and the counterweight from government, should be that government -- if it's going to oblige companies to do that -- ought to be prepared to do its part to assist in this situation as well.

[2:45]

That's my sermonette for today on this issue. But I want to state it that way so that we set the context of the problem here. We've got mill owners facing deadlines. In many cases we have companies that in the foreseeable future simply aren't going to be able to absorb the millions of dollars it's going to cost them to put the alternatives in place. The third issue is B.C. Hydro. Should it be receptive to government direction around cooperatively dealing with this wood waste issue? I think it should, and I've made this point repeatedly in this House in different formats. I'd be interested in what the minister's response to that sermonette would be.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Well, it's an old argument that has been made: that the public good is served by the public paying for the waste disposal problems of the forest industry. It also could be argued that it's in the public good to ensure that those who create the waste pay for the cost of dealing with the waste. I think that all we can do about this is agree to disagree. I understand the member's point. The Minister of Environment has heard all those concerns and is. . . . I don't know about anxious, but she is certainly prepared to answer the questions around what the wood waste regulations, burner regulations, will do to the forest industry.

I would like to say, though, that we are cognizant of the concerns. There are some stumbling blocks. The Ministry of Forests helped fund the Bridges report, which was investigating what we might do. We have taken action, either extending deadlines or holding firm to deadlines, based on case-by-case presentations. There is no one simple solution to the burner situation for each firm.

I would say, though, that I think it's important that we keep the pressure up to find solutions from whatever source. I can just say that the minister responsible for B.C. Hydro may be prepared to speak about Hydro's position and whether government is prepared to give any further direction. I would

[ Page 8484 ]

G. Abbott: That does go to the heart of the issue. The argument that those who generate the wood waste should pay for it is fine as far as it goes. But what we as a society and as a government have done in the 1990s is to say that the methods of wood waste disposal that have been in place for probably a few decades -- certainly I remember beehive burners as long as I've lived -- have been the conventional approach to disposing of wood waste. In some cases, as I've mentioned before, companies have made significant investments over time in doing a better job on beehive burner technology, getting cleaner and hotter burns and all that kind of stuff. They've made an investment.

We've decided as a society that it's critically important -- so critically important that we're prepared to shut down businesses, in fact, to achieve it -- to us to improve the clean air in our communities. So we are going to issue an edict that says these have to be shut down. Again, what I'm saying is that if it's that important to us as a society and as a government to mandate the termination of the use of beehive burners, then if we're going to be proactive, responsible and cooperative, we will be playing our part in providing an alternative to that as well.

The core of the matter here is that we can't expect industry overnight -- or indeed in five years -- to deal with a new situation that may be very expensive to deal with. Some of the alternatives to beehive burners are frighteningly expensive.

Even though this thing's been tossed around for several years now, cogeneration appears to be still the most promising alternative to the beehive burner technology. There is always something new in the wings that everybody hopes is going to take care of all the wood waste in British Columbia, but it never comes to be. Generally, the co-gen proposals still seem to be the most promising alternative to beehive burners.

Yet persistently I hear -- from not only people in industry but from people who will talk to me in Forest Renewal B.C. or in the energy business -- that B.C. Hydro remains a major stumbling block in terms of the expansion of cogeneration in British Columbia. I think, again, that as a Crown corporation -- particularly a Crown corporation that has a virtual monopoly on power in British Columbia and which, as a Crown, generates a lot of revenue for the Crown -- surely we as a government should be directing them to do their part to ensure that B.C. Hydro and its unwillingness to acquire power from cogeneration facilities even at subsidized rates, is not a stumbling block to us achieving the goals of government as set out in the beehive burner phase-out program.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Just to respond to the member, issues surrounding the beehive burner should be raised with the Minister of Environment. But I would say that there have been no mills shut down because of the beehive burner phase-out program. There's always the fear that some might, and that's an issue that's taken up on a case-by-base basis. If it appears that it's the case, that some mill is in jeopardy and can't make the investment, then the Ministry of Forests discusses that with the Ministry of Environment. The door is always open to look at cost-effective ways of doing things and making sure that agencies work together. That is in fact occurring.

But the disagreement here is on who should pay: the public or the people generating the waste. I think we just have to agree to disagree on this issue. The Ministry of Forests doesn't have the jurisdiction to shut down burners, so I just have to remind you that questions on that should go to the Minister of Environment.

G. Abbott: I do plan to canvass this issue with the Minister of Environment. I'm sure that she'll have a great many interesting things to tell me and to explain to me. I didn't know, though, that we were even agreeing that we disagreed. The only point I'm trying to emphasize here in Ministry of Forests debate -- because I'll take up some of the other issues in Environment -- is the point whether he, as the cabinet minister responsible for Forests, would share the view -- and, hopefully, take this view in a forceful way to cabinet -- that a major Crown corporation in this province can potentially play a huge role in resolving issues around beehive burners. Nothing the minister has said to date. . . . Perhaps I've missed something here, but I didn't know that we had agreed to disagree.

If the position of the ministry is that B.C. Hydro has no role in assisting the forest industry in British Columbia in proactively resolving their wood waste issues, then I guess we are disagreeing. I think that as a society we've put a lot of emphasis on the very short-term resolution of this important issue. If the government is saying, "Make the industry pay all the way; don't force B.C. Hydro to become a participant in the solution," then we are disagreeing. But I'm not sure that we've had the discussion to even demonstrate that we disagree on this matter. Perhaps the minister can clarify that point.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: I don't think any clarification is necessary. The member opposite made his position clear, and I made my position clear. We have to agree to disagree.

G. Abbott: I didn't know that the minister had made his position clear. I know he's made clear the position that it's not his responsibility, that the Ministry of Environment should deal with it. I agree that in considerable measure that's the case, but we do have ministries within government that deal with different parts of these industries. Obviously, in my estimation, the disposal of wood waste is an important issue and continues to be very much a live issue in many communities in the province. My only point here is that as a government, we should be pressing our largest Crown corporation to do their part to deal with this. The minister says that he disagrees with that, and that's fair enough, if that's what he said.

The minister also mentioned that there were some stumbling blocks -- I believe he termed them "stumbling blocks" -- in the way of completing some additional cogeneration projects in the province. Could the minister please enumerate what those stumbling blocks are, from his perspective?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: I'd be prepared to examine the record, but I don't think I said that. I said that there were cases where individual companies would make their position to the Ministry of Environment, and they would examine what was in the way of people completing the requirements to phase out the burner.

G. Abbott: I'm not trying to be disagreeable here; I'm trying to engage the minister in what I think is an important public policy discussion around cogeneration in the province of British Columbia. The minister has taken a position here that it's the Ministry of Environment that is responsible for burner phase-out, and that's correct. But the point I've been

[ Page 8485 ]

But I do want to address what remains in this one, and that is the issue of cogeneration. I don't think this is something we can pass off to the Minister of Environment. This is a critical issue. In Kamloops, Weyerhaeuser has a proposal around wood waste cogeneration. There have been peaks and valleys in that company's drive to put in a cogeneration facility which would deal with the wood waste problem of companies in quite a significant portion of the southern interior.

Most recently it appeared that Forest Renewal B.C. was going to become a participant in the resurrection of the Weyerhaeuser wood waste co-gen project. I'm not sure if that is still ongoing, but perhaps the minister can advise what. . . . We will look at the record and see if the term "stumbling block" was used in relation to the co-gen projects in the future. I thought it was, but we'll see. At any rate, could the minister advise what the status is of the Weyerhaeuser wood waste co-gen proposal and what, if anything, the continuing role of Forest Renewal B.C. is with respect to that project?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: I don't know the current status of that Forest Renewal project; there are thousands of Forest Renewal projects. I'll undertake to get the information for you.

Let me just say that there was a request for proposals by Hydro. I understand that Weyerhaeuser submitted a bid, and it wasn't one of the ones selected. You know, if the economics are there for the industry to use cogeneration, they do it. Many of them are doing it, as you say, and we're down to the ones that the industry is having trouble getting to an economic stage. There's a limited amount of what government can do. What I hear the member keep saying is that there is some kind of public or ratepayer responsibility to pick up some of the load. And that's the debate that's going on; it's been going on for years.

[3:00]

I think some of the continuing frustration with the lack of progress on the Weyerhaeuser proposal is related to some of the cogeneration proposals that have been put in place by B.C. Hydro, which, at least in the view of some, are not stand-alone projects on their own either. They either directly or indirectly involve subsidization by Hydro or others. If the prospect of subsidization of cogeneration at Weyerhaeuser is the issue, is it correct that other projects that have been approved by B.C. Hydro, which involve cogeneration or other methods, do not involve subsidization? Is that what's being said here -- that only projects that don't involve subsidization have proceeded? Or is it that in this case subsidization is not appropriate?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: I will answer, very shortly. All projects that are evaluated are evaluated for socioeconomic environmental impacts, and they either meet the grade or don't meet the grade. But this is not within the Ministry of Forests' responsibility; it is that of the minister responsible for Hydro. So I would just say that I think we can use the time for things that are within the Ministry of Forests' responsibility.

Suffice it to say, though, that we are interested in the general economic health of the industry, but we're not in a position to fix all the economics -- like hydro rates and so on, and burner regulation and cogeneration issues -- from the Ministry of Forests.

G. Abbott: I'm not going to dwell on this. But I do want -- and I'll be doing this again next year -- to emphasize to the minister how important this issue is. I think I've been in and around politics long enough to know that unless an issue is regularly and forcefully highlighted, it tends to be forgotten as an issue. In fact, if it is not given the profile that it requires, people assume that it's no longer a problem, and it tends to go away in their minds. So I'm prepared to leave this aside for the estimates of the Ministry of Environment. But I don't want the minister, in my departure from this, to assume that I'm satisfied, because I'm not.

Again, to summarize the points I made earlier, I really think it's incumbent upon this government and particularly this minister, as one who hopefully is a proponent of the forest industry in British Columbia, to take the position firmly in cabinet and, through cabinet, with B.C. Hydro, that if we as a society are going to, for the social good, mandate the phase-out of beehive burners, then we as a society -- quite possibly through a Crown corporation like B.C. Hydro -- have a responsibility to do our job as well. So I hope I have underlined the importance of this issue from my perspective. Perhaps the minister has some closing comments on the issue. I'd be happy to move along.

The Chair: The member continues.

G. Abbott: I'd like to turn to the issue of product certification, if I could.

Interjection.

G. Abbott: Okay. One of my colleagues has an area-specific issue that he would like to raise with the minister. Given that he's available and in the House now, perhaps it would be a good time to do it. The member for Kamloops-North Thompson has a specific issue he'd like to raise with the minister.

K. Krueger: There are several files that the ministry and I have been working on, and I want to have some comments from the minister on record with regard to each of them. One involves a company named Paul Creek Slicing in Kamloops, which operates a veneer plant. It specifically uses white pine cants. It slices these cants one thirty-second of an inch per slice. This material is then used to face furniture; it's sent to factories in New York and Quebec, where the furniture is put together. This white pine is put on the surface of the furniture. It's tremendously valuable, in that after the wood has been processed in Paul Creek Slicing's plant, it's worth four times the amount of what it's worth when it comes in, in cant form.

The plant is a busy little operation whenever it can get fibre supply. It employs dozens of single mothers. It's not heavy work; it's work that they really enjoy. I've visited the plant many times. The employees are just as concerned as the

[ Page 8486 ]

But the overarching issue seems to be that a large supply -- and I know the amount of the supply is in dispute -- of these white pine cants continues to head south of the border in whole-cant form, specifically to competitors in Idaho. I gather that somehow this escapes the provisions of the softwood lumber agreement and, conveniently for the Americans, isn't included in quotas of British Columbia suppliers. This situation has, I'm told, gone on for 30 years. In the face of the government's drive, which I believe is genuine, to create value-added jobs in the forest industry, none of this seems to make any sense.

While he did provide me with some correspondence a couple of months ago, I'd like the minister's comments -- an update of that situation, for starters, if he could give that to me.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: While we can never know all the business dealings between producers and consumers of materials that have been processed to various degrees, it is the opinion of the Ministry of Forests that the 2,000-some-odd cubic metres being exported is a minor portion of the white pine cants and is not an obstacle to this company doing business. It's our understanding that they are not able to make a purchase, but if, as the member says, they're of tremendous value once they're processed and sliced, then that would argue that they're quite prepared to pay a good price to get them. So I think it's purely a question of the economics and the business dealings between this purchaser and others.

The Ministry of Forests is not prepared to further restrict all exports of cants, because some cants are in fact temple parts -- building materials that are already processed. We don't think, given the softwood lumber agreement, that we're in a position to restrict further exports of processed materials.

K. Krueger: Does the ministry do species-specific restrictions? For example, would it be within the confines of current ministry policy to restrict white pine in particular while not restricting the export of whole cants of other species?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Yes, it's theoretically possible for us to do that. But there are producers of white pine cants in British Columbia who don't want their export markets restricted.

K. Krueger: That's understood. But to me, it manifestly doesn't make sense if competitors just south of the border are competing with the British Columbia value-added industry for the very same material. And it's a bit of a stretch to call it processed material if it's heading across in whole-cant form, essentially, with just the bark knocked off the sides of it so it's squared off.

I appreciate that there are other ramifications for the many different types of trade that go on between the province and the U.S.A., but I'm told -- and in fact the minister said this in his recent letter to me -- that these white pine cants are milled as lumber by various forest companies around British Columbia. I've heard that within the industry as well. It seems, again, tremendously wasteful when we have a product that has such tremendous value-added potential -- where we can refine it down to one thirty-second of an inch and render it worth four times as much as it is in cant form within our own economy -- that we don't make some effort to ensure that that wood remains in British Columbia until it's fully processed by the industry already established in British Columbia.

I'm not suggesting anything heavy-handed. Perhaps it could be something as simple as a designated Ministry of Forests employee who encourages the people who log and produce that wood to give a right of first refusal, at least, to British Columbia manufacturers for a reasonable price. They could allow them first crack at it, really encouraging people, as a matter of loyalty to our province, to make the best possible use and garner the most possible employment out of this particular species. There may be other species that the minister is aware of that also have unique value, such as I understand there is with white pine. Is it a possibility that the ministry could designate someone to ensure that there is opportunity to have these particular cants identified before they're sold outside our borders and offered, not just to Paul Creek Slicing but to its competitors within British Columbia as well?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Well, I have no other complaints from anyone who has a similar problem, and I would suggest to the member that if he wants to get into this. . . . It's probably a commercial arrangement matter -- a matter of a failure of people to buy and sell and to find appropriate price and conditions of sale, etc. This small amount is not worthy of bringing in an export restriction, because it inevitably would catch in the net a larger number of producers. This company has received timber licences; they're in a position to trade. It's for them to go out and make those kinds of deals. So it is a small problem. It's not worthy of a major export restriction in order to solve it, because the harm that would come from it would be greater, and the producers of white pine cants like the long-term arrangements that they have. They have employees that are dependent on that.

So I would just urge the member to ask the company if there are perhaps other reasons why they aren't able to complete commercial deals for people. It might be a question of price, and that's not something we're going to regulate.

[3:15]

That's why I was suggesting. . . . One idea is that the ministry could designate someone to ensure that companies are encouraged -- not necessarily obliged but encouraged -- to trade that wood within the province, so that it's milled down in this value-added way rather than cut into 2-by-4s here in B.C., let alone exported outside the province.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: That is the purpose of the wood fibre transfer program that we brought into being, where the major licensees will have to make 16 percent of their sawn fibre in whatever form -- cant or otherwise -- available to value-added manufacturers. So I would say that if it is economical to create sliced veneer out of those cants, and if somebody can

[ Page 8487 ]

K. Krueger: Somehow I'm not making my question clear enough to the minister. For one thing, the 2,000 cubic metres is very much in dispute. People who inform me on this issue believe that it's far more than that. I'm not talking about the individual that's having the supply problem but indeed about a former Minister of Forests who has acted as a consultant on this matter: Claude Richmond. He believes that it's substantially more than that.

[H. Giesbrecht in the chair.]

When the minister says that certainly the opportunity is already there to trade fibre, I believe that; I know that's true. But the point I'm trying to get through is that it's not happening. Somehow this valuable material is being treated like it's any other piece of pine in British Columbia. It's not; it has huge potential. It's like sending out gold and getting a copper price for it. It's a waste of job opportunities in British Columbia. I'm asking the minister if he would commit to trying to deal with that situation, specifically with regard to white pine, so that the ministry puts a particular emphasis on making sure that it isn't milled as if it's any other pine but that people who log it are encouraged to provide it to those who can make this use of it.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: It certainly is something that we can ask the wood fibre transfer facilitators, who will be put in place in three regions of the province. They can examine that and see if the wood fibre transfer program can be used. Companies will be looking for markets for this product in B.C. to qualify for that. So there will be people working on that. It's not a problem that we're ignoring; we spend a lot of time on it. But we're not in a position to do it to benefit a particular company. It seems to be one company that has a particular problem. We can't have policies that benefit that one particular company.

I would agree that it is desirable to process as much as you can in the province, as long as it doesn't depress the market and make it uneconomical for the remaining producers to do so. So I think it is a question that. . . . The marketplace has to work this one out. The policy direction that can assist it is the wood fibre transfer program.

K. Krueger: I heard that as, I think, a bit of a commitment by the minister to keep his eye on this particular issue, and I am hearing the messages he is giving me about the company in my constituency. That's something I'll pay attention to as well. But I do hope to see the ministry trying to facilitate retention of this commodity within B.C. until it's had the maximum British Columbia employment derived from it.

I wonder if the minister could just clarify for me whether indeed whole cants of white pine being exported to the U.S.A. are exempt from the provisions of the softwood lumber agreement.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: We'd have to double-check that. I'll get the answer for you.

K. Krueger: If that's true, of course, it seems to me that the Americans have pulled a bit of a fast one, because when they can get our white pine in whole-cant form and get jobs that British Columbia could have had otherwise, then they're willing to not include that in our suppliers' quotas. Whether or not some mills in the Kootenays think that's a market arrangement they like, it's not a good deal for British Columbia.

Some of the reasons that I've heard for these small mills in the Kootenays preferring to continue to export these cants to Idaho are as frivolous as this: the operator of one of the mills likes to employ his elderly father, who likes to drive the truck that delivers the cants to the U.S. market, because it's closer than bringing them to British Columbia markets. That might make sense to them, but it doesn't make sense from a provincial point of view, I don't think.

Turning to another issue, again the minister and I have been conferring on a constituent problem which relates to a logging road construction project in the Fraser Canyon. The constituent's name is Al Bush. He had a company named Chaps Enterprises. In the process of building this logging road, he ran into what are known as CMTs, which he and I had never heard of before; a lot of people haven't. They are culturally modified trees. That was the beginning of a domino effect that was very destructive to his company and his financial well-being and his whole family.

I wonder, as a first question, if the minister could tell us how many times construction projects within the province of British Columbia have been stopped or slowed down by CMTs.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: I don't know the answer to that question.

K. Krueger: Could the minister tell us whether he knows of any other incidents where CMTs halted construction and led to a problem such as the one he's aware of with Chaps Enterprises?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Culturally modified trees exist all around the province. They are prevalent on the coast. Usually you try to design around them, but if you find them, you have to deal with them. You may have to halt construction. But I don't have the particulars of any other case.

K. Krueger: In this case, construction was halted. There was a stop-work order. As I say, it set in motion a sequence of really unfortunate events. It seems to me that whether or not the province has had the foresight to protect itself in legislation, such as the Heritage Conservation Act, against the prospect of a contractor bumping into CMTs or other archaeological items, the province really ought not to dump the responsibility on the little guy, on a small businessman who's doing business with and for the province. The province ought to shoulder that responsibility itself, especially when the province has let the contract out for tender and presumably has walked the proposed right-of-way and is familiar with what it's putting up for tender. This is a David-and-Goliath situation for a contractor who suddenly finds himself in a dilemma, such as Mr. Bush did.

I wonder if the minister would tell us whether there is any policy within the ministry for assuming responsibility for a problem like that -- when it's not been foreseen by either party and a small operator has run into it.

[ Page 8488 ]

K. Krueger: Somebody may have to litigate, but I don't think that's the ideal resolution for the little guy -- or necessarily for the province. My understanding is that there are more legal actions underway against this government than any government in British Columbia's history. I think that's the very attitude that gives rise to that unfortunate circumstance.

I don't mean to raise any points here that will cause the minister to feel that there's any hostility on the floor. I want to resolve this situation for my constituent, if we possibly can. But we've been trying, and it's seeming increasingly unlikely. When someone the size of Chaps Enterprises gets into a situation like this one with the province, it's very much a you-can't-fight-city-hall situation for them; it's tremendously intimidating. This constituent did indeed opt for commercial arbitration -- to his sorrow, because when the letter of the law is applied and the gavel comes down, whether it's an arbitrator or a judge, city hall tends to win these things. The government has all the resources, and it can bring them to bear against the little guy. But it's not a good outcome.

I'd like the minister's opinion as to whether it wouldn't make more sense -- especially when dealing with a reliable contractor such as this one, who had, I believe, 40 years of service to the Ministry of Forests -- to try to be entirely accommodating and not bankrupt the individual by forcing him to resolve his differences with the ministry through arbitration or litigation.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: The question was: is there a policy to deal with these situations? I say yes, arbitration is eminently fair. We only hear from people when they fail in arbitration, and then you want to do something special for somebody. I'm saying that we don't do that. When I mentioned litigation, I said that it's everyone's right to do that. It doesn't stop with the arbitration. It's not that they don't have any further rights of appeal; they do.

The case has been examined. The member was briefed as recently as a few days ago by the deputy; he was asked if there's anything further he wants to pursue on that -- and I hear that you do want to pursue it. I'm interested in knowing that you think there's a straight pay-out to an individual. I won't on the floor of this House commit to that, because I don't think that's responsible. I think the resources of the province also need to be protected, the taxpayer needs to be protected. It isn't city hall with endless resources to pay out where there's a mistake. I think the arbitration that we set up is a fair process, and that is the due process. This case has gone through that.

K. Krueger: Indeed, it makes sense that the ministry probably only hears from the people who lose arbitrations as to wanting to pursue them further. But this was not a run-of-the-mill arbitration or matter. By the ministry's own advice, it was a very unique situation. I believe it's the only one the ministry has dealt with where one of its contractors had to stop work because of culturally modified trees. So it was a first.

And here we have a little guy trying to find his way through an impossible situation. It led to this sequence where his logging contractor quit, and he couldn't get another logging contractor. So he had to use small, selective logging equipment of his own to complete this road right-of-way. He ran out of summer and was told to try and persist regardless and complete his road, even though winter was coming on. He couldn't do it. It was a terrible sequence. It was therefore a very unique circumstance -- not just your run-of-the-mill loss of an arbitration by one party.

Given the fact that this legislation that puts the onus on the contractor is relatively new, and given the fact that the culturally modified trees had not been identified by the ministry when it put this project up for tender, I believe that it would be entirely appropriate to treat this matter as the exception that it is and negotiate a settlement with this contractor, regardless of the fact that a commercial arbitrator has brought down the gavel in the way that he has. I'd appreciate the minister's commitment to have a second look at it on that basis.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Well, to help out the member, I can agree to have another look at it. But it was reviewed by the district manager, by the regional manager and by the deputy minister. And it was reviewed by myself over a year ago. Consistently, there were recommendations to send it to arbitration as a fair process. So I think there's been an awful lot of due process. I hear what the member is saying. Yes, I can review, and if I am not satisfied that fairness has been undertaken here, then I'll see if there's something more that can be done.

[3:30]

On the same file, and without wishing to cast aspersions on anyone, there was a remarkable variance in the amount of the tender prices. My constituent had bid $123,400 to do this road. The evidence seems to be, even from other bidders who testified against him at the commercial arbitration, that he was well on his way to getting the job done for that price. The other bids ranged as high as $812,000, compared to $123,400; three of them were in the $400,000 range. The first letter that the minister ever responded to me with on the matter set out that the ministry had been somewhat startled from the outset by the fact that Chaps Enterprises bid less than one-third of what the nearest competitive bid was. My constituent explains that he could bid that low and still make money on the job because there was an underestimation of the value of the timber on the right-of-way which the contractor would be able to sell to subsidize his roadbuilding operation.

It appears to me that some of the contractors may regard this timber that they get to harvest and keep in building a road as gravy and that others, like Mr. Bush, just regard it as part of the package and are willing to cut a much smaller profit and still get the job done. In fact, the range is so wide in this case that I couldn't help but wonder if there might be some sort of collusion or bid-fixing between some of the people that were bidding, especially if a contract is put out for tender in an area where the same contractors tend to bid all the time. I don't deal with these situations frequently enough to know whether that is a possibility or not, but from a background of handling litigated matters, I'm somewhat suspicious of that. I wonder if the ministry has any random-sampling processes where

[ Page 8489 ]

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: If there's ever any evidence that there's bid-fixing, we'll do what we can to investigate it. But I'd like to read into the record here some of the facts of this matter. Chaps Enterprises submitted a tender value of $123,000 for completion of the project. The next closest bid submitted was $372,000, which was much closer to the ministry's estimate of $365,000. So the ministry's own estimate was $365,000. The district staff was concerned that the Chaps bid was too low and met with the contractor three times prior to awarding the contract. The district manager offered to return the Chaps tender without penalty, but Chaps insisted their tender was correct, and they wanted the contract awarded. So it was signed with them, and the completion of the project was October '96.

As to some suggestion that there's collusion amongst the other bidders, being that the ministry assessed the road estimate at $365,000, I would suggest not. I would suggest they were in the ballpark, and this person drastically underbid. So this person has a responsibility for there being no room for error in his bid, by the sound of things. It doesn't sound like a good business proposition to bid that much lower.

K. Krueger: Of course, at the time, Mr. Bush wouldn't have been aware -- and wasn't -- what the other bids would be. But he did believe and, I think, subsequently established that he could still make a profit at his bid. The reason he believes that his bid was so different from the others, including the ministry's assessment of what the road was likely to cost, was that everyone else didn't realize how valuable the timber was and how much timber there was on that right of way. In fact, he appears to have been correct. Nobody seems to dispute that he had an accurate assessment of what that timber was going to be worth, and it was substantially more than the ministry or the other contractors had realized.

When the problem first came up, from the ministry's point of view, that Mr. Bush appeared to have bid too low at less than one-third of the next bid, a ministry employee -- and not a junior employee -- told Mr. Bush that if he could actually build the road for that amount, "heads will roll." That's the quote, I'm told: "Heads will roll if you can actually build it for that." Ultimately, it seems as though the head that rolled was Mr. Bush's, even though he did it; he built the road for the amount that he had believed that he could. His problem was that it took him too long, and it took way too long to get paid because of the intervention of the CMT issue.

I understand that one of his competitors testified in the commercial arbitration that the road wasn't quite up to the standards he would have delivered, and that he could upgrade it to those standards for $5,000 per kilometre, which was $45,000. So if you add that $45,000 to the $123,000 that Mr. Bush bid, you're only at $168,000, which is still way lower than the $372,000 next bid.

All of these strange anomalies in the process have caused me to wonder whether there perhaps wasn't at least some embarrassment on the part of the local ministry staff or, at worst, some collusion on their part. I hate to even voice that, but it is such a wide difference that I've been wondering all along what the ministry does to check that no such collusion is going on or to check the covering of one's own tracks, since the ministry employees appear to have been so wrong about what the cost of that road should be.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: The ministry does its own estimate -- that's so they have some idea of what the market value is -- and we check the district's estimate with the regional staff who are experts in the cost of roadbuilding. We do that. I don't think there's been any evidence that there's any greater problem here than the fact that a contractor grossly underbid the project. Now, the explanation might be that he had a market for the wood that the others didn't know about, but the Ministry of Forests knew the market value of the wood when they tendered the road. That's always factored into the proposal.

K. Krueger: The minister is mistaken when he says that. No one is arguing that Mr. Bush is losing his business because he underbid the contract. He's losing his business and he's essentially bankrupt because he didn't get paid when he was supposed to get paid for the work. There had been delays, first through the CMTs and then through the onset of winter. The way people dealt with him in the whole process seems to me to have been motivated by something which may have been embarrassment over having overestimated the cost of the road and being wrong, so that somebody's head had to roll, as the ministry employee put it. Perhaps it was just embarrassment or the shame of having been involved with the other contractors who were putting in those tenders at triple what Mr. Bush could build the road for.

I'll ask again. . . . I know it's a hard thing to look at one's own employees and ask oneself whether there is wrongdoing going on in the bidding process -- whether people are deliberately underestimating the value of trees and overestimating the cost of construction. Is that kind of internal forensic auditing done in the Ministry of Forests?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: I say that if there is a shred of evidence that there's something wrong, then we will have appropriate actions taken. On a routine basis, we only do what the standards are for government. The auditor general occasionally looks at our procedures. As I say, if there is any evidence that something is wrong here, I'd be more than happy to look into it.

The member has had a detailed explanation of the other side of the story. What I hear is the aggrieved person's argument. The Ministry of Forests side of the story has been explained, and we'll examine every bit of new information you have. I would suggest that if you have some allegations or information, put it to us in writing, and we'll investigate it. So far nothing has been brought to my attention that I find highly unusual. I don't know what more could be done here. As I say, the deputy asked the member a couple of days ago if there were any lingering concerns that have not been explained. I'll have to check whether there's anything you raised here that wasn't raised there, and if there's a new concern, then we'll respond to it.

K. Krueger: To wrap this up, the deputy has been very helpful, and he did ask me that. The information that was most recently provided to me was a copy of the arbitrator's award, and I understand how it was arrived at. The letter of the law was brought down. The contractor was responsible under the Heritage Conservation Act. But I don't think that the facts I have been narrating are disputed by anyone. Sure, the ministry thought that the contractor underbid to begin with, but the contractor was getting the road built and still on his way to making a profit, until the CMT issue intervened. Then, in the arbitration process, we learned from one of the contractor's competitors that he thinks he could have built

[ Page 8490 ]

I think that putting it on the record here in the House is probably better than putting it in writing. I appreciate the commitment that the minister already made to me, but I would like a further commitment from him that he will look at those facts and that if those numbers bear out, then he will consider the possibility that there is something wrong with the bidding process in the Fraser Canyon, in this particular forest district, and have someone independent investigate that.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: I will look at the facts, but I don't think that any other evidence has been presented here that indicates there is something wrong with the bidding process in that forest district. But if there is any shred of evidence. . . . In this case, I see a ministry that asked this person if he really wanted to stand by his bid, because it was so much out of line, and the person was absolutely confident. The person must have known his responsibilities with respect to the Heritage Conservation Act and so on, and he should have built that into the bid -- some opportunity for the risk that was associated. I'm happy to look at any new evidence there might be and see if that warrants anything further. But I won't promise that it'll go any further, because I have not yet seen any evidence that there's a problem other than this isolated case.

K. Krueger: Another question is obvious from the minister's response, which I do appreciate. Is it normally acceptable practice, then, for contractors bidding on tenders with the Ministry of Forests to factor in an additional amount for the potential cost of running into a problem under the Heritage Conservation Act? In this case, is tripling the bid acceptable practice?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: I would expect that there are a number of risks: weather and other related things, including CMTs. We think it would be reasonable to expect that anybody operating in the Lillooet forest district would know that this is a potential risk and that all risks should be built into the bidding system.

[3:45]

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Well, I'm sure there are some contractors who would argue that if we cover it for CMTs, we'd do it for weather or something else. So no, I don't consider it reasonable.

K. Krueger: I'm going to leave that question, then, although it seems to me that if I were writing the cheques, I'd rather pay when that situation arose than have everybody overcharge me against the possibility that they might run into it.

The last area I'd like to explore is with regard to silviculture. I have a lot of very unhappy contractors in the North Thompson Valley -- people with fully trained work crews who aren't IWA members. Indeed, my understanding is that the history of IWA involvement in logging in the interior of B.C. and certainly in reforestation initiatives is minimal. The IWA has been more involved in coastal operations. These contractors reached a frustration level, to the point where there was a protest at the FRBC offices in Kamloops recently. Presently the reason they haven't showed up in greater numbers, as they intended to. . . . They intended, actually, to picket the economic conference in Kamloops, but they didn't because they all got work fighting forest fires in Alberta, and that's where they still are. They are a tremendous asset to our region -- a fully trained workforce such as that. There's lots of work to be done, but they haven't been getting much work at all out of the ministry in the last several years. I wonder if the minister could tell us what the immediate future holds for independent business people such as these in my constituency.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: The member himself said that they haven't been getting a lot of work over the last few years. Well, there's been no collective agreement that would affect whether or not they got the work. So we do value the work of silviculture contractors; they have made a contribution. There was a federal-provincial agreement that ran out several years ago, and that funded some of it. Then FRBC is funding some of the enhanced work.

I would suggest that silviculture contractors have to look at a full range of work: private companies, FRBC work and in particular the basic silviculture work that is still an ongoing responsibility of licensees and the Ministry of Forests small business program. We value them, but there is a declining pie out there, and there are more people who want it shared. Smaller communities are asking not to bring workers in to work in their back yards. There's a careful balancing going on out there between local employment and people who have traditionally done the work. The silviculture workers were told that there was no guarantee that the FRBC work was theirs, that people in that industry and in the other forest industries have access to Forest Renewal dollars as an opportunity to work, and that we've set local displaced forest workers as one of the highest priorities. We've also agreed that where there are existing first nations businesses, they should be incorporated into the business plans for the enhanced forestry work.

K. Krueger: With regard to the minister's comment concerning no collective agreement having been in place in prior years, that's true. But my understanding -- and again, not just from the contractors I'm dealing with, but through the network that I have in the constituency -- is that a lot of the money that was available for silviculture has been spent on mapping, administration and so on, rather than actually performing the work on the ground. In the meantime, of course. . . . The feast was long ago; the famine's been here a long time now. These people are not getting enough to sustain their operations or keep their employees on staff. Presently their understanding is that everything's on hold while the government finds a way to essentially direct all of this work through the IWA. My question to the minister is: is that a fact?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: With agreement with the opposite benches, we're going to discuss FRBC things that are pertinent and can that be discussed here when we have the officials here from FRBC. I understand that's coming up, so I'll be prepared to answer some of those questions at that time.

K. Krueger: We'll raise them again at that time.

The minister may have a similar response to the next question, but I'm not sure that all of it is dealt with through

[ Page 8491 ]

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: It's my understanding that if there's a contract in place to take product, the contracts are honoured. If the member knows otherwise, I'd be interested. The orders are put in place up to two years in advance, but when we have a downturn in the forest economy, as we have now, and harvesting isn't up to the same level. . . . We can't plant trees if we aren't harvesting them. There's going to be 10 percent fewer trees planted, and that has led to the unfortunate situation of trying to find alternatives -- getting seedlings planted on private ground or getting some other sources.

K. Krueger: What I understood the minister to say -- and I think it's an honourable thing -- is that the nursery operator wouldn't be left holding his product. The ministry would have contracted, perhaps as far as two years ahead, to take a certain number of seedlings from him, and the ministry would honour that commitment whether or not the market conditions were ideal at the time. The nursery operator wouldn't be left holding the bag, so to speak. Is that what the minister is saying?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: I would need more specifics. I say that if there's a contract in place, I would expect people to honour the contract. There may be escape clauses in contracts, for all I know. I don't know. But as a rule, the ministry contracts its own for the small business program. So if the member has some specifics, I'd be happy to look into them.

K. Krueger: Is the minister aware of any such contracts this year for seedlings and for the delivery of seedlings, where the ministry has declined to take delivery of the seedlings but has paid a penalty for them or has paid for them regardless?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: I'm not aware of any. It may have happened; I don't know. As I say, if you have some information, that's fine. It seems like you're leading somewhere. Why don't you get right to the point?

K. Krueger: I'm on my way. But the minister is vastly more knowledgable, as are the people with him, than I could be on this subject. I wasn't sure, frankly -- and perhaps most MLAs and most members of the public aren't -- whether the ministry makes commitments to pay for trees in advance. Apparently it does. Presumably there are situations where the ministry doesn't want to take delivery, and I wondered what the options were. Is the minister aware of the destruction of a large number of seedlings in British Columbia this spring because the ministry wasn't able to take delivery of them?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: The information that I have is that there are few surpluses in the interior, except in the Mackenzie district, which apparently will have to destroy some 600,000 to 700,000 seedlings. The reasons are the lack of completed blocks under the small business program -- loggers haven't logged the blocks. . . . Anyway, that's the prime reason.

K. Krueger: Will the ministry be paying for those 600,000 to 700,000 destroyed seedlings?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: If the ministry contracted to have them done, yes, they will have to pay for them.

K. Krueger: Would the minister make a commitment to the opposition -- in which case I'll soon wrap up this line of questioning -- that the ministry will disclose to us the total number of seedlings being destroyed in the province this year and the cost to the ministry when it's obliged to pay for those?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: I don't see any problem with it, but I'd appreciate the hon. member identifying where he knows or thinks there's a problem. I'd be happy to investigate.

K. Krueger: Hon. Chair -- through you, respectfully, to the minister -- the people involved are very frightened of being identified. I'm told that there are millions of seedlings being destroyed in the province as we speak. They're being shredded; they're being burned; they're being buried in large holes in the ground and turned into compost. My understanding is that the ministry is on the hook for these seedlings. There may be all kinds of reasons for that. I appreciate the minister's commitment to disclose that information to us, and I'm going to leave the matter at that and turn the questioning over to our critic for Forests.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: I'd be extremely interested in knowing what the opposition have for suggestions if you get an unforeseen downturn. What are you going to do with product you can't plant? You can try to give them away; you can do something. But there's limited ability to do that. Anyway, if the member wants an explanation, I'd be happy to get the executive director of operations to sit down with you and explain what's happening around the province, as we know it.

G. Abbott: I have a new topic. What I want to proceed with next, as I advised the minister prior to the member for Kamloops-North Thompson raising some issues of importance in his constituency, is the forest product certification issue and where British Columbia is going with respect to that issue.

In terms of background, very briefly, this is an issue that has sort of emerged to full-blown prominence in the last couple of years. It's based on the success of the Forest Stewardship Council in persuading some businesses in Europe not to sell B.C. forest products, based on, I guess, the premise that they were logged in old-growth forests or by logging systems that did not meet environmental standards, and so on. Through the success that they had with a British lumber retailer, B&Q, I believe it was -- in stopping the sale of Canadian hemlock through B&Q -- this whole issue about product certification and green-labelling and so on became an issue, whereas it had previously, I guess, been a relatively obscure one.

[4:00]

[ Page 8492 ]

There appear to be three options. It's not really three directions, because the ISO and the CSA appear to be linked, from what I have read on this. But I'm sure the minister is far more conversant on this issue than I am. I would welcome the minister's comments with respect to the alternatives on certification and what his government's position is with respect to the certification issue.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Our role is to ensure that certification doesn't become a trade barrier and that we do whatever we can to assist with certification, which is essentially a voluntary process and a requirement for people in the marketplace. But the lead has to be taken by industry. It's my position that industry has to get on with it, because we as the owners of the resource have a stake in it too, and there are communities and a lot of working people dependent on sales. It's our position that industry. . . . Industry accepts that. Industry has not said: "Government, do something that you're not doing." We make our international relations unit available, and we make our forest practices branch available to provide information.

As co-chair of the Canadian Council of Forest Ministers, I have indicated to my colleagues that I want this issue to have as much advancement as we can through our processes. We are watching the Canadian Standards process; we are watching the ISO 14000 series and the Forest Stewardship process. All of them may be different. They may all help at different levels. I think the general consideration is that there has to be an internationally acceptable standard. That's sort of the bottom line. But companies are free to advance certification as they will, and that will give them an advantage or disadvantage in the marketplace. It's for them to make the decision about which certification is best for them.

G. Abbott: To summarize what the minister has said, then, the position of this government is that it will not advance or hold up any of the certification alternatives as being superior to the others. That is essentially a decision which each company would have to make for their own reasons -- around which of those certifications they wish to seek. It is not an issue for government but rather a decision which each forest company will have to make, based on its own circumstances and conditions. Is that a fair summary of the position the minister has just advanced with respect to this issue?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Yes, that is a summary. It's a wide-open question when you ask: "What do you know about certification, and what are you doing about it?" I tried to give you some succinct answers.

We have other responsibilities -- that is, things like following up on international policy considerations, such as might come out of the international conferences on managing forests. We do have the national forest accord in Canada, which we've just signed again. British Columbia is doing its part on the background to ecological forest management and stewardship policies. We are pursuing that, and we have a responsibility to undertake the international policy commitments. I believe we have made progress on all of the undertakings we have agreed to. One of the things that falls out of that is to do development around the criteria indicators of forest sustainability and forest management issues. There is good progress being made on that, but it is a big task.

G. Abbott: I think the minister has touched on some of this, but I want to pose the question in any event: could the minister describe the dialogue, the discussions, that are going on between British Columbia and the federal government with respect to this issue of certification? Are there ongoing discussions around resolution of forest certification issues to ensure that -- as the minister said at the outset -- this won't become a barrier to trade issues? Are those discussions proceeding, and have they been productive?

[W. Hartley in the chair.]

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: I just want to make it clear that it is a market access issue, which means that it's an issue for the companies and the consumers. It's not a trade barrier issue yet, because no government body has issued or made any decision around certification that would then lead to it becoming a barrier. So there's no governmental process to attack that. But in preparation for Forests ministers' meetings in September, the deputy ministers met this June -- in fact, last week -- in order to discuss what more can be done by government.

What we've done here in British Columbia is ask industry to organize itself for this issue. We've asked them to consider putting the resources in to deal with various aspects of market access. Some of it is advertising and backing up our forest practices in Europe. That's one side of it.

No certification process in British Columbia will do; it has to be an internationally recognized process. That's why there's the interest in the ISO 14000 series and Canadian standards. There is a vast difference of opinion within the industry itself as to what will be an adequate standard. We're willing to help any company that wants to pursue any level or any brand of certification, if you will.

G. Abbott: The minister's response again touched on the next question which I was going to ask, which was on the conclusions that came out of the recent conference of deputy ministers of forestry held in Victoria on June 2. I gather that the issue of certification was discussed. Could the minister advise what recommendations were issued as a product of those discussions in Victoria?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: The conclusion of that conference was that it was a national problem and had to be seen as a national problem, that we would work with the Department of Foreign Affairs on the market access question and work with industry to help where we could to ensure that we get to a standard that is recognized and acceptable to industry and recognized in the international marketplace.

G. Abbott: One of the things that I heard by rumour and that I tended to dismiss. . . . The minister can perhaps put this notion to rest, whether there's any basis to it or not: is there any active consideration going on between B.C., other provinces and/or the federal government around a made-in-Canada certification, if you like, for forest products -- I guess, apart from the CSA, another alternative to add to the list? Is there anything to that?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Yes, there is an active group that wants the CSA standards. The only Canadian standard that I'm aware of is the CSA one, but it is for industry to agree on what that is. So it's back to industry, in the sense that government can't hand them a certification process and say: "You run with this." They have to do the work to certify their own product. I understand that that is happening under virtually all the

[ Page 8493 ]

G. Abbott: Could the minister comment on this question as well. . . ? The concern here would be around the compatibility of what the Forest Stewardship Council would require for their certification process in relation to B.C. forest policy. First of all, could the minister outline what the Forest Stewardship Council requires of those who might seek its approved label, in terms of access to old growth, clearcuts -- the range of things? Does the minister have a summary to offer of what would be required under the FSC for certification?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: I don't have the Forest Stewardship details here; I'll try to get them. There are two problematic criteria. One has to do with aboriginal issues and whether or not there's a process or a settlement to the land question. And, of course, because we don't have a large-scale settlement to that question, B.C. would never qualify. Work has to be done on that to say that we do have a treaty-making process, that we do have a process for consultations to make sure that aboriginal rights are taken into account in forest stewardship decisions.

The other issue that's problematic is with respect to cutting primary forests. That's an item and a criterion that would, if required, virtually shut down 90 percent of the logging in British Columbia. So the Forest Stewardship Council has to get their head around this issue: if they're going to certify a product in British Columbia, they have to deal with the old-growth management issue. Of course, we provide information to the council about our old-growth strategy, our protected-areas strategy, biodiversity and our old-growth planning and landscape unit planning, riparian management -- all the things that will give comfort in that area. But we suspect that it's someone trying to protect other markets -- other than British Columbia ones. Also, it is a direct targeting of our products because they come from old-growth forests.

G. Abbott: Two questions arise out of that. Is it the view of the Minister of Forests or the Ministry of Forests that FSC requirements tend to be moving goalposts? Is it in fact difficult to determine precisely what is going to be required? I guess I'd be interested if there is any further information with respect to FSC being in some measure, as the minister suggests, something designed to discourage British Columbia's commercial success in Europe. Offhand, that's something that would appear to have some merit to it. I'd be interested in the minister's further comments on those two things. Plus, when the FSC uses the term "cutting primary forests," are they, from what the minister knows, talking about old growth? Or is there some other meaning to that phrase that's embodied there?

[4:15]

With respect to any evidence about Forest Stewardship being used to affect our commercial success, no, there isn't a lot of hard evidence that that's the point. The argument is always couched in terms of the cutting practices or the preservation of old growth or the obligation of British Columbia to preserve a lot of its original forests -- because we just happen to have them. I'm saying that the effect of it is to give a commercial advantage to those who are cutting from -- who have already overcut and liquidated -- a lot of their old growth.

G. Abbott: The Forest Stewardship Council certification is something which I personally am quite uncomfortable with because of some of the concerns that the minister has outlined as well. The notion that somehow a forest lives regardless of age is, I guess, a big issue here. At a conference I was at, at UBC earlier on in the year, there was a group that were quite spirited in their views about forest management. They suggested that the ideal thing would be that a forest could exist at a certain age in perpetuity, but of course that doesn't happen. In much of British Columbia, at least, unless the resource is utilized, it tends to succumb to age, disease or insect infestation -- that kind of thing. I think that probably all members of this House have reconciled in their own minds that it's important that British Columbia's forest resource be managed in an environmentally proper manner but also be managed for economic returns and for job creation in the province. It seems to me that the Forest Stewardship Council certification is leading us down a road away from that -- to get to the point -- and I am concerned that it appears that in British Columbia one or more companies may be considering seeking that certification. I am not sure, unless there is a negotiation process around receiving certification, how those companies could, on the one hand, get certification and, on the other hand, continue to manage the forests in the manner that we have set out as appropriate through the Ministry of Forests. Does the minister have any comments about that question?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: I think that the reason no one has been successful in getting Forest Stewardship certification is because of some of the criteria, which we talked about earlier. It seems to me there are a lot of markets out there. Some markets require different things from the originators of the product, and it is not for government to intervene and say: "You can't do that." But if somebody wants to manage the forest in a certain way, then they can propose certain things. We're always looking at alternative harvesting practices, and some of those might qualify. We would hope that some of the strategies around old-growth preservation and so on would be seen, in time -- the sooner, the better -- as qualifying as good stewardship.

G. Abbott: Given these two primary alternatives of FSC certification versus CSA certification, is British Columbia alone -- or jointly with other provinces and/or the federal government. . . ? Has the province done anything in the way of promoting CSA certification as an appropriate way to deal with the certification issue?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: We were going down that road. We thought that the CSA would be the way to go, but there are companies that say that that won't cut it. As I say, there is a wide range of opinion within industry. I don't know how you're going to get that consensus, except that. . . .

Interjection.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: As I said, we've asked industry to come together on this issue if they can. If they can't, then some

[ Page 8494 ]

G. Abbott: I'm not sure who did this. . . . Oh, the Canadian Sustainable Forestry Certification Coalition, which I gather the Council of Forest Industries is a part of, did a survey on sustainable forest management recently -- January 1998. The results of that suggest that roughly 15 of 20 were looking at CSA certification; again roughly, 13 of 25 were looking at ISO 14001; and three out of 25 were looking at the FSC standard certification. As the minister suggests, there certainly is some divergence of thought within the forest community itself about what direction to go in, although certainly the great majority appear to be headed in the direction of CSA or ISO certification, as opposed to FSC. It will certainly be fascinating in the months ahead to see what kind of fate awaits the two or three that attempt to secure the FSC certification. We'll watch that with interest.

Are there any further initiatives planned by the Ministry of Forests around the certification issue in the coming year -- apart from working with, presumably, the other provinces and the federal government in moving this issue further ahead? Are there any expenditures planned or definable initiatives anticipated by the ministry to advance the certification issue in the current fiscal year?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: There may be incremental amounts more spent, if we can divert some money from within our forest practices branch or international relations unit, or whatever. We will be working with some companies as they attempt to test the methodologies in the field. But our efforts to this date involve working cooperatively with the existing resources that are devoted to this in the chief forester's office and in our international unit. We have a joint task force with industry working on that, and as we can find incremental resources, we will use them. Really, it's a consolidation and organization of present resources.

G. Abbott: I have two questions. When is the joint task force slated to report back to government with respect to the certification issue? The minister has made reference on a couple of occasions to the international section, or something, of the ministry. Could the minister summarize for us the staffing resources that are in place to deal with the certification issue within the Ministry of Forests?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: I might be wrong, but I don't believe a date has been set to report out on this issue. The international unit has four or five people in it, and they call upon the resources of the forest practices branch, the chief forester's office and so on, on a needs basis. This is managed out of our economics and trade branch, and they have the resources of that branch to call upon on a needs basis as well.

G. Abbott: Could the minister advise of the composition of the joint task force? Is it a 50-50, industry-government type of arrangement, or some other. . . ?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: I don't have the information here on exactly how many people are on it. I'm not sure that it matters how many government and how many industry people. . . .

G. Abbott: I was just looking for the balance.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: The balance? It's a cooperative venture. The last time I met with the group as it was evolving, each company was invited -- each of the major licensees was invited. We had five or six government officials on the working group. I'll attempt to get that for you. I've asked somebody to see if they can get that.

G. Abbott: I think that every member of this House was. . . .

The Chair: Is the member having trouble hearing or speaking?

G. Abbott: Well, I think that both the minister and I are, at times, having difficulty.

The Chair: Members, perhaps we could take our conversations outside of the room, if possible.

G. Abbott: I think all members of the House were disturbed by some of the actions in recent months of European environmental groups in particular, around the boycott of B.C. forest products. Could the minister advise what actions his ministry or other branches of government are proposing to undertake to counter the moves by those organizations in Europe?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: We have a program which has a focus of providing information in Europe and inviting. . . .

Interjection.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Sorry. I just want to make sure that you hear what I have to say.

The problem of the campaign tends to be one around misinformation. Our efforts are to try to get information to the right people at the right time. So we have sent over a number of joint delegations from the land use coordination office, the chief forester's office and industry. We go to the organizations of timber buyers, for example, and provide them with information. If there's a public event going on, we might send some people; the Forest Alliance might send some people. We attempt to have teams there addressing the issues. Similarly, we would invite people to British Columbia and offer them a tour to examine the forest practices and the reforestation that are out there, to try to break down some of the myths and counter the information. Also, if it's helpful, we will provide information on the forest practices record of a company, and we use the audits that we have through the Forest Practices Code audit procedures to explain the compliance of the particular companies. That's on a company-by-company basis.

[4:30]

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: I'm not sure what the member is talking about. You say "illegal actions in Europe." We don't

[ Page 8495 ]

G. Abbott: I do want to wrap up this one on certification. Just before we leave it, I'd appreciate the minister's sense of whether we are moving ahead or falling back in relation to dealing with the issues around boycotts and certification and so on, of B.C. forest products. The minister has indicated that we are working with the Forest Alliance and others to try to educate and persuade people of the environmental protection and the sound and sustainable forest practices in British Columbia, and so on. Are we moving ahead on that, or are we falling back in terms of that persuasion? Secondly, are we able to devote the same kind of resources to correcting the record as some of the environmental organizations in Europe appear to be in distorting it?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: I don't think we can ever compete with the resources of Greenpeace in Europe; that would be very costly. They have a large organization. My sense of it is that, in recent times, there have been some contracts lost, which companies have made us aware of. This time last year we were asked by industry not to raise it as an issue and not to lead with the issue. They felt that things were progressing, that we were making good progress, that the issue was dying away and that, especially with groups not being welcome -- in particular, with first nations up and down the mid-coast -- it would speak volumes to those people in Europe.

Since then, most recently over the last few months, we've lost a little ground. I think it's stabilizing, but I don't think we can let our guard down. I am most anxious that we do everything we can. Of course, we'll have to do it in concert with companies that have marketing arms in Europe.

I have raised this on several occasions with the federal minister responsible for international trade and also the minister responsible for forests, the Hon. Ralph Goodale. I've told him that this issue is really critical for his ministry and DFAIT to work together on, and he's undertaken to do that. So we are always providing information to the embassies; we have an open invitation for people visiting this country to see our practices. We find that's very effective, so we're being very aggressive at trying to bring people over here to examine our practices. I think that if we do that, we'll continue to make some ground. But I don't think we've won the battle -- no question about it. It is troublesome. We could well lose greater ground if we don't collectively redouble our efforts to ensure that we protect our products.

G. Abbott: I'd like to move along, then. I want to spend a little time on the woodlot program, because it's something which I periodically receive correspondence on. I want to make sure that some of the concerns raised to me are not ones that haven't been addressed by the ministry in a proper fashion. Again, I'll just back up a little bit, so I can have an understanding of where the government is headed around the woodlot program.

I think that since the mid-1990s, this government has had a goal of dramatically expanding the number of woodlots in the province. I think the goal at one point was 1,000 new woodlots. But I think the ministry found that goal to be unrealistic, and they backed it up to 350 or thereabouts. Could the minister advise me of the number of woodlots that currently exist in the province and how many more the minister anticipates will be added to the woodlot program in the coming fiscal year? And what is the government's goal in respect to woodlots in British Columbia?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: I'll ask the officials to try to pull out the figures. But the general thrust was that there was a commitment to double the woodlot program. There were just under 500 woodlots at that time, so you could argue that the doubling would have been 1,000. In the meantime, what happened was that the woodlots in the interior were expanded in size. So there was an increase in the program that way. Then there are between 300 and 350 that were in the process of being advertised. So I'll have to get the exact number. But the target that was set, whatever the commitment of doubling became, is 850. I don't have the information; I'm attempting to get exactly where we're at. But that's where we're headed.

G. Abbott: I presume that the philosophical underpinning of this goal or objective is to expand these tenure alternatives in the province to have more people having a stake in the forest industry in British Columbia and to diversify the size and the nature of tenures. Is that a fair description of the government's aims and intentions around this expansion of the woodlot program?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: The woodlot program is one of the types of tenures. There's nothing that really radically changed the direction of that. It is still the woodlot program that was introduced into the Forest Act when it was introduced. There has been no philosophic change in the direction of the woodlot program -- other than to say that they have to be economical. That's why they were increased in size in the interior, because of the variation in the cut.

G. Abbott: The expansion in the interior, as I recall, was generally in the 400-to-600-hectare range.

The application of the Forest Practices Code to woodlots -- as I gather from some of the ministry briefing notes that have been released to us -- has been problematic in some woodlots, because the paper burden associated with the code has been difficult to absorb on a small-woodlot basis. Has the ministry attempted to come to grips with this particular issue, to simplify or streamline the application of the code in relation to woodlots? I suppose, as the ministry might -- in relation to the issue we were discussing earlier, the application of the code to private forested land. . . . Has this been a problem? How is the ministry dealing with it?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: I think it was recognized that the application of the layering of various plans and so on to a small area-based licence was inappropriate, so the concept is to move towards a one-plan basis. When we had Bill 47 last year, a provision was introduced to provide for a simplified management regulation for the woodlot program. We have a target for the fall of '98 to introduce the new regulation. The woodlot association has been working with our operations and policy people on developing a regulation. The intent is, as I have said publicly, that we will move towards a results-based code, and we will use the woodlot program as a manageable place to do it -- a one-plan process, through a regulation that's being developed with the woodlot association.

To answer your questions about the numbers of woodlots, the goal had been revised to advertise 350 new woodlots by December '97. The target was 97 percent achieved, with 338 new woodlots being advertised by the December 31 dead-

[ Page 8496 ]

G. Abbott: Actually, I'll be looking forward with interest to seeing the form and content of the one-plan approach to woodlots. Hopefully we are moving speedily toward that kind of approach. Perhaps in the process we will even learn some things, more generally, about how those regulations could be applied to Crown lands as well.

The issue of non-compliance or non-performance in relation to woodlots is what I want to ask about next. Of the 800-and-some woodlots that now exist in the province of British Columbia, have many, if any, woodlots returned to the Crown as a consequence of non-compliance with requirements associated with woodlots or non-performance in relation to the obligation of the tenure holder to the woodlot? Has that been an issue? Have there been woodlots returned to the Crown, and for what reasons?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: I'm going to give the member a general answer, although I can attempt to further refine it. Most of the woodlots that have been returned were in the northeast, and most of them were returned because of market problems. The lack of a private market for wood means that there is a cost price. The price is based on general stumpage, and the price of the logs is whatever the market will bring. Where there is not a good private market, some woodlot owners were experiencing trouble. I think that the number that have been turned in has drastically reduced lately. There were a few who did not want the burden of the regulatory regime and have returned the woodlots. I don't have that number with me, but I'll attempt to get it for you.

[4:45]

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: On the question of magnitude, it's fewer than 50.

G. Abbott: The one issue that I actually quite regularly get correspondence on is the awarding of woodlot licences. I know that you get this correspondence too, because it either comes to me, copied to the minister, or vice versa.

There is frequently unhappiness with, I guess, the outcome on the part of some parties and suggestions that somehow the way in which they are awarded should be different. I guess it's not entirely surprising. In any situation where we have half a dozen people competing for what looks like quite an attractive tenure, the five out of six that don't get it are likely to be to some degree unhappy with the outcome and may as a consequence be critical of the process. So it's not surprising that we get some correspondence.

But the number of people who have contacted me with concerns in this regard does give rise to questions on how we're doing this. So I want to spend a little bit of time with the minister looking at how we are awarding our woodlot tenures, woodlot licences and at whether in fact the ministry is looking at any ways of better dealing with the awarding of woodlot licences. I'll start with that. The minister can outline for me, to begin, the process where problems or disputes have occurred in the past around the awarding of woodlot licences and whether his ministry anticipates any changes in that process to satisfy the concerns of some of the critics of this.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Well, the awarding is done based on a set of criteria that are set ahead of time. It's upfront in the applications. It generally is management, intent, experience, proximity -- in some cases, private land contribution. Those are the general criteria. The weighting is set in advance. There is an evaluation procedure. It is under review again; it's reviewed periodically. I know that the woodlot association does raise concerns with the ministry, and usually some of these things are addressed at the annual meeting.

But there is some subjectivity, because you can't quite precisely manage to pick a number on all of these things. It is a judgment call. The problem has been around the popularity of the program, particularly when timber prices were high. Everybody wanted to jump in and get one, and of course there is always disappointment for those who don't get awarded a woodlot.

G. Abbott: Certainly in any process there have to be established criteria to work from. The two concerns that I hear most frequently -- and I'd be interested in the minister's response to these concerns -- are, firstly, that the process, the selection system, the awarding system, tends to be loaded up in favour of people who have a lot of experience already in the forest industry, including former Ministry of Forests personnel, who tend, in the opinion of the critics, to have a kind of inside track on this; and secondly, that there is too much preference given in some instances to people who have professional forestry degrees. I guess the argument here would be -- and this is not my argument; I'm making a hypothetical argument here: "I'm a neighbour to an area that's proposed for a woodlot. It would tie in really well with my farm, but I can't do it because the system is weighted against me. I don't have a professional forestry background. I may be a John Deere tractor logger from way back, but I'm not a professional forester, and hence the system is built in a way that effectively prevents me from ever accessing a woodlot licence." I have to have some sympathy for that argument, and I'd be interested in what the minister's response to that particular issue is.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Well, the goal that the ministry sets is really to have quality management. There are two aspects of that: people being able to plan and people being able to deliver the product on the ground. I agree with you that it shouldn't be so complex that somebody can't learn to manage a more sophisticated logging system. But care, and all those kinds of things that have to do with the culture of logging. . . . All that is important. I don't think there's any easy way around it. Too much preference to people with professional forestry. . . . Well, that indicates a level of knowledge. We have to look at education and knowledge and experience, and it's a combination of those things that are assessed when we look at candidate suitability.

I would hope that people's relevant experience is taken into account, but it depends, really, on the management prescriptions that are implicated in the woodlot. If it's in a

[ Page 8497 ]

Interjection.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: It is sometimes difficult. . . . The acoustics here are such that I can't hear -- and I can't hear myself think. That's the biggest problem.

The selection -- you said -- in favour of people with experience, including people who have had Ministry of Forests experience. . . . Well, I think the same would go for experience working with a company or working with a forest consulting firm. I think those things have to go hand in hand. So we have to be careful. We have excluded people who currently work in the ministry from applying, but there is a rights issue here, in that everybody shouldn't be discriminated against. We've tried to handle that, and I think we've managed that issue. I'm not aware that it's a big problem. I think we've been through a lot of the worst of the problems. They've tried to address them. But it still is a factor: getting somebody or a combination of people who've got the requisite experience to do a very good job.

G. Abbott: It was certainly not my intention to identify former ministry employees as the concern here. They would just be one example. The minister is absolutely right that it may be people who have been forestry consultants. They may have been foresters in private industry, or whatever. The point that has been made to me repeatedly -- and I'm trying to understand whether the system can be adjusted or adapted in a way that will overcome this concern. . . . The concern here is that in the weighting that is given in the selection of woodlot licences, those individuals who have a professional forestry background, regardless of whether it's government, industry or consulting -- wherever they came from -- tend to have a built-in advantage and that on many occasions it is difficult, if not impossible, for the non-professional to overcome that disadvantage.

Again, I appreciate what the minister has said about there having to be some basis on which these are awarded. I guess where I should take the line of questioning next is: what is the ministry currently looking at in terms of how we can reform the process of awarding woodlot tenures in a way that recognizes professional experience and professional achievement, but at the same time doesn't unnecessarily diminish the opportunity for the non-professional to secure a woodlot? Are there specific ideas that the ministry is exploring to overcome this significant problem for those seeking woodlot tenures?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Well, there are two things. One is simplified planning process, which then would make it possible for non-professionals to achieve satisfactory results. We are currently examining the criteria with the woodlot association. The association and the ministry are working on the selection criteria, so it will be a collaborative effort.

G. Abbott: That's good, because I think that the woodlot form of tenure is a good addition to the array of tenures we have in the province. It holds some promise as a way to add additional tenures in the province. But I do think -- and these are my closing thoughts on this -- that the issue of how we award those really needs closer attention. As I think the minister is suggesting, no process can be perfect. But somehow we need to come to grips with that professional-non-professional distinction so that we can get away from the suggestions that the system is weighted too heavily toward the professionals. I suppose, as in most things in the marketplace, that as a number of tenures are added and so on over time, there may be some righting of that anyway. But it appears to be a continuing problem; I hope it's one that the ministry can resolve.

I think that pretty much concludes my questions around woodlots. The only other outstanding issues that I know of are around the transfer of woodlot licences. Has the ministry made any changes in the recent fiscal year, or do they plan any in the coming fiscal year, around the transfer of woodlot licences -- for example, transfer within a family unit, transfer of a woodlot licence management unit within a partnership, or transfer upon death or retirement of a licensee. How is the province proposing to deal with transfers and the issue of sales of those tenures in the future?

[5:00]

G. Abbott: In fact, I don't have any specific instances of a failing. I was curious as to whether the ministry was contemplating any expansion of the means currently available to transfer under certain circumstances.

Just so I can confirm a point that the minister mentioned earlier. . . . I had mentioned the issue of former ministry employees winning woodlot licences. The minister correctly pointed out that people -- not only in the ministry but in consulting, in the industry and so on -- with forestry backgrounds had also been successful in winning woodlot licences. Does the ministry have a specific policy with respect to staff and woodlots? Is an active employee of the Ministry of Forests, or any ministry of government, excluded from the ownership of a woodlot? Is there a specific policy around that?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Yes, there is a directive from the assistant deputy minister which basically says to employees: if you want to compete you have to resign.

G. Abbott: The direction from the assistant deputy minister to staff is that if they wish to be woodlot owners, they will not be Ministry of Forests employees at the same time. Was that directive in response to specific concerns or a theoretical possibility of that occurring, or was it a problem that had to be remedied through that means?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: It's my understanding that the policy has been in place since the late eighties. The directive was issued because there had been inquiries from employees. But I understand that some employees, previous to that, had held licences. They were grandparented in the procedure. So it was effective prospectively -- if anybody wanted to compete, they had to resign.

G. Abbott: Unless colleagues of mine have questions on woodlots, I would like to move next to the small business forest enterprise program, I guess now renamed Small Business 2000.

Before I do that, however, I'd like the minister, if he would, to respond to some specific constituency questions

[ Page 8498 ]

A. Sanders: I recognize that this area has been canvassed, and I would like to specifically address a single issue within that larger area.

In the Lumby area, which is a very important part of my riding, the issue of burner phase-out at the Riverside Forest Products mill has been raised. Could the minister tell me if he is aware of the Riverside issue with respect to burner phase-out?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Yes, I'm aware of it, but issues specific to burner phase-out really should be raised with the Minister of Environment, because the regulation of burners is within that minister's responsibility. But I am aware of it, yes.

A. Sanders: So would the minister please advise me if this is something that I should bring up specifically with the Minister of Environment and that it won't get lost in the fray if there's no crossover between leaving the Forestry estimates unaddressed and moving into Environment?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: The Minister of Environment was here earlier in the day and was anxious to deal with that in her estimates, specifically because we haven't canvassed the minister's estimates yet. It is appropriate and timely to do that.

G. Abbott: To move to the small business forest enterprise program. . . . It's now Small Business 2000, if I've got the moniker right. I think that's correct.

Would the minister like to take a minute? Are there any other staff that need to come in on this?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Perhaps just a very short recess -- five minutes. We have asked for the staff to be here.

The committee recessed from 5:06 p.m. to 5:12 p.m.

[W. Hartley in the chair.]

G. Abbott: I do want to deal with the small business forest enterprise program, or Small Business 2000, as it's now been renamed. The small business program is obviously an important one in British Columbia. It's also obviously a program that has experienced some difficulties in past years, and I presume that some of the steps undertaken in creating Small Business 2000 are in the line of trying to correct the problems that have occurred in the past with respect to that program.

At the outset, I want to talk about the significant challenge frequently facing remanufacturers and value-added producers in accessing the fibre that they need to undertake their operations. Expansion of small business sales and so on assists them, clearly, in the objective of getting the raw material they need in order to produce the product they have in mind. But one of the indirect problems, as well, over and above just accessing the sales, has been stumpage. I can point to a few examples of this problem, some from my own riding of Shuswap. Remanufacturers or value-added producers that had chronically been starved for fibre had, it appeared, found salvation by being awarded small business sales. Then they found, because of the stumpage associated with those sales, that they could no longer economically harvest the wood on those sales or manufacture products from that wood and hope to achieve a return on it.

[5:15]

I think I understand clearly enough how stumpage relief will be achieved on tree farm licences and so on. I understand how the stumpage line is going to change for the licensees and for the timber licences and so on. What is not clear is how the small business sales are going to benefit from stumpage reductions. We can clearly see the line drop for the licensees on the coast by $8.10 a cubic metre -- for the coast region and the coast appraisal system. We're going to see the line -- this is the line that includes the superstumpage to Forest Renewal B.C., obviously -- drop $3.50 in the interior. What is going to happen with small business sales? Are they going to benefit from stumpage relief, or is there something which prevents small business sales from benefiting from stumpage relief? Could the minister explain the application of it to small business sales?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: The stumpage adjustment was not tenure-specific. It really did relate to all cutting permits, all licences that had been signed on with an adjustable stumpage rate. But if someone elected, at the time of bidding, to have a fixed stumpage rate to protect against rising prices, they won't get the benefit. Just for your background information, when we raised the stumpage in '94, those with fixed rates didn't have theirs go up either. Everybody else's went up, but the fixed rate didn't go up. That's the general response.

G. Abbott: There are, I gather, two ways in which small business sales can proceed. One is the fixed stumpage rate, and the other is a variable rate. Is the minister saying, then, that for variable stumpage rate situations in small business sales, they will benefit from a reduction in the stumpage line?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Yes.

G. Abbott: My colleague the member for Okanagan-Boundary has raised with me the matter -- others have, as well, but his just happens to be at the top of the pile here -- of small business sales. In this case, T.L. Timber of Cawston have raised the issue with the member, as their MLA. It's their understanding. . . . Hopefully, there is a misunderstanding here that the minister has just corrected. Apparently, in this case T.L. Timber bid successfully on two timber sales, one with variable stumpage rates. The other used what is termed tabular pricing, or a fixed stumpage rate. He apparently was advised recently that in both cases there would be no stumpage reduction to the firm. Am I understanding that there is some misunderstanding around that -- that the fixed stumpage rate remains fixed and there will be no stumpage relief, but that for those with the variable stumpage rate, there will be relief? Was this individual advised incorrectly by I don't know who that his variable stumpage rate on the one sale did not apply, and in fact it does apply?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: I'm informed by the director of the revenue branch, who implements these, that if it was in fact a

[ Page 8499 ]

G. Abbott: For my edification, could the minister, in consultation with Mr. Howard, provide a brief description of how that will be achieved on the variable stumpage rates? I understand how it's achieved with the licensees. How will it be achieved in small business sales? Will it be a reduction on the upset portion of the stumpage sale? Or through what other mechanism will it be achieved?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: All of the upsets were reduced. On the coast the upsets went down $9.45, and in the interior they went down $4.90.

G. Abbott: I'm sorry, could the minister repeat those? I missed them.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: On the adjustable sales, the upset stumpage went down $9.45 on the coast and $4.90 in the interior.

G. Abbott: For those who have fixed stumpage rates and who may be questioning the fairness of the relief being applied to variable stumpage rates but not to fixed stumpage rates, what argument can be made to persuade them that it is fair to reduce the upset price by a fixed number for the variable stumpage rates but not for the fixed?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Stumpage being under consideration was no secret. Anybody accepting a sale in the last year knew we were working on stumpage adjustments. Hopefully, they knew what their sales were when they bid. It was a business decision to opt for the fixed rate. The argument is that we didn't raise it for them when we raised it in '94, because they opted for a fixed rate, and when we reduced it, we felt it was fair to leave the fixed at fixed levels, because they knew what they were getting into. They knew that they could have taken their chances and accepted a variable rate on the prospect that stumpage would come down. Some did. Just to go back to where we started this discussion, most of the remanufacturers were on a variable rate, so most of them will be seeing a reduction.

G. Abbott: I suspect that there will be a good deal of relief for those who hold small business sales with variable stumpage rates.

Again, this is purely a technical question, but how will that stumpage relief be realized by the holders of the tenure? At what point does it start to appear? Could you give me just a brief technical explanation of how the relief will find its way into the hands of the holders of the small business licences?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Effect is given to the stumpage reduction by the scaling after June 1, so anything scaled after June 1 will be at the new stumpage rate. Anything scaled before will be at the old rate. So it's the date of scaling.

G. Abbott: I appreciate the succinct explanation of that.

One of the concerns around the creation of the new Small Business 2000 has been. . . . Again, I get copies of these things that are sent to the minister, and I'd appreciate the minister's response with respect to the large number of letters that have been sent to him from different parts of the province around the allocation of category 1 wood, category 2 wood, etc. Because, I must confess, I don't clearly understand what is being said here, I want to quote the letter. Perhaps it'll make more sense to the minister and the staff this way, and they'll be able to better explain what's at stake here. "Due to the directives of the jobs and timber accord, the government has committed to reapportion timber within the small business forest enterprise program to the remanufacturing portion of the program. Specifically, one million cubic metres of timber normally sold from category 1, category Any or category 2 will be transferred to the bid proposal apportionment." Could the minister translate that for me and offer an explanation of what's happening, why there's a concern and what is being done about it?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: One of the things that was going on with the small business program was that the majors, who had their fixed costs paid for by the major wood coming from their licences, often were able to pay an incremental amount more and get a prime price from the people in the small business program, who could, when they purchased the wood, sell it to a major or remanufacturer or anyone they wanted to. We made the intentional decision to take $1 million more of that category and put it into bid proposals, so it now has to go to a value-added sale. The bid proposal sale is a value-added sale. In order to bid on that portion of small business wood, you have to put it to a remanner. So we've increased the amount of wood available for bid proposals -- that is, for remanufacturers. We've reduced the amount of wood in the small business program, that part of it where market loggers buy it and sell it to whomever they wish. We've made the assumption that the problem is getting wood to the remanners. The remanners said: "You get us more wood, and we'll create the jobs." So we've had to divert some wood, because it doesn't go there on the market system.

G. Abbott: If one million cubic metres has been transferred to the bid proposal apportionment, does that mean that the total apportionment is now one million, or was the million added onto an amount that was already in place? And the second part of the question would be: with the one million cubic metres transferred to the bid proposal apportionment, what remains to be is sold on an open-market basis by the small business sale holders?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: We can't put our fingers on that particular figure. We do have it, and we'll attempt to get it to you. I'd rather not guess at it; I'll get you the precise figure. I know people are looking for that figure.

G. Abbott: It's an important point. So if the figure is arrived at during our discussion here, that would be useful. It is an important issue, obviously, to determine. . . . If the minister could just advise when he does have those figures available, that would be useful.

[5:30]

[ Page 8500 ]

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: The small business forest enterprise program still exists as the program, and all the licensing and the Forest Act and regulations go with it. The Small Business 2000 initiative is a project; it's an initiative to combine a number of aspects of changes in the program that will direct more fibre to the remanufacturers. I'll get the elements of the program. . . . You know, those elements and outlines of the debate that you mentioned. . . . We will have people lined up for that. We are canvassing general issues now, so we don't have all that information with us. But I'll get it for you.

G. Abbott: It would be useful to have that information as well. I'm not sure. . . . Where I'm really going with this particular file is to whether the kind of ongoing problems with respect to the delivery of the small business forest enterprise program are being resolved in any way by the creation of Small Business 2000. To do that, I think we need some of the figures, documentation and so on that we've talked about and which is not readily at hand.

I'll leave it to the minister. If he would like me to set this aside for the time being and canvass some other topic and allow him to prepare the staff or figures that are necessary, I'd be happy to do that. But if he thinks that we can slowly -- or quickly, as the case may be -- make our way through this issue right now, I'd be glad to do that too.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: I think we should set that aside till I've pulled the information together. If you have some other questions we can get to, I'd appreciate that.

As we're here. . . . There was a question earlier by one of your colleagues about whether or not white pine cants are exempt from the softwood lumber agreement. The answer is no; they are covered by the softwood lumber agreement.

G. Abbott: I'll set aside for the moment my questions on the small business forest enterprise program. My colleague from West Vancouver-Garibaldi has some questions on the small business area. Perhaps we'll see if these ones can be answered at this point in time.

T. Nebbeling: I'd like to ask a couple of questions, more as a checking mechanism as to what has happened since last year's introduction of the jobs and timber accord and the elements within the jobs and timber accord that related to the small business forest enterprise program.

As the minister is aware, the majors made a commitment to make more timber available to the remanufacturers, to the secondary industries and to the tertiary industries as well. I have not really been watching how much of the so-called committed wood -- indeed, lumber -- was taken away or was given up by the majors to kick-start the secondary manufacturers. Can the minister maybe give me a rundown of how that program has worked and how much lumber has actually gone away from the majors and towards the secondary or the value-added manufacturers?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: We're talking about the wood fibre transfer program. It will be facilitated by three facilitators -- two in the interior and one on the coast. Two of these positions have been advertised. But as you know, the major licensees have accepted overall responsibility for the program, so they are managing it and will provide the information. There is no report on. . . . I can give you no status on how much timber has flowed, because the program is not up and running. It's going to take us several years. We did say we were going to review it after two years. So a year in, we don't have a lot of progress, other than the facilitators and the terms and conditions of those facilitators who assist in this. This is essentially an arrangement. We have a target of 16 percent in the interior and 18 percent on the coast, and that will be measured. We will ask the jobs and timber accord advocate to oversee that process if necessary. As I say, the progress to date is that two of the positions that I'm aware of have been advertised and are going through the selection process.

T. Nebbeling: We may be talking about different programs, although this particular part of the program is interesting to me as well. It's fine to say that the industry -- the majors -- are indeed responsible for not only managing the programs but making sure that some of the timber exchanges do happen. At the same time, I would expect the government to have a mechanism in place today, because it is well over a year that this program is supposed to be moving forward -- I won't say functioning yet. There must be a mechanism in place today to make sure that indeed some of these steps are undertaken by the majors, as the majors in turn have been given some concessions. So the little material that is available on what kind of segments have been incorporated in achieving these transfers. . . . Can the minister maybe just give me a quick rundown on that, or does he not have any information on that either?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: As the accord states, it is a commitment on the part of the major licensees. The only monitoring mechanism is the facilitators that are being hired. They will help make the deals, but it is essentially deal-making between those members of the forest sector. So we didn't set up a new branch to monitor that; we said we will review success after two years.

T. Nebbeling: Just so the minister can maybe update me a little. . . . At the time that the jobs and timber accord was introduced, there was a commitment made to the small business forest enterprise program for additional lumber. That additional lumber was in part because there was a backlog in the trading of lumber to the small operators, the remanufacturers, and in part it was because some new fibre was going to be added to the pot, so to speak. A year later, in my area at least, I still find small mills not having the ability to really keep working -- sometimes not even a full shift, but definitely not two shifts. It is primarily because of the lack of lumber. One mill in my area actually got to the point that they had to go to the islands to find some lumber. So I don't know if the initiative that was introduced last year is actually working. If the minister can give me some background or follow-up on the positive elements that came from that bold move, I would appreciate it.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: In order to help this process, industry -- the remanners and the majors -- set up an issues committee, which is a joint committee. They reviewed progress to date. The information I have coming back from the committee -- which met, as I said, last week -- is that they're happy with the progress. It isn't completed by any means, and this will go on to be a problem. . . . This is an undertaking by the majors;

[ Page 8501 ]

T. Nebbeling: I was focused on the small sawmills, because they were the area where, in general, there was very little wood available to keep them going, and that created serious problems. Considering that last year, when we discussed this issue, the minister made available a couple of million cubic metres of lumber that were going to be distributed. . . . At the time of that discussion, which was also the time of the new way of getting lumber to the small mills, there were four or five offers already out. So it looked like the sawmills' needs were recognized as a serious issue, and the minister took some quick steps to deal with that. We are now a year further ahead. I would like to know how much of that program, which was focused on the small sawmill operators, has actually made life a little bit more bearable for small sawmills. Or have we seen more sawmills close down because the wood supply is still not available to them?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: The general problem for the small business people right now is a market problem. I don't hear very many complaints about lack of wood; where I do, I pursue it to see if there's something that can be done. In the planning to make this extra 1.8 million cubic metres available, we made it available through the various small business programs. Specifically, a million of it was in the bid proposal which is targeted to remanners. That wood is now in the process of being advertised. So we've found where it is. District by district, region by region, it's being made available. Already, significant volumes have been transferred into that program. I've signed off, putting it into that program, and it is being advertised. In fact, I believe some of the sales have already been conducted. So a year later we've got the million cubic metres in the hopper and coming out as sales -- for which the people you speak of will qualify.

T. Nebbeling: I don't want to be critical. I haven't focused much on the Forests ministry; and to be critical, you have to have knowledge. I'm really just going on what the issues were a year ago when we went through estimates, and I'm trying to find out if there have been improvements in these areas. However, I must say that a year later, only now is it in the hopper; only now is the wood going out. I think some of the companies may have had problems with that.

One of the ways the small sawmill owners tried to find solutions to this ongoing, "Where is my next lumber going to come from to go through my mill?" was to. . . . There was a thought process going on that maybe small mills should have small quotas. Has that ever been given further consideration, or has there actually been something happening in that regard?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Yeah, if there's any criticism to be levelled on this part of the program -- i.e., the wood fibre transfer program -- it can go back to the major licensees who undertook to do it. As I said, there's been progress made on all aspects of it. We didn't undertake to make those transfers from the major licensees. They undertook to do that. They will have do that, and we will have to review progress on that after two years.

[5:45]

On the wood fibre transfer part of it, we have no progress to report other than: the process is in place. There is a process to track the targets by industry; that's in process. But we don't have the system yet, because the industry itself has not agreed on how they disclose their information, and we have to work through how to protect the privileged information. So we'll have to have disclosure of the information in reporting. We'll be discussing that with the timber jobs advocate.

T. Nebbeling: Thank you. As I started on my question, it was focused on the role of the majors in the context of the supply of more lumber or timber to the smaller sawmill operators. Secondly, my question was also, then. . . . Although the majors do control the process, somewhere the Ministry of Forests has to be responsible to make sure that indeed the program is implemented in such a manner that it does what it is supposed to achieve, and that is to give small sawmill operators a business viability.

I think that was part of the reason this program was initiated. As much as I trust the majors to be good corporate citizens, I don't think the ministry should allow a whole year to go by without checking. And if the two-year period that initially was agreed on was done well, that was maybe a mistake; maybe it should have been only a year, so at this time we could see what happened.

The reason I'm saying this is that the beneficiaries of this program -- the small sawmill operators -- were in dire straits at the time that this was introduced. They just couldn't get supply, and they never knew where the next load was coming from to keep the mill going. So as I said earlier on, the small mill operators truly saw salvation in solving their problem in getting a share of the annual allowable cut guaranteed through a small quota system. I don't know if the minister has considered this kind of approach toward assuring timber for the small mills or if there have been other mechanisms put in place besides the role of the majors to assure small mill owners an opportunity to have a long-term planning mechanism.

The other point I quickly want to raise to the minister is, of course, the fact that when he stated that the market today is such that the small mill operator may not have much business viability. . . . One of the reasons that I've always supported small mills is the fact that they often create specialty woods of special dimensions. Where the traditional lumber market may be flat, I can guarantee you that there is still an incredible market for specialty wood, including in Japan. So where these small operators have got order books that they can't fill because they don't get the lumber, to me the answer lies in finding a mechanism that ensures the lumber will come to the small mill, rather than the program that is now in place, which is, in a sense, at the goodwill of the majors. Has the minister considered a quota for small mills?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: If by quota you mean licences with renewable terms, no. We are making some of the terms of

[ Page 8502 ]

Noting the time, I'd like to move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; the Speaker in the chair.

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

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

Hon. J. MacPhail: Hon. Speaker, I move that the House at its rising stand recessed until 6:35 p.m. and thereafter sit until adjournment.

The Speaker: It is a debatable motion, and I recognize the Opposition House Leader.

G. Farrell-Collins: I will be the first of probably a long line of speakers on this side of the House. Let me just let members be aware of how we got where we are here today. Normally in the past, when we moved to late-night sittings, the House has been informed of that with a little bit of advance notice so members have a chance to adjust their schedules. In some cases, the desire or the need to sit late has actually been warranted. This isn't one of the cases.

We received the directive -- if I can put it that way -- yesterday afternoon that the House was going to start this evening sitting until 10 p.m. and continue that way for some time. That obviously puts many members of the Legislature at a disadvantage, because many members have schedules -- other arrangements and other commitments that they're required to make. When government members are advised, and opposition member are then advised less than 24 hours before the next day's sitting starts, it puts them at a disadvantage. I think the discourtesy that's shown by such little warning is unwarranted, and it indicates a government that's come to be extremely arrogant in the way it chooses to manage the Legislature.

The Legislature is not the plaything of the government. The Legislature is the place where all members have a chance to represent their constituents, the people that elect them to come here. They have a duty to represent them as best they can -- to debate, to bring their issues forward and to have them discussed in a meaningful way, in a timely and efficient manner.

The session to date, despite its late start relative to when it has normally started, has moved along quite well. In fact, the estimates have been moving on relatively well. I'd just like to draw members' attention to Votes and Proceedings, and they'll find Committee of Supply, the estimates debate. . . . We've already finished at this date: Advanced Education, Training and Technology, Agriculture and Food. . . . We've finished the Attorney General's estimates -- traditionally one of the more lengthy estimates in this chamber, given the broad area that they cover since the merging of two ministries into the Attorney General. The Education estimates -- K-to-12, and one of the more lengthy estimates -- were completed in early May. Energy, Mines and Northern Development is completed. The Fisheries ministry estimates are completed. The Small Business, Tourism and Culture ministry has completed its estimates. Transportation and Highways, one of the largest ministries as far as individual members making representations on behalf of their constituents, has also been completed -- as has Women's Equality.

In fact, the estimates have gone remarkably well this session, and I think all members would agree with that. I've heard comments made by members of the House about how well things are progressing, how efficiently we're moving through the legislative agenda. But that's not all. If you look at past years and at the Votes and Proceedings and find out where the government's legislative agenda has been at this point in time, you will find a remarkably different scenario to what we face in this session.

If you look at the beginning of June of last year, I think there were 26 or 27 bills on the order paper, and less than a half dozen had been passed. Many of them had not even received second reading, let alone any examination in committee stage. The member for Esquimalt-Metchosin is here, and he'll recall -- he was House Leader for one year. . . . If you look at Votes and Proceedings for this year, you'll find that there are 28 or 29 bills on the order paper. All except for four have not only received second reading, but they've also received their examination in committee and third reading and have passed. Over half of them have already received royal assent.

If one looks at the legislative agenda, at the government's legislative calendar and at the estimates process. . . . We all made a commitment coming into the session this year to be efficient in how we spent the time in this chamber. We all made a commitment to do the job thoroughly but expeditiously and efficiently and to not waste people's time. That is, in fact, what has happened. We have moved very, very well in what I think is a fairly cooperative manner through the first three. . . . What is it ? April, May and part of June. Two months and a week of the Legislature. In two months and a week, that's the amount of business that we've accomplished with regular sitting hours. We have three estimates that need to be debated in this chamber. One of them is Forests, and that's well under way. The other is Children and Families, and the third is the Ministry of Health. The latter two are relatively large ministries, that's true. But given the pace with which estimates have been moving this session, one would think that they would move along in the same pattern.

In fact, there was a report done by the media some time ago -- about two or three weeks ago I think; it was on television and in print -- where they did an analysis across the country. They looked at the various legislatures and the Parliament in Ottawa and made the comment that, in fact, legislatures are sitting less, that legislators aren't spending as much time in the chamber debating their issues. Rather, they're out in their constituencies. Their ministers are off doing their jobs, and MLAs are representing their members otherwise. There were comments from members of this House and from the media who report on this chamber that, in fact, that is the case.

[ Page 8503 ]

In fact, three of these bills we offered to complete. . . . We could have done them on Monday. We offered to finish them Monday afternoon in second reading and move them into committee. A couple of them probably could have been completed in committee that day too. The opposition has gone out of its way to try to move those issues through the chamber that are not contentious, that are not complex, in a quick and expedient way. We've gone out of our way to cooperate. We've gone out of our way to focus the debate on those issues that require focus, that require attention, and to not spend time on items that are not contentious or not complex.

[6:00]

There are very few tools available to an opposition in this Legislature to oppose a government action; whether it be a policy matter that's discussed through estimates or a legislative matter that appears on the order paper in the form of a bill, there are very, very few opportunities for opposition members to do that. So when we move through those non-contentious items in a fairly smooth, cooperative way, and we still end up being put into the situation of night sittings at a moment's notice -- "clear your calendar," all of a sudden everything's become urgent -- what it says to members opposite is that there's no incentive for, no benefit to cooperating or negotiating. There's no discussion around the order of business in this House: it will be what is dictated to the members of this House by the Premier's Office and the Government House Leader's office.

When a Government House Leader does that -- when a Premier does that, when a government does that -- the incentive to cooperate, to move things through efficiently and expeditiously, is gone. That ability disappears. Members then perhaps want to do a very thorough examination of their estimates. They may want to spend -- oh, who knows -- a week on Labour or a week on Municipal Affairs in estimates, even if they do sit until 10 o'clock. I know members on this side of the House are chomping at the bit to go hours and hours in their estimates. I know that some of these bills may only have a few sections in them, but a lot of members in my caucus would love to get up and speak to them at length. I know that they'd love to have half-hour speeches on all of them to mail back to their constituents and let them know how they felt about the Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act, 1998. That's good information that can go back to the constituents.

I know how much politicians love to talk. I know members on our side would love to get up in some of these debates and speak at length, and they're more than prepared to do it.

An Hon. Member: Miscellaneous statutes -- those are my favourite.

G. Farrell-Collins: I hear the Attorney General critic say that the Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act is his favourite, because there's all sorts of stuff that members can talk at length about. It may be repetitious, but at least the members and their constituents get to know that their member and every member of the opposition -- not just one member, not just the critic -- had a chance to get up and speak at length about it. Members like that, members appreciate that, especially when you compare it with the absolute invisibility of government backbenchers speaking on these issues. We never see a government backbencher get up in the House and talk about any legislation or estimates or the burning issues in their constituencies. We never see them.

I know that my colleague and good friend the member for Matsqui was up in Golden a little while ago. He's a strong guy, because with him he hauled up a stack of the Blues from this legislative session -- two big binders. The reason he was up there is because there was a threat that the people in that community were going to lose their medical clinic because of the doctors' dispute. So the member for Matsqui, in his attempt to do his usual thorough research and complete understanding of an issue, went through those Hansard Blues. He looked -- page after page, item after item, line after line -- for one single comment from the MLA for that area, the member for Columbia River-Revelstoke, to find out how many times he'd spoken and what he'd said about the issue. You don't want to go into an MLA's community not knowing what they've said about an issue. You want to know what they've said; you want to know where they stand. All through the trip up there, the member was flipping his pages. He couldn't find one instance, not one example, not one word, not even an introduction of somebody from his riding in relation to this issue. Not one intervention did he make. So I would expect that. . . . I know how members of the opposition want to get in there and talk about it. The member for Matsqui went all the way up to Golden just to participate in that discussion and debate and talk to the people in that area.

An Hon. Member: The selflessness of that. . . .

G. Farrell-Collins: I know. He's a martyr. He went up there, and he spoke to those people and relayed to them what the opposition had done on that issue. The fact that the member was nowhere to be seen. . . . He's still nowhere to be seen, hon. Speaker. None of them are anywhere to be seen.

I know that members on this side of the House would love to get in there and really spend a lot of time doing that sort of stuff. If this is the way the government intends to run the House -- that it's their plaything and that despite an orderly progression of government business, there has somehow been an emergency, a crisis. . . . I can't see the backlog. I'm sure it must be there somewhere; but I've flipped through here and I can't see the backlog, the grinding halt, to which

[ Page 8504 ]

I don't see where the backlog is. But if there's going to be a backlog, we want to be part of it. If there's going to be a backlog, let's have a real backlog. Let's really have a backlog. Let's get up and have all 33 members of the opposition talk at length about the problems in their communities, about health care. Holy smokes! We've all got crises in health care in our constituencies -- all of us do. If we had to get all 33 members up talking at length about all the crises that are taking place in health care in their constituencies, boy, we could be here for a long time. Then you'd see a backlog!

If the members felt that the next five bills or so that came into the Legislature really did need some in-depth, at-length analysis -- maybe it would have an impact on all 75 ridings, and certainly all 33 ridings in the opposition -- those members might want to get up and do that, and then we'd have a backlog on the order paper. Then we'd see what takes time. Then we'd see how much time it took to pass some of this legislation.

Where's the incentive for the opposition to cooperate with the government? Where is it? Where's the incentive? At the end of last session, the Premier talked about cooperation. He wanted to sit down with the Leader of the Opposition. He talked about ways to make the House work better, and there were some discussions on that. We come in here, and everything seems to be going along fairly well. The little glitches we've had in some parts of the agenda have been sorted out, more or less, and things are moving along. All of a sudden, boom! There's a backlog. If this government has a backlog, let's see it.

We're now into June. The government's telling us they want to be out at the end of June. That's just not going to happen. But if they want to be out at the end of June, let's see the legislation. Where is it? So far we've had 28 or 29 pieces of legislation, and that's it. Where's the rest of it? Where is it? How can the opposition tell how long it's going to take to move through the session when we don't even have the privilege of seeing what is on the government's agenda, on the order paper?

We know what estimates there are, and the estimates -- as I've shown members -- have moved through fairly quickly. In fact, if you look at those that have been completed and those that are yet to be completed. . . . I've mentioned the three that have to be completed in the big House, in this chamber. Let me just run through those that need to be dealt with in Committee A, in the Douglas Fir Room: Aboriginal Affairs; Employment and Investment; Environment; Finance; Labour. That's it; that's what's left. Where's the rush? Where's the backlog? We've been here two months and a week, and we've moved through that much legislation. It's important for members to remember, too, that in the first three weeks of the session -- the first three weeks of those two months and a week -- there is no Committee A, because we're debating the budget and the throne speech. For that three weeks, there is no Committee A. There is no estimates process taking place in Committee A, because it doesn't sit. So where's the crisis? Where's the backlog? I don't see it.

If we had 60 bills on the order paper and we'd done 20 of them, and we'd moved through four or five estimates and that was it, I'd probably have to agree with the government that maybe we'd better start spending a little more time in here and start to buckle down and get to work. But the work is being done. It's being done efficiently and effectively. It's progressing at a normal pace. It's going well. Members are having the ability to give their input and to debate the issues. We're not having to sit there for hours and hours on end listening to things that aren't relevant or particularly pertinent. It's gone very well.

I can honestly say that we may end up in that situation where that detailed examination needs to be done, because that's the only other opportunity that's available to the opposition -- if consultation, agreement and some sort of cooperation doesn't work.

One of the other things that I want to talk about. . . . If the government was so urgent about moving this Legislature along and getting everything through the Legislature, one of the things they could have done was call the House earlier. We came in right at the very end of the fiscal year. I think there were two or three days left before the end of the fiscal year, so we had to come in to bring in a throne speech, a budget and a supply bill all before the end of the month. It was all crammed into about three days.

In the past, this House has frequently been called back in the middle of the month -- in the range of March 14 to 17 -- which allows for the throne speech and the budget debate to be moved along. It allows for all that to take place, so we have time to get to the estimates early on. We have time to move into the estimates process earlier in the year, which allows us to move further along.

One other item. If the ministry and the government were so concerned about getting the estimates through before they have to introduce supply bill No. 1 at the end of this month. . . . We've put in a number of hours in legislative debate; they could have done more estimates instead of doing the legislation. We've dealt with second reading in a whole series of -- some 25 or 26 -- bills in this chamber in the last two months. It's not even two months; it's a month and a half. That's time that could have been used in this chamber to do health care, to do forestry, to do Children and Families estimates. We would have had them completed by now. The government made a choice. It made a choice to do legislation, and that legislation moved along relatively well. Those items that required examination were examined in detail, and those that were non-controversial, non-confrontational and non-complex were moved along fairly expeditiously. There have been technical briefings back and forth that have allowed that to happen, which has aided in the smooth progress of those types of non-confrontational, non-contentious and non-complex bills through the Legislature. The government could have certainly moved into the estimates earlier if their goal was to get supply.

It was about a week and a half ago -- it will be two weeks tomorrow, I suppose -- when I stood in this House as the government actually adjourned the House for two and half days so they could go up to the interior and hold an economic summit. There was no attempt made by the government to consult the opposition as far as what other options were available. As I said at the time, there was no reason why nine or ten members of the government and nine or ten members of the opposition that were participating in that economic conference couldn't have gone together. It wouldn't have damaged or impeded the government's majority. It would have allowed the House to continue to do its business. We could have completed some of that legislation. We certainly could have moved into estimates in some of those areas and taken advantage of those three working days.

[ Page 8505 ]

[6:15]

The bells were ordered to be rung.

The Speaker: Hon. member, I think you can proceed. We have a quorum.

G. Farrell-Collins: Thank you, hon. Speaker.

The Speaker: I'm sorry. I didn't totally recognize. . . . We now have a quorum. People have taken their seats. We now have a quorum; debate can continue. I recognize the Opposition House Leader.

G. Farrell-Collins: If one looks at the calendar and looks at what's left to complete and looks at the time frame that's available to us, we have in this large House before the end of this month basically three full weeks of debate during which we can work away at the Health, Forests, and Children and Families estimates. In the small chamber, as I outlined, there are, I think, only five different estimates that need to be moved through. There is certainly nothing holding this House back from moving along in those areas and continuing to move with the same level of cooperation and efficiency that we have seen in the past.

We may or may not get the estimates completed by the end of June. The government may or may not have to bring in a second supply bill in order to give them spending past the end of the month. But for a government that has no problem asking for special warrant after special warrant after special warrant every year, I would think that asking for a second supply bill, despite the fact that they could have called the House earlier and had it completed by the end of June, if that was their wish. . . . I would think that they would find it very easy to bring forward a second supply bill and have members of this House debate that at the time.

So what it comes down to is this question: does the government want to continue to move things forward in the Legislature, or does the government want things to come to a halt? If that's what they want to happen. . . . If they want to have an old-fashioned, thorough examination -- much like visiting your physician for the annual physical -- of the various ministers and their estimates, the opposition is more than willing to comply. Heaven knows, with this government, every time. . . . It's like walking down a stream: with every little rock you pick up, there's some sort of mystery under there -- there's some sort of a scandal under there; there's some sort of mismanagement under there; there's some sort of waste of money under there. If the government wants to have that kind of lengthy, protracted, in-depth, thorough examination of those remaining ministries and their estimates, the opposition is more than happy to comply.

There are members who have been here for seven years who have lots of experience with that. The new members that joined us in 1996 have all the experience necessary -- and twice as much energy, I might add, and twice as much determination and twice as much interest, I would assume. Many of them are just getting to know the portfolios that they've been assigned as critics and deputy critics, and I'm sure they would love to get lengthy briefings from the deputy ministers, through the ministers, in estimates. That may go on at length.

I think that those are options that the government may choose. I can't imagine, though, that that's the legislative agenda we've seen for the session. As I said, there are 28 or 29 bills on the order paper. If that's all there is. . . .

Interjection.

G. Farrell-Collins: The government Whip says I've said that. Well, he'd better get used to hearing things over and over again, because he's going to hear them over and over again as those thorough examinations of the various bills take place in committee and in second reading -- various amendments in second reading of those bills. I think we can move four substantive amendments to legislation in second reading, if I recall correctly. Those items may happen.

If that's the government's legislative agenda, if that's all there is, then we'll see. I would have thought there was going to be some more legislation coming. While there are four bills left on the order paper right now that could take some time for the opposition to work through, I'm sure that there are going to be other pieces of legislation that come forward where the skills and the wisdom and the energy and the effort of members of the opposition will be put to great -- and occasionally repetitious, but not too repetitious -- use in the debates.

I know that the member for Chilliwack just can't wait to get into the fray. I want to assure the member that he will have hours and hours to examine the Premier, the Minister Responsible for Youth -- a duty the member for Chilliwack takes on with some exuberance and effectiveness, I might add, although the Premier doesn't seem to enjoy it very much. I'm sure that there are lots of things we can talk about in the Youth portfolio with the Premier, which will be a fairly lengthy examination. The Premier may even have to cancel some of his trips around North America or some of his trips down to the southern United States in order to answer the questions about why we have a 19 percent unemployment rate amongst youth in the province of British Columbia, when the Premier is the Minister Responsible for Youth -- another wonderfully shining example of the Premier's success stories with every portfolio he's ever taken on. Who knows? Maybe after this Premier bites the dust, the Minister of Employment and Investment, the new minister -- the janitor, as he is becoming known around these chambers -- will become the Premier before the next election, when this one doesn't make it all the way, and he'll be sweeping up after the current Premier and have an opportunity to discuss the Youth portfolio also.

We'll have to wait and see. We'll have to see what the government does and what choices they make with respect to how they want the rest of this session to progress. If they'd like it to progress the way it has progressed already, then I suggest that we adjourn and we come back at the normal hour and continue to do our normal, effective and efficient busi-

[ Page 8506 ]

M. de Jong: The first thing I need to say is that apparently it's the government's and the Government House Leader's idea that we should engage in this exercise of sitting later than the usual hours provided for by the rules. If that's the case, I think more of them should listen to what I have to say -- and I don't see a quorum here, hon. Speaker.

The bells were ordered to be rung.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Hon. members. This is not debating time.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Hon. members, if you want. . . .

Interjections.

The Speaker: Hon. members, the floor is open. If you want to speak, rise in your place and speak.

M. de Jong: Quorum, hon. Speaker. The House isn't properly constituted.

The Speaker: Thank you very much for pointing that out. We've called to the members to come forward, but words across the floor are not part of normal debate.

M. de Jong: By my calculation, five minutes has passed since the quorum was called and that, at least, invokes standing order 7.

The Speaker: Thank you for pointing that out. I'll have a little look.

G. Farrell-Collins: As the Clerk was probably advising you, under standing order 7 after five minutes of a recess over a quorum call, and members are not present, the Speaker may adjourn or recess the House until the next sitting. Given that the members are not coming into the House, I would suggest that that's probably the best way to move, since the members aren't intending on coming in either.

The Speaker: I appreciate the point made, and I would at this point declare a 15-minute recess, and encourage the House Leaders to get together to see if there's a way of dealing with this fifteen minutes from now.

The House recessed from 6:30 p.m. to 6:46 p.m.

[The Speaker in the chair.]

M. de Jong: The question from the member for Vancouver-Little Mountain was: "Where's the crisis?" We've not heard a response to that fundamental question from the government benches. I'm going to talk more about crisis a little later in this debate, but I want to say right at the outset that this is about management. The first crisis that comes to mind is the crisis in management on the government side of the House.

This is about extending some pretty basic courtesies about management of a House that, as my colleague the member for Vancouver-Little Mountain said, is not the government's playpen. This is an institution that we all are elected to and that we all serve in, and we deserve to have the respect of the executive branch of this chamber. This is, after all, as someone pointed out to me earlier today, a tremendously mysterious place -- very mysterious in how it operates and how it works. I want to say, as part of this debate, for the folks watching who aren't tuned in to the hockey game or the basketball game, that their impression of this chamber. . . .

Interjections.

M. de Jong: I know that because government members are so committed to sitting at this hour, they won't want to miss a single word of what is said in the chamber. I am prepared to tailor my speech to stop when it's convenient or inconvenient, so that they do hear every word of this debate, hon. Speaker.

I want to say that many people's impression of what goes on here is garnered from the 15 minutes of question period that they watch -- clips from that on the evening news. That is where they get an opportunity to see the opposition, with minimal theatrics and minimal histrionics, deliver probing, insightful questions to the government. The opposition, like the thousands and millions of folks at home, wait for an insightful, informative answer -- and they generally wait in vain. But people who watch this chamber see the operation of question period, and sometimes the impression they are left with. . . . We've all heard the criticisms about the acrimony of debate, and people are at times disappointed. They see other debates that are delivered by members to a largely empty chamber, and they ask themselves: "What is the purpose of that? What does that accomplish?" Isn't that a perversion of their impression of what takes place here in the province's capital, in this parliament? The impression that they have. . . .

Interjections.

The Speaker: Hon. members, rather a lot of conversation is happening.

M. de Jong: I find, hon. Speaker, that if I speak softer, it tends to have an effect on the members opposite; they seem to be more rapt in their attention. So maybe I'll try that from now on. I'll speak a little softer.

There are ways that this chamber's business can be improved, and we've talked about them. We've discussed them on this side of the House. We've asked -- we've implored -- the government to consider better use of the committee system. We've said that there are things that don't need to be brought to the floor of this chamber prematurely, or at a time when they haven't been well considered -- that there are standing committees and special committees that can be established, that have been established in the past and that have done good work. We can list some of them, but we don't employ that committee structure in a way that we should and could to improve the functioning of this chamber. So we have talked about that committee system. We've talked about the

[ Page 8507 ]

Well, I don't know what's happening; we don't have a quorum again. I don't think the House can function without a quorum.

The Speaker: We now have a quorum.

M. de Jong: So we've talked about committees. Let's use the committees better. Let's make this place function better than it has in the past. We've talked about the need to table legislation in a timely way so that the debates in this chamber can be more focused, more meaningful, can hopefully add something to the government's agenda, can provide some second thoughts and some constructive criticism. You can have that constructive criticism if you're not debating legislation a day after a 400-page document has been tabled and opposition members have seen it for the first time. That's a logical improvement that makes sense, presumably, to people in this chamber. It certainly makes sense to people in our constituencies, who are expecting their elected representatives to bring the best possible talents to the floor of this chamber.

We've talked, quite frankly, about the need to have a legislative calendar. What a novel idea that this chamber would establish a sitting schedule at the beginning of the year! Now, there are some things that need to happen if we're going to move in that direction. Quite frankly, there's a give-and-take involved. On the opposition side of the House, we understand that. We understand that in exchange for having a legislative calendar, any government of the day will want to know that their legislative agenda can't be frustrated in perpetuity. But surely these government members, these government backbenchers in particular, can see the logic of this chamber establishing when it is going to sit and when legislation -- except for emergency types of legislation -- is going to be tabled, so that it can be reviewed not just by members in this chamber but by the stakeholders, the people who are going to be most directly affected by the legislation. Surely those are just logical steps that we would want to take as legislators. Yet members of this government, members of the NDP side of the House, steadfastly refuse to consider those basic and fundamental reforms that would make this, the people's House, a more functional place. They are the kind of changes. . . .

Interjection.

M. de Jong: Well, I'm underwhelmed, I really am. [Applause.] I presume that was the member's hand I heard.

These are the kinds of basic, fundamental changes that make sense and that take leadership. They take foresight, but probably most importantly, within the context of the debates that occur in this House, they're going to take some degree of goodwill on the part of all members.

I know the government Whip will want to get involved in this debate. It's largely his mismanagement of the House that forces us to have this debate at this hour. If he can just stand fast, he can make his apologies to the people of British Columbia for mismanaging their affairs in this House as soon as I'm done. I know that every member on this side of the chamber will gladly surrender their place in the speaking lineup so that the government Whip can stand up and make his apologies to the people of British Columbia. We look forward to that taking place, though we're not holding our breath.

How do you develop that goodwill, that notion of cooperation that it's going to take to introduce the kind of basic changes that will make this place operate better? It's a challenge, because the institution is built around the notion of an adversarial debating system. There are many members of this chamber who demonstrate abundant talent when it comes to the process of adversarial debate. There is lots of that talent in this chamber, but I think we have to be able to set that aside at times and look at how the place functions in the first place. How do you develop that goodwill? How do you develop that spirit of cooperation that you need to address some of these systemic reforms that people see as being long overdue? You don't do it -- let me start there -- by calling late one afternoon, as the government House leader did, as the Whip for the government side did, and issue an edict -- a diktat -- to the opposition that says that the House is going to sit past its usual hours the next day. That is not the way you foster that spirit of cooperation and goodwill.

We can have the debate; we can debate the issues; we can debate the bills; we can debate the estimates. Everyone knows how that works. People watch that unfold. They can watch it here in the gallery; they can watch it on television. But when it comes to making this place work better, to giving to the taxpayer that pays for us to sit in this chamber. . .surely it's time to develop some notion of trust and goodwill that would allow us to make those improvements. It doesn't happen when the government issues a diktat about 12 hours before they decide they want to sit past the regular sitting hours. I can think of all kinds of words to describe that process of governing. Discourteous comes to mind. Contemptuous comes to mind. Arrogant comes to mind. At the end of the day, it's just darn counterproductive.

We have standing orders in the green book -- for the benefit of the Minister of Fisheries.

Interjection.

M. de Jong: Actually, the Minister of Highways has the one with pictures in it. He's got the $400,000 edition of the standing orders.

Standing order 3 sets out when this House will sit. And it says: "If at the hour of 6 p.m. on any Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday or Thursday or 1 p.m. on any Friday, the business of the day is not concluded and no other hour has been agreed on for the next sitting. . . ." Let me repeat that: ". . .no other hour has been agreed on for the next sitting. . . ." Now, I've got a pretty fundamental understanding of what the word "agreed" means, and it doesn't mean that you get an order from the government side. That's not an agreement. It said that if an agreement isn't in place on when the next sitting will take place, the Speaker will leave the chair. Six o'clock: the Speaker leaves the chair.

So, hon. Speaker, quite frankly, the motion that we're debating right now is improper; I think it's the improper motion. I know the Clerks are reaching for their authorities, but let me. . . . Lest I have to confront the likely insurmountable logic of the table in the middle of this chamber, what I would like to do is to table an amendment that would amend the motion to read as follows: ". . .that the House do now adjourn." That would be, in my view, the appropriate motion.

When these rules in the little green book were developed, I think the House -- the members of the day -- contemplated a regular sitting schedule and said: "You know, the members of this House can agree to go outside of that regular schedule, but there should be some agreement." Again, the question that I've got to ask is: why not approach the opposition?

[ Page 8508 ]

I have to tell you, hon. Speaker, that I share in every way, shape and form the sentiments of the member for Vancouver-Little Mountain when he says: "I think we've made pretty good progress. I think we're moving through this stuff pretty well." We're waiting for some legislation. I think there are three bills in Votes and Proceedings. I think we're moving through this stuff. But recognizing that the government does have the prerogative of deciding if and when they want to move to night sittings, I don't think it's unreasonable, when they are going to move outside the bounds of the regular sitting hours, to extend some notice so that people can arrange their affairs. That, in part, is what this debate is about as well: bringing home to members of the government that this isn't their sandbox; this isn't their playpen. They should have some regard for the dignity of not just the House but the members that sit in this House.

So I ask myself this: what could conceivably be of such importance that the government would ignore the usual courtesies, the usual protocols that one would expect in a situation like this? There must be something important; there must be a crisis. What is it? What constitutes an emergency in the mind of this government? Again I find that it's easier to answer in the negative, because it's easier to know what doesn't constitute a crisis. It's easier to know what isn't an emergency in the minds of the government. For example, we know. . . .

The Speaker: Hon. member, I would like to make a ruling to the House on the amendment that you put forward so that we don't run into a time problem on your comments. I rule the motion out of order. Refer to page 56 where it says that it is the prerogative of the Government House Leader to bring in motions of this sort. The motion is ruled out of order, so your timing is still on the main motion.

M. de Jong: Thanks, hon. Speaker, but I'm not sure I can go on. I'll just collect myself for a moment, in light of your ruling, which I respect.

What constitutes an emergency in the minds of the members of this government? We know this: that the loss of thousands of forestry jobs in British Columbia isn't an emergency, in spite of promises that the government is going to single-handedly create not 10,000, not 15,000, not 20,000, not 25,000, but 40,000 new jobs. When in fact we lose 20,000 or 27,000 jobs in the forestry sector, that's not an emergency. That's not an emergency to the extent that, while we're losing those jobs in ridings like Columbia River-Revelstoke, Bulkley Valley-Stikine and others right across this province. . . . We can still, in the minds of this government, wait to recall the Legislature until the very last minute: the end of March, the end of the fiscal year. As those jobs are disappearing, as those families are trying to decide how they are going to pay their next month's mortgage, because the main breadwinner is no longer earning a salary, that is not an emergency. That's not worthy of the attention of government, in spite of the fact that it's this government that put those people out of work in the first place.

We learned earlier this week -- I think it was earlier this week; my colleagues will help me -- that they're not even unemployed. Those aren't unemployed forestry workers.

Interjections.

M. de Jong: I see the members find it humorous.

They're not unemployed. They've been. . . . What was the word?

An Hon. Member: Redistributed.

M. de Jong: Redistributed. Those aren't unemployed workers; those are redistributed workers. They've been redistributed right out of a job. They have lost confidence in a government that won't even acknowledge the fact that they're no longer able to earn a living for their families.

Think of what that means in terms of the bureaucracy. You won't any longer pay employment premiums -- what used to be unemployment premiums. You'll now be paying redistribution premiums. You won't go down to your local employment office; you'll go to your redistribution office. That's where you'll go to be redistributed. What it signals is a government that is so far in denial -- a government that has misled so many thousands of British Columbians for so long -- that, far from trying to deal with the problem, they won't even acknowledge that it exists.

We have a Minister of Forests who realized he was losing so many jobs that he had to order a biweekly update. I recall that minister standing in this House. . . .

The Speaker: The hon. member will take his seat.

I recognize the Minister of Employment and Investment -- on what point?

Hon. M. Farnworth: I would like to raise the issue of relevancy, as enlightening and as entertaining as the hon. member's comments are. I believe we are evading the issue of adjournment. His remarks should be relevant to adjournment, and we don't seem to be debating the motion. We seem to be all over the map.

The Speaker: Thank you, hon. member. I'm sure the member who is in possession of the floor will take that under advisement.

M. de Jong: As usual, the minister's point is salient, direct, right to the point -- cut right to the chase. But, after all, we're here because the government said: "We've got some business to do. We need to sit at night. We've got a crisis." We on the opposition side are just trying to ascertain what that crisis is. What it is that, on 12 hours' notice, prompts us to have to sit beyond the regular hours called for in the standing orders?

When we left off, we had ascertained. . . . We concluded that it wasn't the loss of thousands of forestry jobs. In fact, if it was, the House would have been recalled earlier. If that was a real priority for the government, I suppose the member for Bulkley Valley-Stikine wouldn't have been chartering aircraft in excess of $4,000 to fly back and forth from his riding. You

[ Page 8509 ]

Anyway, that's not the crisis -- and I have your point, hon. Speaker. It might be something else. Let's see if we can discover what it is.

Well, we know it's not the fact that we have an Environment minister and an Environment ministry that are so inept, so incompetent, that they're costing British Columbians thousands of jobs and hundreds of millions of dollars in lost investment. If that were the case, guess what: we wouldn't have waited until the end of the fiscal year, the end of March, to recall this House, because that's precisely what has been taking place over the past year. This Ministry of Environment is costing British Columbians real, sustainable jobs. It is driving investment out of the province. When it is confronted with people who are trying to rely upon the word of government to build a life for themselves in the Okanagan and right across this province, they are met instead by a government that refuses to abide by its legal obligations.

So we know that in the minds of the members of that government, that is not a crisis; that's business as usual for a government that not only deceives people, but when it has a clear legal obligation to do something, says: "Forget it. We don't care if you guys out there have mortgaged your future in reliance upon an NDP government promise. We don't care that you're working to try to build a life for yourselves and your family. If it is politically expedient for us, we're going to do exactly what we want to do." So we know that that's not the crisis that we're dealing with today, because the government, quite frankly, doesn't care about that.

Maybe if the northern health care crisis. . . .

An Hon. Member: Think so?

[7:15]

You know, I recall -- it wasn't that long ago, as my colleague pointed out -- going to Columbia River-Revelstoke, going to Golden, and people there were very upset. On this night when members of that government back bench and that government cabinet are saying, "It's a waste of time," can you think of a better time for the member for Columbia River-Revelstoke to get up and speak on behalf of the constituents that have been waiting for two and a half months for him to say something in this chamber? They're watching; they're turning their channels. We're between periods in the hockey game; we're between quarters in the basketball game. They're hoping against hope: "Is this the night that my MLA finally gets up and says something in the B.C. Legislature?" I think this is the night. Hope springs eternal in me that this member, for whom I have read every single page of Hansard in vain looking for a word on behalf of his constituents, will stand up here and defend the interests of those people who are worried about what's happening to their health care system. . . .

The fact is that we're here because the government has mismanaged this session, this economy and this government so badly that there is no agenda. That's not what's on their minds. It's about arrogance, and it's about playing by their rules and no one else's rules. So I say we go back to the little green book. . . . Oh, I see the Fisheries minister is tearing the pages out of his. We'll get him a new one. Little paper airplanes for the Minister of Fisheries. . . . I say we go back to the little green book, we go back to standing order 34 and get back to basics.

An Hon. Member: Read the section on relevance.

An Hon. Member: Stand up or shut up.

The Speaker: Hon. member, that's not an appropriate comment in the middle of a debate. An hon. member has the floor.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Hon. members, order, please. Will the hon. member who has the floor finish his remarks, please.

M. de Jong: It appears clear to me that there will be a long, long list of government members wanting to join this debate. So I'm going to sit down. Before I do that, I'm going to move that the House do now adjourn.

Motion negatived on the following division:

YEAS -- 14
C. Clark	Farrell-Collins	de Jong
Reid	Whittred	Penner
McKinnon	Barisoff	van Dongen
Symons	Coleman	Hawkins
Hogg		Weisbeck

NAYS -- 37
Evans	Zirnhelt	McGregor
Kwan	Hammell	Boone
Streifel	Pullinger	Lali
Orcherton	Stevenson	Calendino
Goodacre	Walsh	Randall
Gillespie	Robertson	Cashore
Conroy	Priddy	Petter
Miller	G. Clark	Dosanjh
MacPhail	Lovick	Ramsey
Farnworth	Waddell	Hartley
Sihota	Smallwood	Bowbrick
Kasper	Doyle	Giesbrecht
	Janssen

Hon. J. MacPhail: I seek leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

Hon. J. MacPhail: It is truly an auspicious evening. I have no idea how this person would have known we were here tonight, but it is with a great deal of pleasure that I see

[ Page 8510 ]

Interjections.

The Speaker: The House will come to order. The debate on the main motion will continue.

I recognize the hon. member for Fort Langley-Aldergrove, who might wish to wait just a moment while the members who have to go to other duties do so. Hon. members, all the conversations are creating a disturbance. I suggest that we talk more quietly or go outside.

[W. Hartley in the chair.]

R. Coleman: I'm pleased to stand tonight and enter this debate.

I think, first of all, we should start out by explaining to the people of British Columbia what's going on here tonight. The first thing we should explain to them is that we're seeing that the group of people that can't manage the economy, can't manage the government, make phone calls to judges, cut out small creditors from business opportunities, call motor carrier commissions, interfere in quasi-judicial bodies and steal from charities are unable to run a legislature. What we have here. . . .

Interjection.

Deputy Speaker: The Minister of Employment and Investment rises on a point of order.

Hon. M. Farnworth: I think some of the language that's being used is a bit offensive and unparliamentary, and I ask the hon. member to withdraw it.

Deputy Speaker: Hon. member, would you please withdraw the remarks that you made.

R. Coleman: I'd like to know which part of my remarks the hon. member would like me to withdraw.

Deputy Speaker: Hon. member, it would be preferable if you withdrew the remarks.

The member for Vancouver-Little Mountain rises on a point of order.

G. Farrell-Collins: The member had engaged in his speech, and the request for retraction, while very legitimate if the member was offended, was very broad. I think it's important to let the member who is asked to withdraw something know what it is he needs to withdraw so that he can do it properly. If one's asked to withdraw everything that they say, there are parts that aren't unparliamentary and certainly didn't offend the member. So if he can be specific about what parts it was that he wants withdrawn, I'm sure the member would be glad to do that.

Deputy Speaker: Thank you, hon. member. The Chair didn't actually hear the remarks, so if the minister would like to clarify for members those remarks that he wishes to have withdrawn.

Hon. M. Farnworth: I think that the remarks around theft and stealing, and the context that they were made in, are offensive, and I would ask that the member withdraw them.

Deputy Speaker: Those remarks were indeed unparliamentary, and I would ask the member to just withdraw the remarks.

R. Coleman: I guess, if the member is offended by the fact that I referred to his party as a group of people that stole from charities. . . .

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Just withdraw, member.

R. Coleman: I withdraw those remarks.

Deputy Speaker: Thank you, hon. member. Continue.

[7:30]

Out in the hall a little earlier tonight, the government Whip made the comment that his members have known for two to three weeks that we would start sitting late tonight. Now, if they knew. . . .

An Hon. Member: It's news to us.

R. Coleman: And now it's news to them.

Where was the basic common courtesy to advise the opposition when we were going to go to night sittings? If you want to look at how this legislative session has gone, let's take a step back and remember where we were in February. On February 11, we spent hundreds of thousands of dollars bringing every member of this Legislature here for the 100th anniversary of this building. This building, which is the Legislature of British Columbia, could have started sitting right then, right there, and we could have done our business by now.

So what do we have? We come in for one day. We blow hundreds of thousands of dollars of the taxpayers' money for a one-day show for the Premier and his government, and then we adjourn. And then what we do is we leave, and we come

[ Page 8511 ]

These guys keep talking about little crises and things and what have you, and I want to talk to you. . . . I want to tell the people of this province how this Legislature works. There are two Houses sitting every day here, and those two Houses are dealing with business. And the people of this province do not see on television the "little House," as we refer to it. There are debates that go on relative to the estimates of this province. They have been progressing just fine, thank you very much, in the last two and a half months. In this House, we have managed to get through the legislative agenda, and we're down to the fact we have very few bills left to debate and only three sets of estimates that need to be debated -- and we've already started one of them. The fact of the matter is there's no need for us to go to night sittings in order to accomplish the business of the government. But in addition to that, we also have in this House. . . . Well, these two Houses are sitting, and there are members in both Houses who supposedly have some committee work going on. But when it comes to committee work, I want to tell the people of this province to wake up and smell the roses.

Although the Premier stated that we were going to have more active committees, the committee work could have been done. If that work was being done throughout the year, the legislative session could be even better focused. I want to tell the people what committees we have in this Legislature. We have Aboriginal Affairs; Justice, Constitutional Affairs and Intergovernmental Relations; Education, Culture and Multiculturalism; Economic Development, Science, Labour, Training and Technology; Environment and Tourism; Finance and Government Services; Health and Social Services; Agriculture and Fisheries; Forests, Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources; Transportation, Municipal Affairs and Housing; Women's Equality; Public Accounts; Parliamentary Reform, Ethical Conduct, Standing Orders and Private Bills; and Crown Corporations. And you know -- to the people of this province -- less than 50 percent of those committees meet. And yet there's a crisis.

When we asked for a discussion or an emergency debate on northern health care, this government said no, they didn't have time. But they have time to sit late now, when that matter has been settled. Interestingly enough, when we had people sitting on waiting lists and in crisis in our health care system, the Health Committee had not met. The Health Committee does not meet at this Legislature. So what happens? When we come into the estimates debate of this House for the Ministry of Health, the debate will take longer simply because this government cannot get its act together long enough to have a regular meeting of the Health Committee, so that they can get into the issues to deal with health care.

We hear announcements on education from the government all the time. If it's such a priority to the people of British Columbia out there this evening, whom I'm talking to, why doesn't the Education Committee meet? Why doesn't it sit down and look at education? Why doesn't it have forward planning? Why doesn't it have a structure that works? I can tell you why: because the priority is only a big announcement and a sham. It is definitely not the priority of this government when the Education Committee of this Legislature doesn't even meet.

Tonight we're talking about going into late night sittings, and the government Whip is referring to the fact that we have this debate every year. Maybe if somebody would pick up a 2-by-4 and smack somebody on the side of the head, they'd give it a little shake and say: "Gee, maybe if we gave these people some decent notice and dealt with our business in a professional manner, we wouldn't have to go through this every year." But it just doesn't register, because there is no ability to manage, think about or handle the operation of this particular building.

It's really something when we take the time in order to do the people's business. . . . You can ask the ministers of the Crown. . . . We take the time with our critics to contact the minister of the Crown well in advance of estimates and well in advance of the Legislature. We outline the basic questions we want to have answered to save time when we get into the Legislature. We go through that process, and then we go through the process of focusing our debate, of trying to make things work the best for the people of British Columbia. We go through that process of cooperation only to find out again and again that this group of people -- this government -- are themselves incapable of reciprocating any common courtesy or any intelligent management back this way.

It's obvious that we can manage the legislative agenda; it's obvious that the government cannot. It's obvious that we can manage the debates and the estimates of this House, and it's obvious that government cannot. So if they have to sit late because they're so incompetent and so incapable of handling the operation of this building, maybe they should just resign from government and call an election tomorrow. Let's get on with running this place properly. You know, the public have to understand that the focus of relevant debate is taking place in this Legislature and is not taking place relative to the people on the other side of this House.

Let's think about the impact of working with a group of people in a professional and capable manner, a manner that can be focused. If you ask the ministers who have been through their estimates to date, they will tell you that their estimates were done in a very professional and focused manner. They will tell you that they were dealt with in a manner that was not frivolous. And you will find out that what happens when you start to take away the basic common courtesy is that you just get into a situation where you're asking people to fill time.

Then what happens? That's when the Ministry of Municipal Affairs, which is moving along at a certain stage, slows down -- because nobody's got the common courtesy to deal with the members of the opposition. The Minister of Forests can tell you that last year, when this was pulled, he found out what 57 hours of estimates was all about. And let me tell you something: the Minister of Forests wasn't happy about it. I can tell you that the people on that side of the House -- other than the fact that they're sitting there tonight -- are not happy about sitting here late when we aren't going to accomplish any more business than we would have if we'd just stayed focused on the plan that we were working on before. So it's an interesting situation to me that we're standing here tonight.

There are a couple of other things. From February 11 to March 30, there are about six weeks of legislative sitting -- actually a little bit more -- that we could have done by now. The crisis that's so important that we have to sit late tonight. . . . Man, I wonder what they're going to tell their constituents when they go back and say to them: "We had to have the House sit late because we had to adjourn for two days to have an economic summit in Kamloops. We had to shut down the entire Legislative Assembly."

An Hon. Member: We had a photo opportunity.

[ Page 8512 ]

Interjection.

Deputy Speaker: Could you go through the Chair, please, member?

R. Coleman: Thank you, hon. Chair.

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Order, please. The member continues.

R. Coleman: I didn't say anything about not taking July 1 off in deference to the Minister of Transportation, who wants to call out to me from the other side of the House. I said that for the two days following July 1, which normal British Columbians are not taking off, we're not going to be sitting in this House, but you can have us sit until 10 o'clock tonight. Now, justify that to your constituents. You justify it, because you think that you have the time. That's the problem. You've got the wrong balance in your priorities, and you've got to balance your priorities with what your times are.

Let's talk for a minute about the fact that here we are sitting late, and somebody wants us to have lengthy debates on issues when we've been focused. They don't want to have the committees of the House sit. They don't want to know what's been going on with things like Crown corporations, because they want to spend their time on estimates rather than Crown corporations -- taking up the time of the House because they don't want the committee to sit during the year. They don't want to deal with things like housing, where we have a crisis in single-room-occupancy units in the downtown east side of Vancouver. A committee of the House could be dealing with those issues, dealing with the city of Vancouver and taking the regulations for the legislation we passed last year and making sure they work for the stakeholders involved. No, we'll go into a one-session debate, a lengthy debate, on housing.

When we get to economic development, we will just deal with it again this year, simply because we don't have the ability to have that committee of the House sit and deal with these issues. We want to sit here until 10 o'clock at night, but we don't want to do the business of the people of British Columbia year-round. We just want to do it in a short period of time. The period of time that we're doing it in is not productive simply because we're not having our committees meet.

Imagine the fact that the Transportation Committee doesn't meet either. We're in the middle of the Greater Vancouver Transportation Authority deal, we're in the middle of discussions on Bombardier, we're in the middle of trying to decide about LRT on the lower mainland, and yet a committee of supply in the House has to deal with that in estimates because the standing committee of the House doesn't meet.

This Legislature has a number of critical issues that don't go away when it adjourns in July, and they don't go away the minute that we open up again in April. The fact of the matter is that those issues should be being dealt with year-round. If they were being dealt with year-round, the business of this House would be more efficient. There would be no need to have a discussion tonight about sitting late, simply because we would have dealt with the business of this Legislature on a year-round basis.

The other thing we've always said -- and at times the Premier has sort of indicated, but then, we know an indication from him is just a step toward another big announcement. . . . I guess it's just not a big enough media event to be able to say: "You know what we're going to do? We're going to have parliamentary reform. We're actually going to have a legislative calendar that tells us when we're going to sit in the spring or fall and when we're going to adjourn."

What is wrong with dealing with the estimates and the financial matters of this province in the spring and doing the legislative side of the agenda in the fall? What is the matter with using our time, as everybody else in a reasonable occupation deals with theirs, in a reasonable and precise manner? What's wrong with it is that government is afraid to take the step. You know what late night sittings are? Late night sittings, the way they're handled here, are just showing a lack of respect for the elected members of this Legislature and a lack of cooperation with the elected members of this Legislature. And it shows, frankly, a group of people that are inept and not ready to do the job that they were elected to do, simply because they don't have the ability to manage a popcorn stand.

[7:45]

The fact of the matter is that here we are with a group of people who, in addition to the fact that they do not deal with the issues of children in a manner that is prudent, don't deal with the issues of health care in a manner that is prudent and don't deal with any issue, as a matter of fact, in a manner that is prudent. They are a group of people that at the same time have done a number of things that I find distasteful. I find it distasteful that a group of creditors got ten cents on the dollar when the government bought the pulp mill and bought the operation. I find what happened in Nanaimo with the Nanaimo Commonwealth Holding Society distasteful, and I'm still waiting as a member of this Legislature. . . . My constituents still ask me when they're going to pay back the money when they're going to make their compensation to the charities that had the money taken from them. Well, I don't know. But until such time as they do things like that, they have no credibility with the people of British Columbia.

The fact of the matter is that this debate relative to a 10 o'clock night sitting need not take place, because we have done our job. You can ask the Ministry of Fisheries; you can ask the Ministry of Transportation and Highways; you can ask the Attorney General. You can ask them how the debates in their estimates went, and they will tell you that they were focused and well managed. That's been the operation of this opposition throughout this entire session of the House.

[ Page 8513 ]

D. Symons: It's a pleasure to get up and speak on this particular topic this evening. I was first elected in 1991, and one of the first experiences I had with this government was the fact that they leave everything to the last moment, as they did in 1992. They leave it to the night that the end of the fiscal year is taking place, and then they decide: "Well, hold it. Hold it. We have to pass some spending authority here, special warrants." And then that night they go into a night sitting. That was my first experience in the Legislature with the incompetence of this NDP government. And you know, in the following seven years it has not changed one iota.

Two or three members from this side of the House have mentioned the need for a parliamentary calendar. We need, in this Legislature, an organization organizing the legislative business so we won't get into the situation we are currently in this evening and that we've gone into pretty well each of those seven years that I've now been speaking in this House. We need a legislative calendar that will set a starting day for the legislative session.

This year we met, I believe, for the first time on March 26 -- the latest sitting start in the history of this legislative chamber. They begin two, three or four days before the end of the fiscal year. If you count the weekend in there, that leaves even fewer than that. That is totally irresponsible. It's totally more than irresponsible; it's wrong for this government to do such to the people's business in that sort of way that they're forcing through the budget and the throne speech at that last moment, forcing it through in that fashion. This government tries to do things by pressure, but in so doing, they are really negating the real purpose of this legislative chamber. That purpose, of course, is to do the people's business in an effective and reasoned and rational manner. That is something that this government, in seven years of misgovernment of this province, has not been able to do.

We've gone along with the government -- and I must say that this is good of the opposition -- to help the government move the business forward in the legislative chamber. For the first time we've been having estimates going on in two locations in the House. That had not happened before. So therefore we've compressed, in a sense, the legislative calendar by doing it in two places, having those estimates debates take place in two locations. We've allowed some bills, at times, to go through two steps in one day. Indeed, the government has brought them forth, and if they aren't contentious, we've allowed that sort of moving the process along.

But this government still doesn't place a priority on conducting government business in this Legislature in a meaningful, rational and reasoned manner. Rather, they go for photo opportunities. They take days off to go up to the Okanagan and have an economic conference. They closed the House down when they went up to Prince George and had an economic conference. They basically were photo opportunities. Very little was announced at those particular conferences that had not already been told to the public beforehand.

What we find is that this is a government that governs du jour. "Today we'll do this; tomorrow we'll close down; this afternoon we will go here; tomorrow we'll go into night sittings." Again, as other members have said here, the notice that we were given on this night sitting. . . . Members do have business besides what's going on in the legislative chamber. They also have business to do in their constituencies, and sometimes these things are arranged a week or two in advance. We were simply told yesterday: "Tomorrow you will be sitting nights."

The question that really came to mind -- and others have asked also -- is: why? Why are we, all of a sudden, having to sit nights in this legislative chamber? In spite of all that's been said this evening, I have not heard an answer to that question. I have not heard one member on the government side of this House get up and explain the reason why we should be going into night sittings at this time. We are ahead of the schedule that we've had in past years up to this time in the legislative session. We've passed more of the estimates. We've passed a good number of the legislation through all the readings in this place. Therefore there seems to be no urgency, in that we have to sit nights because there's some pressing matter that this government feels must be done, and we must go into night sittings, adding another three and a half hours per night. That works out to -- what do we get? -- about 15 hours a week, roughly, that we'd be adding onto legislative sittings. Why, hon. Speaker?

I really would like one of the members over there to explain to this side of the House so we might understand the reasoning that's behind it -- that is, if there is any reasoning. Now, we have a government here that basically has the Midas touch. But they have the Midas touch in reverse, because in virtually everything they do, they turn gold to lead. When they took over this province. . . .

Interjection.

D. Symons: Well, the minus touch we could call it, then. Indeed, they took over a province that was in fairly good financial condition. They took over a province where the provincial debt was in the $10 billion range, and they've more than doubled that. They took over a province where ferry fares were close to half of what they are today. They've taken a province that had a triple-A credit rating, and they've reduced that. We've had real problems with this government in dealing with the economy of this province.

Now, you might think that maybe because of some economic situation, that's why they're going to go into night sittings. But we have no such indication that that's the case. If that had been the case, they should have started this session way back in February, when they did indeed have us here for the 100th anniversary of this legislative chamber. They didn't do that. Why did they wait another six or seven weeks before they called us together, when we were already here in February? It would have been an excellent chance to have had the business start then and carry on and have no necessity for this idiotic concept of going into night sittings and using what's commonly referred to as legislation by exhaustion. It's not the proper type of legislation and governance that the people of this province deserve. They're not getting it from this government; that's for sure.

This is the government, when the gentleman that's now Premier. . . . In his first year as Finance minister he added on

[ Page 8514 ]

They've been on every year since, until this year, when the government's going to take a wee bit of that extra money they've added onto taxes. . . . They're going to take a wee bit off. It's nowhere near the amount that the Premier added on in his first two years as finance minister in '92-93. They increased the sales tax by 1 percent. They increased the personal income tax. They added tax onto labour charges, lawyers' bills -- you name it; he taxed it. In spite of those increased revenues, spending increased even faster. The total debt in the province has gone from $17 billion then to over $30 billion today.

Maybe they want to talk about health care. Maybe that's the reason we're sitting later. But remember: this is the Premier who, a few years back, worked out a health accord with the health unions, with the HEU. Anyway, in working those out, he worked out an accord that supposedly was going to save the province money. We find out that rather than saving money, it cost money. The savings that were claimed never occurred.

This is the Premier that bungled -- I think that's the best word to use -- the Columbia River Treaty downstream benefits in negotiating with the Bonneville power authority. We lost greatly on that deal because of the capabilities of our Premier. This is the government. . . . The man who is our Premier was the man in charge of B.C. Hydro when they got involved with the Raiwind power project, and look where that's got us.

So this is a government that seems to move from crisis to crisis. Yet when we have unemployment at record rates in British Columbia -- youth unemployment is astronomical and out of sight, at double the regular rate -- did we call the legislative session earlier to deal with those real, critical issues in the economy and with employment in this province? No. We're waiting until tonight, when suddenly they decide for some reason, unexplained as of yet, that we're going to be sitting late.

Well, I have no problem with sitting late if we're dealing with business of the province that it is important that we do right now. If they're going to bring in some special legislation that's going to be important to the people of the province, that will get the economy kick-started again, then I'm all for it. There's no indication of that taking place. They haven't tabled any legislation that would do that. So if they would table the legislation and explain, "We need this, because tomorrow we'll miss the opportunity," maybe there would be some reason for it. But that's not been said.

There are many things that need to be discussed in this House in a reasonable time frame, and that has not occurred with this government. The member before me made comments about the various standing committees of the House that basically have not been called. Now, I am a member and have been a member each year that I've been elected -- that's seven years now -- of the Select Standing Committee on Health and Social Services. We did meet about three years ago. We met on dealing with the issue of youth and tobacco. We brought in recommendations to this House, and indeed, legislation was passed based on those recommendations. But there are many, many other issues in health. Look at what's happening. The northern doctors situation in this province has been going on for months. Did that Health Committee get called together to discuss that issue? No. So where is this government's priority on health care in British Columbia? It certainly isn't in the actions that take place in this legislative chamber. It isn't in the actions of having a Health Committee that never meets. So I really question again where the priorities of this government are.

We also have an Education Committee. Now we find out that our Premier has gone out and negotiated behind doors, behind the school boards of this province, a deal with the teachers' union to try and bring about an education accord in the province of British Columbia. Did education in this province come before the legislative Select Standing Committee on Education? Not at all.

So I really have to ask: is this the same Premier who, in his throne speech in 1996 when taking office -- the first throne speech of that new Premier -- said that he was going to use the legislative committees more, make more effective use of legislative committees? In fact, he invented a few new ones. Is this the same Premier? I can't believe it, because he certainly has not followed through. This is a Premier who makes promises but does not know how to keep them.

[8:00]

I'm also the critic for B.C. Transit. We recently had B.C. Transit working with this government and the GVRD to bring in the Greater Vancouver Transportation Authority. Did the House committee discuss that issue? Not at all. This committee thing is really a farce, because the government doesn't use it. They could use it and make this House run much more effectively. If they want to end up making the place run more effectively, rather than sitting at nights, let's use those legislative committees; let's refer business to them and have it done by the committee. Then bring back something that the House can agree on because we worked together on it.

We should not be working in this legislative chamber in a divisive manner, which is the way this government prefers to operate. In this province, we were all elected to represent the people of the province. We're all elected to represent our constituents and the ridings which elected us. Yet this government pretends that somehow they were elected to represent everybody, and the people who were not elected as NDP members don't count. That's not true. Every person in this House, all 75 of us, count. Our opinions and concerns should be heard, and we should all have an opportunity to voice them, including the NDP backbenchers, who also seem to be voiceless in this assembly.

We do have to make some changes, but the changes we have to make are not the changes of legislation by exhaustion, of sitting past the normal 6 o'clock adjournment time and going into nighttime sittings. I have some authorities that would end up saying that that is so. The first authority was sitting up in the gallery and was introduced about an hour

[ Page 8515 ]

Those are not my words. Those are the words of a former NDP cabinet minister. If when they were in opposition, they felt that night sittings were "a government that is in so much chaos, it cannot even manage the agenda of the Legislature," I am certain that those words spoken by that NDP member seven or eight years ago are equally valid today.

Similarly, on June 17, 1991, the member for Cowichan-Ladysmith -- who is now a cabinet minister on the government side, I might add -- said: "We now have the rest of the budget to approve" -- that's still true today -- "and they" -- she was referring in this case to the Socreds -- "want to push that through as quickly as possible. As our House Leader pointed out, 'legislation by exhaustion' used to be the trademark of Social Credit. Maybe we're coming back to that." Well, that hon. member from Cowichan-Ladysmith seems to be changing her mind, a 180-degree turn, now that they're on the government side. Indeed, they're doing exactly what she was protesting against on June 17, 1991.

She went on to say: "Suddenly we want night sittings." Certainly for our side of the House, with the notice we were given, you could say "suddenly" is very appropriate. "The government's own problems seem to have dictated the agenda of this House, and I think that's an irresponsible way of doing government." Well, I would ask the member for Cowichan-Ladysmith to get up tonight and say in this House that her government is behaving in an irresponsible way, because if she felt that on June 17, 1991, she certainly couldn't think otherwise today.

We also had somebody else speaking on June 17, 1991. This was the member for Vancouver East, and we know what position that person holds now. He's now the Premier of the province. What did he say on that date? He said: "It's evidence again of the kind of incompetence we've seen time and time again over four and a half long years" -- in this case it's seven longer years -- "with this administration. It's drifting along leaderless. . . . After seven weeks we're forced to go to night sittings. Now why is that?" Well, he answers his own question: "What we've seen in five years is policy du jour -- a policy of the day. Every day you've got to read the paper to find out which direction the government's going in."

Well, those words spoken by the Premier, those words. . . . Exasperated, I think, could be the word, or annoyed, or upset with the then Socred government's going into night sittings. . . . Every one of those words by those three speakers hold valid tonight. I cannot imagine these members belonging to the same party, the NDP. We could refer to it as the noisy, disruptive persons party, because the NDP are doing precisely that over there as I am speaking. This is not the way we should be running the business of this particular province.

We have a government, then, that considers this Legislature as a sort of toy that they can play around with; they can pull the puppet strings and have people do just as they want. That's not why I and the other members on this side of the House were elected. We are here, and we've been voted in here to do the business of this province in a rational, reasoned debate, and that does not happen when you're going past 6 o'clock and getting into ten or 12 hours of debate. We need time to consider the legislation, to work on it, to communicate with people, to discuss it in order that we can come in here fully informed and debate rationally. There, I really think, is the whole nub of this matter. I don't think that that government wants reasoned debate. They want to push everything through. They don't want to be questioned on the business of this government, because they know that a lot of it is not very good. They are not willing to really let the opposition and the people of this province know what they're up to. They want to shove it through as quickly as possible, before people can realize what this government's doing to them.

It's really important, in the business of government, that the people within this chamber develop goodwill amongst themselves and develop among the people of the province a feeling of goodwill -- that we are here doing things as they would see it done. That goodwill, in the way this government is operating, is gradually evaporating. This government does not behave in a manner that would show that they really want things to be run well. They have shown that they're incompetent at running the business of the province, by having to jump into legislative sittings at night because they haven't been able to keep their agenda going. I would thank the minister for this opportunity to at least point out the incompetence of the government, and I would wish that they would reconsider this crazy mood that they've got into. Let's go back into proper legislation and a proper time frame so that we can deal with the business in the most expedient and responsible way, which we were elected to do.

H. Giesbrecht: Just in case anybody happens to be watching, at 6 o'clock today there was a motion proposed that the House at its rising stand recessed until 6:30 p.m. It's now 8 o'clock, or ten minutes after eight, so for the past almost two and a half hours of debate from the Liberal members -- with the exception of a brief interruption -- we have been debating on whether or not we should recess for 35 minutes.

Clearly implied at the end of that is the reconvening to get on with the business of the House. This is June, and summer is approaching. Many of us would like to go on with our families and enjoy the summer. I know that tonight the Liberal members would rather be doing something other than the people's business in this House. There are movies to see in Victoria. There is golf to play. There are, maybe, bars to visit. For all I know, they might be wanting to listen to reruns of their leader's speeches -- heaven knows why they would want to do that.

Now, we are all paid expenses to be here. It seems that the more time we have to get the job done down here, the better the deal is for the taxpayers. It's really that simple. We've all been here since the end of March. I've heard the same speech that I've heard for the last two hours and ten minutes probably a hundred times in the last seven years -- the same rhetoric, the same exaggerated examples. I've heard it all before, and we're hearing it again. Most of it has no relation to the truth, and the rest is exaggeration. But for this, it is important to spend two hours and ten minutes hearing it again. The taxpayer of B.C. isn't going to accept this nonsense, and I know that the opposition is eventually going to find out. It would be interesting, of course -- and they might want to work this out -- to know what it's costing the taxpayer for us to actually engage in this two-hour-and-ten-minute discussion -- the staff time that's involved. This is all because they have their knickers in a knot -- pardon the expression -- because they got only 12 hours' notice, the same as everyone else.

[ Page 8516 ]

S. Hawkins: I'm quite pleased, actually, to rise and join in this debate. I've also been listening for the last couple of hours, and I've listened very carefully. . . .

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Order, members. Continue, member.

S. Hawkins: As soon as I can hear myself speak, I will continue.

I've listened very carefully. I thought that the comments from this side of the House were quite relevant, and I appreciated those comments. But do you know what? I thought that the comments of the last member who got up and spoke, the member for Skeena, were quite pathetic, actually. That's the first time that that member rose to speak in this House. And do you know what? There was a rural health care crisis, which still continues in the north, but did he speak about health care? Did he stand up and talk about the patients that are suffering in his part of the north? No, he didn't speak about health care. How about all those unemployed forestry workers? Did he talk about the forestry crisis in this province? Did I just hear him stand up and talk about all those lost forestry jobs in this province? Did I hear him say that? I think that is the first time he has stood up to say anything in this House. He's the one that points out that we've been sitting here since the last week in March. We've been sitting here since the last week in March, and do you know what? I think that is the first time I've seen him get up. Did he talk about health care? No. Did he talk about forestry? No.

[8:15]

H. Giesbrecht: I guess I'm a little bit new in this House, but I know that the hon. member would not want to willingly mislead this House in terms of the number of times I have spoken, at least in this session. Maybe she'd want to keep the record straight.

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Order, members. The Chair would just like to remind members that we are dealing with the motion in regard to the recess.

Perhaps I could ask the member for Okanagan West to continue.

S. Hawkins: Well, perhaps I was wrong. Perhaps the member has spoken more than once. I think I heard him introduce a constituent once in the House. But I don't see those members on the back bench getting up. They chastise us for standing up and speaking here tonight and asking to do the people's business in a responsible, organized way. That is what this debate is about. But that member gets up and whines. He whines about why he has to sit here tonight and listen to the opposition. My goodness, do we ever feel sorry for you! Do you know what? I do feel sorry for them. Do you know why? Because they came in just as late as we did in this session. Their Premier wasn't organized. Their House Leader wasn't organized. They didn't have a legislative agenda. They didn't have legislation prepared. I feel bad for you members; I really do. I see you skulking around the halls, too, wondering when this session is going to end, because I know you're herded in here like sheep and you're sat down to vote, and then you're herded out. I know that.

Deputy Speaker: Member, through the Chair, please.

S. Hawkins: I feel for them. I know they're embarrassed, because that's the way their session has been going. The opposition has actually been quite organized and focused this session. There are only three bills left on the order paper, and the estimates have moved along in an orderly fashion. And less than 12 hours ago, we got notice that we're having a night sitting -- and I understand that the back bench got just as much notice. That is incredible. So I can understand how bad they're feeling.

I remember the member for Fort Langley-Aldergrove pointing out earlier that when the Premier first got sworn in, he talked about wanting a new era of cooperation -- a new era of working together, of making the Legislature work better. I remember that. He talked about having the committees work and doing things differently. I remember that, and I know all the other members remember that too. They probably thought that things were going to change and get better. But they really. . . . He didn't mean it. We know that he says one thing and he does another. I guess we all got taken in by that. I know the members on the other side aren't happy; I know they're not happy about having to come in late. We came in at the eleventh hour to hear a throne speech, to try and get the budget in, and to try and get the interim supply bill in. And guess what. As the member for Skeena rightly pointed out, we're going into summer and we're still here.

That's not the opposition's fault. We're here to do the people's business; that's what we're here for. Maybe the members opposite want to get in and out as fast as they can, because we know that when they're in session, all the focus is on what the government is doing or not doing, or what they're managing or not managing, or what they're mismanaging. So they want to get in and get out. We know that, and I know they're not happy at having to be here and sit through the summer. But, hey, if the Premier was organized, if your Government House Leader was organized, we could have been in here in February. We could have been in here in February, March, April, May and June -- that's five months. We could have had the people's business done. We could have had the budget approved. We could have had it all done.

We talked about. . . . I remember this debate. Perhaps I should just pick up my notes. Obviously they didn't listen last year, so here we are doing it again. When we heard the Premier saying he wanted to do things differently, we did put forward the idea of a parliamentary calendar. Wow! What a concept -- a parliamentary calendar! Most of the provinces and the federal government have one. They organize when they come in and when they go out. They have a spring sitting; they have a fall sitting. Hey, what a concept!

That way, you could organize your life. The member talks about wanting to spend time with family. That way, you could organize time with your family. Kids are going to be going into the summer vacation, and because of their mismanage-

[ Page 8517 ]

Obviously, when the members were sitting on this side of the House, they thought so. The member that spoke prior to me had quotes from the Premier saying that night sittings were "legislation by exhaustion" -- were not appropriate, were not the way that the people's business should be done in a responsible manner. Well, hey -- what's changed? I guess that's what happens when you get over to that side of the House.

What is the crisis? Why are we going into night sittings? The House was moving along quite well; the House was moving along very well. The legislation was getting debated. Legislation that needed more attention was getting that; legislation that didn't was getting passed. There was lots of cooperation from this side of the House to get things moving along.

One would expect that the government would be organized and would be prepared for this session, but obviously they're not. Now, if there is urgency, if there is legislation to come on board that we must debate, bring it on. We haven't seen it. And we know that we've still got some major estimates left. We've got Forests, which is continuing at this time; we've got Health to debate; we've got Children and Families. My goodness, we've got tons of stuff to do.

If the government was organized and they knew the kind of scrutiny that their budget estimates needed, they would have called the session earlier. We came in at the eleventh hour -- the last second. We came in at the very last second to get started on debate, and here we are in the middle of June. If we had been here in February or earlier in March, we could be out. But now they're whining that they want to go -- and we know that there is a ton of the people's business left to do.

They want to call a night sitting. What's the crisis for calling the night sitting? We heard other members talking about. . . . Is it unemployment in the province? Is it the unemployment figures: over 18 percent youth unemployment, over 9 percent general unemployment? Is it that? Is it all the jobs lost in the forests? Could it be that? We are fully prepared to start debating those issues with the government, if that's what the crisis is. But it's not.

I have to question the government's motives, I guess, in calling a night sitting with no consultation and absolutely no notice. It flies in the face of cooperation between the opposition and the government in moving along the House business, because this is what results when you don't have that kind of cooperation.

We heard earlier about members who were perhaps less than vocal about constituent issues in their ridings. I heard members talk about how members of the opposition had been quite focused. There are a lot of us that want to get up when the debates are on for Municipal Affairs or wanted to get up for some of the estimates that have passed. There're lots of us that wanted to get up for Transportation and Highways, for Small Business, Tourism and Culture, and talk about what's going on in our ridings. But we contained ourselves. We let our critics handle a large majority of the estimates, and we tried to focus on specific things that were perhaps a little more critical. We had to prioritize so that we kept within a time frame so we could move the session along.

I know that in every one of the estimates that arises, I have files at least this high that I want to go up against the minister with -- I really do. Going into night sittings isn't going to encourage us to be as succinct. If the government wants to drive the agenda and extend the House into later hours, I'll start pulling out my files. I know that there are major estimates coming up. Health is coming up. Children and Families is coming up -- and boy, we've got a ton of issues there. And I know that every member in the House, as was said before, has health care crises going on in their constituency, and certainly there are crises in the constituencies of the members opposite, because -- you know what? -- those members don't stand up in this House and speak for their constituents.

A week ago we saw a crisis in Golden, where the member from Golden was called to task by his constituents because a clinic in Golden was closing because of the doctors' dispute. One of our members, the member for Matsqui, went out to Golden and met with the constituents. Do you know what he found? The member from Golden wouldn't commit to seconding a motion for emergency debate in this House, because they did not feel that rural health care was in crisis and that it was an emergency.

Interjections.

S. Hawkins: No, they didn't. We never heard that member speak up once. The member for Matsqui took two binders full of notes from Hansard. The members on this side of the House had spoken in the House for patients in rural B.C. and about the crisis they're facing in health care. The member from Golden was silent.

Interjections.

S. Hawkins: The member from Mount Robson finds her voice now -- amazing! For the last four and a half to five months, not a peep. And I went up to her riding three times. Did I see her anywhere where those patients were meeting? Did I see her at any of the rallies? Did I see her walk a mile in those patients' shoes when they were crying out for help? Not once. Shame on that member from Mount Robson! She finds her voice now. If she wants to speak up for patients in Prince George, she should stand up and speak for them in this House now.

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Order, members.

S. Hawkins: She should stand up and speak for those patients now. I attended a rally in Vanderhoof. There were 1,500 people there, and they were wondering where that member for Prince George-Mount Robson was. They felt that she and her government had betrayed them, neglected them and ignored them on rural health care. That's how they felt. The patients in Vanderhoof -- patients from Burns Lake, Fraser Lake and Fort St. John who had to drive to Prince George to a hospital that was absolutely stressed to the max -- felt that this cabinet minister had let them down because she had not spoken up for them -- not one word. And the really

[ Page 8518 ]

[8:30]

Or is the crisis the waiting lists in this province? Are we sitting late, perhaps, because the government thinks that it is really, really important to move things through so that we can get to health care estimates and debate the waiting-list problem in this province?

About two weeks ago, the government released a document that outlined what a horrible, horrible state the waiting lists for cardiac surgery in this province were in. They really didn't tell us how bad they were; they told us that they were going to do something about them. The minister's press release, of course, just said: "Well, things aren't that great, and we're going to put more money into it." You have to read the report to find out how horrible that is. Perhaps that is what the crisis is here, and we're going to sit late to debate that, because what we found out in that report is that the number of patients forced to wait longer than six months for cardiac surgery has tripled in the last three or four years. The cardiac surgery waiting lists are the worst in history. That is unbelievable, and it is because of the mismanagement of this government. Perhaps we should be debating that report -- perhaps that's the urgency, that's the crisis. A cardiac patient has a one-in-five chance today of getting their cardiac surgery within the recommended time frame. If you're unlucky enough to be a very urgent cardiac patient, that patient has only a one-in-seven chance of getting surgery done within a 72-hour time frame. If that's the urgency and we want to debate health care. . . . Come on -- let's do it.

What is the urgency to night-sit? When we've tried to have those kinds of motions debated, the government says they're not an emergency and they turn them down. So if there is an urgency, then, for goodness' sake, tell us what the urgency is. When we talk about northern and rural health care. . . . Northern and rural patients wait at least five weeks longer than patients in the lower mainland and Victoria for their cardiac surgery. When we talk about crises. . . . Twice in this House we've called for an emergency debate on rural health care, because that's an emergency. That's a crisis -- a real crisis. But that wasn't ruled to be a crisis.

Well, what is the crisis? What is the urgency to sit late tonight? I know those members are whining. They're probably going to the Premier and to the senior people, and saying: "We really want to go home. We're tired of sitting here. This is the third summer that we've had to sit." Hey, if you were organized, we wouldn't be here in the summer. If you had called the House back in February or in early March, if you had an agenda, if you were organized -- all these ifs; if only they were organized, if only they could manage, if only they'd tell the truth, we would probably be done by now.

But they can't get their act together. Every year we're called in late. Every year the budget's coming in at the eleventh hour. Every year we're running overtime. And every year their families suffer, as do the families of members on this side. We all have lives. A few minutes ago, I mentioned a parliamentary calendar. I don't know how many more of these debates we'll have until finally we knock some sense into the people who can make those changes, and they say: "Hey, not a bad idea." We talked about a spring sitting; we talked about a fall sitting; we talked about having time off in between so we can service our constituents properly, spend time with family and attend significant events in our ridings. This is the time of year when we're all invited to graduations. Wouldn't it be nice if they got their act together and they were organized, and we actually got into session at an appropriate time, so we could get out of session and attend those significant events in young people's lives. They look up to us as some kind of role models. This is ridiculous. We cannot attend those kinds of events in their lives that they feel are significant enough to invite their MLA.

I know those members over there, are all whining and saying: "Oh, this is getting late. We don't want to be here. We're stuck. We want to get home." The back bench should talk to the Premier and to the senior members, the House Leader, and tell them: "Get your act together. It's time you got your act together. It's time that you actually called the House at a decent time instead of being absolutely disorganized about what you're going to do with the budget." Honestly, they haven't known what to do with the budget in the last seven years. For the last seven years we've had seven consecutive deficit budgets. They haven't known what to do at all. Is it too much to ask, perhaps, that maybe they get their act together next year in time, so that we're not repeating the same scenario next year as this year -- and as we did last year?

This is my third session in this House, and from my experience, I see very little changing. I can only hope. But we know that we have a government and a Premier that say one thing and do another. He said he wanted an air of cooperation; he said he wanted to do things differently; he said he wanted committees to work. Hon. Speaker, I'm going into my third year. I have been appointed to the Select Standing Committee on Health -- and you know what? We haven't met once, and we know that in the last three years, health has been in a terrible state of crisis.

We've gone from one crisis to another in this province. Wouldn't it be nice if the Premier actually did what he said for a change and had the Health Committee meet? I know for a fact that one party doesn't own policy for health care in this province. I know that. All the parties -- every last member in this chamber -- are truly concerned about health care; I can honestly say that. The Select Standing Committee on Health has all-party members sitting on it. Wouldn't it be nice to be able to share those ideas, to share the concerns coming from different parts of the province -- to have that kind of dialogue? But it doesn't happen.

We know it's in crisis. I go to the NDP backbench ridings and listen to concerns from patients and families and caregivers. I bring them back into this House, and I raise them. It's a shame that they don't get up and raise those same issues; it really is a shame. Perhaps the committee is the place where they would feel comfortable doing it. Maybe the committee is the place where they would feel comfortable raising those issues, because they certainly don't feel comfortable doing that here. I haven't heard. . . . I don't know. Has anybody heard them talk about or raise a health care issue in the

[ Page 8519 ]

Hon. Speaker, people are truly frightened in this province. There are lots of crises. If there is urgency tonight, then we should recognize. . . . We should ask the government to tell us what that urgency is. I can tell you: people are frightened for their jobs in this province; people are frightened for their health care in this province; people are frightened about the economy in this province.

If that's the urgency, if that's the reason for the night sitting, if that is the reason that there was no notice and that we have to get on with the session, then the government should be honest enough to say what the urgency is and what the crisis is. But we have not heard that at all. There are certainly issues of importance, but I don't think that the government has recognized what they are. There are better ways to do the people's business than, as the member previous to me spoke about, legislation by exhaustion. We have been through that; this is my third session sitting in the House. It isn't a responsible, reasonable way to conduct debate -- by debating late at night.

We all work hard. We all have appointments with groups after we get off work. Frankly, we all have early morning meetings. The workday here doesn't end at 6. Perhaps theirs does. Perhaps, as the member for Skeena said, there are movies and bars to go to. Perhaps that's what they do, but we don't. We've got groups to meet with, meetings to set up, because we on this side of the House engage in responsible debate. Their back bench doesn't get up and speak; perhaps they go to the films, the bars and the movies. But there's a lot of organizational stuff to do to prepare for debate.

There are better ways to do the people's business. We take the session seriously. To stand up and debate late at night, to debate this way. . . . It's such a disorganized manner. To go along with the government's disorganization and mismanagement of the session. . . . It doesn't seem like a good way to do business. In fact, I think it's quite disrespectful of the members in this House. But what can we expect from this pathetic -- I like that word -- government and pathetic Premier? Night sittings at this time, I think, show a lack of organization.

Deputy Speaker: The Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and Labour rises on a point of order.

Hon. D. Lovick: I rise pursuant to standing order 40, and I will quote the standing order. It says that "no member shall be irrelevant in debate." I would also refer members opposite to the learned MacMinn's comments in which it is made very clear that idle chatter and debate that isn't relevant is indeed the prima facie insult to the dignity of parliament. And I say this with the greatest kindness and respect to the member opposite, because I certainly don't wish to be contentious or combative.

I would simply point out that the motion before us is to recess the House for 35 minutes. The motion was made, however, at approximately ten to six; it is now quarter to nine. I would suggest that that constitutes a perfect definition of irrelevance in debate. It seems to me that the member's comments are therefore entirely irrelevant and that she ought to be brought to order.

Deputy Speaker: Thank you, minister. The member's time has elapsed. I'm sure all members will take the minister's words into account.

A. Sanders: Tonight we're talking about the pros and cons of late-night sittings and whether there is relevancy in doing this at this point. There are many of us who are quite used to working nights; it's part of the normal business of the job. Late-night sittings for the purpose of emergency debates are well within the scope and realm of this House and are very important. They should be carried out at any time that they are warranted necessary. The House should gather for those purposes.

There are a number of issues that this side of the House has brought forward for emergency debate over the course of this sitting. The most prominent one, I would think, which the member for Okanagan West mentioned is the northern health care crisis for families, something that some people have coined as "NDP Days" -- no doctors practising. When that issue was brought forward for emergency debate, it was considered irrelevant and unnecessary. At that point the desire for that was rescinded by government.

[8:45]

We could have discussed youth unemployment -- something that is higher than it's ever been in a decade under this government. Unfortunately, that did not warrant emergency debate.

Deputy Speaker: Excuse me, member. Could you take your seat, please. The Chair must advise the member that it's not appropriate to be discussing emergency debates under standing order 35. We're dealing with the motion to recess.

A. Sanders: Of course, there is no question of questioning the ruling of the Chair, but these are issues that could have been here for emergency debate in the past.

We are also looking at what we have adjourned the House for over this session. I had the opportunity, two weeks ago, to go to the southern interior summit on economic opportunity. For that period of time we adjourned this House for two full days. We took the people's business out of this forum, where we were all gathered, and those of us who were invited went to the Thompson-Okanagan region and discussed the economic opportunities of the southern interior. This was important enough to adjourn the House for two full days, to have everyone go home and to adjourn the House and what was happening here in Victoria.

At that two-day conference, those of us who participated watched the sanitization of the information that was given by the people who worked in groups. The refusal of those groups to directly or completely report what people who live in that

[ Page 8520 ]

We had two days out of this House to see the sanitization of the economic opportunities as they occur in the Thompson-Okanagan region. That was two days of not doing the people's business in this House, two days that the Premier and cabinet took off to go up to Kamloops to wine and dine the people of the area and then sanitize the information that they spent a long time trying to get back to the government on what was really wrong with the economic situation in the South Okanagan and Thompson regions.

This government decides when it wants to have the opportunity to discuss things in the House and to have night sittings, which are important if they are relevant. If they are relevant, there is no question of the importance of being here, and it is our duty to do so. With the decisions that have been made in this session of the House and in the last session of the House as to when to convene when not to convene, or when the Premier has a photo opportunity and when it's an opportunity to not be in the House and to adjourn, there is no logic -- other than a photo opportunity -- for when we are here and when we are not. As an elected member, I find that unconscionable.

Has there been time wasted in this session, hon. Chair? Well, we arrived here on March 24, 1998, and yes, there has been time wasted. But I would have to say that the time has been wasted by the government side of the House. What we've seen in many of the estimates, which have run relatively smoothly in terms of irrelevant questions being forgone and questions of substance being asked, is something akin to the amateur hour. Today I spent a number of hours in Municipal Affairs watching the minister and her staff try to convince the public that they had a plan. The only plan I could come up with from any member of this government is one of advertisement flooding: $3 million a month to tell taxpayers that this government, somewhere, has an idea, a plan, on how B.C. should be managed.

In this session there has been time wasted. Today in Municipal Affairs I could have spent four hours helping constituents in Okanagan-Vernon. Instead, I spent four hours in the small House watching the minister and her staff avoid answering questions. I spent four hours watching staff with no ammunition, no information, no insight and no solutions to the leaky-condo crisis.

An Hon. Member: No leadership, either.

A. Sanders: And no leadership -- thank you, hon. member.

I found thousands of condominium owners who will find that they have nothing to look forward to except the appointment of an NDP hack to the position of commissioner. When polled, 30 percent of the public have no faith in the results that would come from that quality of commissioner. I find it unconscionable that this government can waste my time tonight, with respect to an emergency debate, when they can waste my time every single day since March 24 talking to me about stuff that is only relevant in the space between their ears and not within the context of British Columbia.

You know, we could have spent valuable time in emergency debates talking about the health care crisis. Instead we've had a Health minister who's been oblivious this session to the absolute waste, chaos and crisis that have resulted from this government's regionalization plan. We've got a government that's created a two-, three-, four-tier health care system. Depending on whether you're in rural British Columbia, the lower mainland, the Fraser Valley or the Kootenays, you can have any kind of health care you want. But it isn't the kind that you've paid for as a taxpayer, and it's certainly not the kind that delivers when you're sick.

We've got a minister who sits across from me who's immune to the closures of hospitals and diagnostic facilities and home care services, from Vancouver all the way to Fort Nelson. And that member has been impervious in this House to the fear and anxiety that we have seen in this gallery here from young families and the elderly in Fort Nelson, Mackenzie, Burns Lake, Vanderhoof, Fort St. James, Quesnel, the Elk Valley and all of the communities in British Columbia where people have coped without emergency service on NDP Days -- no doctors practicing days. In thirteen communities in British Columbia. . . . Did we have an emergency debate on that when this side of the House asked for it? Absolutely not. This government has turned a deaf ear and a blind eye to the people in the north. I can't imagine how those people would vote for this government again.

We've wasted time in other areas. I spent a very long time -- 28.5 hours -- in the Education estimates with a Minister of Education who wasn't even aware when we started the debates that he'd been cut out of the loop in terms of the negotiations with the executive of the BCTF. He was unaware that there had been a marriage engineered for which he would pay with his credibility, and without consent of the mutual parties. We have a situation where we had bogus announcements in Education and a Minister of Education who has bragged about a $105 million injection into the government's coffers for education, with backslapping and kudos and high-fiving, at a time when this government, while they've been in power, have cut education $400 per student from 1991 to '98. We haven't had an emergency debate from a government that would tell us that they are putting money into education when I can't find a trustee, an administrator, a teacher or anyone in the entire province who can say that the money that's gone in would do anything other than make a status quo circumstance.

We've wasted time in the House talking about the numbers of portables in British Columbia. This Premier and I went to an announcement that he made with all sorts of glory. He had young children tape up the doors to the portable in Richmond, a portable that had been dragged onto the school grounds before the school had opened -- a photo opportunity for the Premier. This Premier told people at that announcement that in five years we would have 50 percent less portables. This Premier can't make that announcement, because it was made before, by his predecessor in 1991. Since that time the portable number has increased 95 percent in British Columbia. Give me a break. The credibility of this government is sadly, sadly, sadly lacking.

There have been problems with announcements here. We have wasted time in this House. There's the human factor of time waste, but more importantly there's the time wasted on bogus announcements, irrational announcements, announcements that lack credibility, announcements that lack information, announcements that lack insight into the economic circumstances of B.C., crises in education, crises in forestry, politicization of very serious issues in municipal affairs such as the leaky-condo issues, problems with expanded gambling, problems with small businesses going under, horrible prob-

[ Page 8521 ]

If any of these ministers or this Premier would like to bring forward any of those issues for emergency debate, I can assure him that this side of the House will be here until the wee hours of the morning to make sure that those issues are canvassed completely to the satisfaction of every single taxpayer in British Columbia. But the ability of the government to have us here because they can't manage a timetable and can't manage a schedule is completely unforgivable.

[The Speaker in the chair.]

C. Clark: The issue before us when we debate our sitting this evening has been canvassed by many of the members, but I want to ask again: why does the government want us to sit into the evening tonight? What's the urgency? What's the crisis situation?

Members on the other side say: "Well, why not? Why not expand the time available?" That might be, at first blush, an argument in favour of sitting late. Why not expand the time available to all of us to scrutinize the legislation that's before us? Why not do that -- scrutinize the decisions of the government, the legislation that they're going to bring forward, their budgets? Why not maximize the time? Why not have the House sit as often as possible?

You know what? I agree with that. Why not have the House meet more often? Why not sit more often? Why not have more opportunities to scrutinize this government's decisions? Why shouldn't we do that? That's a good idea. I'd love to see some lightbulbs go on over the heads across the way. That's a good idea. Why not get this House working in a way that's productive? Why not give every member of this House and the public the opportunity to scrutinize this government's decisions more often, in a more timely manner and in the light of day? Why not do that? Why not have this House sit more months of the year? Why shouldn't we do that? What's the matter with that idea? I think that's what the public expects.

[9:00]

When we say that we think the committee system should work the way it's intended, so that the public can have input into those committees and legislators can hear from the public, it's not about the opposition -- it's about the public. That's what we're doing here: representing our constituents.

When we ask to make this chamber work better, to meet more frequently, to expand the powers of committees -- or to get committees doing what they're supposed to be doing, actually meeting -- that's what we're trying to achieve. If committees meet throughout the year and are able to travel the province and to hear from constituents, that's work of the Legislature that's worthwhile. And it's not just worthwhile; it's our duty.

When this government cut $300 per student from the education system, and they went to school boards and they said, "You're not getting as much money this year for all the kids in your school, and you're going to have figure out what you're going to cut," and school boards made those decisions about what they were going to cut. Some of them said: "Well, you know, we're going to cut English as a second language. We're going to cut classes for special needs children." Those are some of the things that they said they were going to cut.

Who made that decision? Who decided that the government should take $300 per student out of the education system? Where did that debate occur about where that money would or wouldn't best be spent in our school system? When we have debated health care in British Columbia and in Canada over the years, as health care funding has gotten more difficult to come by and as governments have had to make difficult decisions about what they're going to fund and what they're not. . . . In some cases, where they've managed their budgets prudently, and have even been able to make decisions about where they're going to add funding in those jurisdictions, the debate has been widely held and has engaged the public about where we should be spending our dollars in the system. So when decisions are made, presumably in many jurisdictions where there's been a wide debate about them and there's been a great deal of public input, legislators can make those decisions in response to what the public wants, or at least with some knowledge of what the public wants.

When this government decided to cut education, when they forced school boards into a position where they had to chop at ESL and at classes for special needs kids, who made the decision that that was where the money should come from? When this government decided to pump $324 million into a dying pulp mill -- instead of into our education system or into the Ministry for Children and Families or into waiting lists; instead of into those things -- who made that decision? Where was the public's input into that decision?

Governments are only as good as their ability to listen and to respond to the public. I would suggest that this government doesn't do either well. They don't listen, they don't respond -- and you know what? -- they don't even give the public the opportunity to be heard. They don't even allow the public that basic opportunity, by empowering committees to go out there and listen to what the public wants.

What the government should do is have the House sit more frequently. If we were able to have a set legislative agenda where we did estimates at one set sitting in the year and we did bills at another set sitting of the year, then the public would certainly be able to expect more accountability from the people who sit here. But instead, what do we do? We sit here until 10 o'clock at night, and the members on the other side wait while the opposition exhausts its opportunities to speak.

Of course, the members of the government, when they have an opportunity to speak, rarely ever take it up. When they have opportunities to speak, they don't stand up and represent their constituents. You know what they say? They say to their constituents: "Don't worry. We're doing it, but it's all behind closed doors. We're lobbying quietly on your behalf. Don't worry. You don't need us to speak in the Legisla-

[ Page 8522 ]

They have an opportunity to get up today and speak on behalf of their constituents -- just like we all do -- but do they? No, they don't. They don't do that. Do they stand up and speak on behalf of their constituents when there's a pressing health care issue? No, they don't. Do they get up and speak on behalf of their constituents when there are crisis issues in British Columbia? No, they don't. All we get is rhetoric from the minister. The other members that represent that region of the province where the Ministry for Children and Families has been in terrible crisis don't get up and speak on behalf of that region. Those children who are being so poorly served, not just by the Ministry for Children and Families but because they're on long waiting lists for health care. . . . Are they being heard through their representatives in the Legislature? No -- not unless they're on this side of the House.

But maybe they secretly are. What do we know? Do we know that the members of the government back bench are secretly lobbying on their behalf? Don't worry -- they might be secretly doing it; we just aren't privy to those discussions. Maybe that's what's happening. Well, I'll tell you, I think the constituents of the New Democrat members of this House would feel a heck of a lot more comfortable if they knew they were represented by people who had the courage to stand up and speak on their behalf. I think that's what their constituents want, and I'll tell you, when the next election rolls around, they're going to make what they want very, very clear to the members on that side of the House. That's what's going to happen when the next election rolls around.

So what's the crisis? Why are we sitting so late? Why are we sitting here tonight to do this? You know, the House could have been called back earlier, and we might have been out by the end of June. Shoot, we might have been out before then if we could have had another sitting scheduled for the fall. That might have been good enough. Why didn't the Legislature get called back until the end of the fiscal year? Why didn't the Legislature get called back until after the government had to go and get special warrants? Why did we wait till the very, very last minute for this Legislature to reconvene?

When I go home to my constituents, they say: "What do you mean? What are you doing here? Isn't the House sitting?" When they see me at events in September, October and November, they say: "Why aren't you in Victoria doing the people's business on our behalf?" I have to explain to them: "Well, you know, the way I have to do your business is out of my constituency office, because the Legislature doesn't sit. The Premier doesn't call the Legislature back. He isn't interested in having the Legislature sit for long periods of time."

That is shameful. If the Legislature doesn't sit, we are missing that basic piece of accountability in the system. This is the public's window into decision-making that's being done on their behalf, into decision-making about money that is being spent that belongs to them. When we did the interim supply debate -- when the Ministry for Children and Families had to get extra money from special warrants because the government had run out of time on its budget -- the minister walked in and she couldn't even tell us what the money was being spent on. We in this House had to rely on faith that the government -- when it made that secret decision behind closed doors, when it decided to spend that money, and when it made that order-in-council behind closed doors, without the light of public scrutiny peeking in -- had all the information that they required to make the right decision. That's the faith the public was being asked to put in this government.

So the decision was made, the money was spent, and it came to the Legislature well after the fact, in another evening sitting, for us to approve retroactively. And what did we find out when we had to approve it retroactively? They didn't have the information that they needed to make that decision properly; they didn't know where that money was being spent. That's what we found out -- that when they have their meetings, where the public has no access to the decision-making process, where the public has no ability to scrutinize the decisions that are being made by government. . . . When they made that decision, they didn't even have the basic information that would have surely been demanded of them if they'd had to come to this Legislature and ask for approval.

That's the right way to run government. That is what members on that side of the House used to say when they sat over here; they used to say that that was the right thing to do. But their story has certainly changed. Their commitment to the accountability of government has certainly changed now that they're on that side of the House. These are the people that used to sit there and say: "Not a dime without debate, hon. Speaker -- not a dime. Not a decision without public scrutiny, without pulling back the veil of cabinet secrecy and allowing the light to shine in so that the public can see what's going on." That's what they used to say when they sat sanctimoniously on this side of the House and called the government of that day unaccountable and undemocratic.

Well, the tables have turned, because this is the most unaccountable government I can remember in British Columbia. This is a government that has so little respect for this legislative chamber that it rarely meets. This is a government that has so little respect for the money that it gets from taxpayers -- and decides to spend every day -- that it regularly goes to special warrants, that it regularly does what it says government shouldn't do. They regularly make those decisions behind the veil of cabinet secrecy. This is a government that has so little respect for the public that they refuse to go out with the committees and find out what the public is thinking. That's how little respect they have for the public, that's how little respect they have for this chamber, and that's how little respect they have for all those opinions they so sanctimoniously held when they were on this side of the House.

I'll tell you, hon. Speaker, I don't have very much respect for them either. I don't have very much respect for a government that refuses to listen to the public, that refuses to allow the public into the debate and to engage them in decision-making, that insists on making its decisions behind the veil of cabinet secrecy; a government that is so hooked on keeping everything secret that to get a freedom-of-information request, it's going to cost you five grand: "Sure, the public can have the information. You know, it belongs to the public. It doesn't belong to the government."

It's just like tax dollars; they don't belong to the government either. They belong to the public, and the government has a duty to spend that money judiciously. The government, when it collects information from the public, has a duty to allow that information to get back to the public. It belongs to them. It's not for the government to collect information about

[ Page 8523 ]

An Hon. Member: Make them pay for what they can't have.

C. Clark: . . .but they're going to make them pay for three weeks of work, to make sure that they don't get much of it. Where's the logic in that? Where's the logic in a government that doesn't believe that the information that they collect belongs to the public? How comfortable should members of the public, citizens of British Columbia, be in knowing that we have a government that collects information, spends our money and refuses to tell us what it's doing with it, refuses to let any of that information out so that the light of public scrutiny can shine on it? How much confidence can the public have in this government, when they are so hooked on keeping everything secret behind closed doors and when the government members feel it is much more effective for them to only secretly lobby on behalf of their constituents? It's got to be a secret.

[9:15]

An Hon. Member: If they're actually doing it.

C. Clark: I'm taking a leap of faith here, because I am assuming that when the NDP members say that they're secretly, quietly, behind closed doors, lobbying on behalf of their constituents, they are actually doing it. Again, there isn't any proof of it. If it is true that the proof of it would be in the outcome, then I have to assume they're not doing it -- if that's the truth. If those NDP members from rural British Columbia had been fighting all those months on behalf of their constituents to preserve health care in the north, then I would have to assume that this government -- if they were going to listen or if those people were even speaking to them -- wouldn't have let that crisis fester and fester until the health of the people in the north was endangered. The outcome of all that quiet lobbying -- all that secret, closed-door, backroom lobbying -- wasn't very good, if they did it at all. It sure as heck didn't achieve its objective -- if they did it at all.

It's exactly that kind of attitude that makes it impossible for the public to know what the government is doing on their behalf. If the NDP members can only lobby secretly and quietly, and only behind closed doors, and can never stand up and speak on behalf of their constituents in the House -- speak up on behalf of health care in the north, speak up on behalf of children in Quesnel. . . . If the NDP members can't do that publicly, then, the public can only assume that they're not doing it at all. If they were doing it, the government should be doing something about it. And I'll tell you, the government isn't doing something about it. The government isn't listening to these NDP backbenchers who have all these great, fine, upstanding and respectable but oh-so-quiet and secret priorities for government.

All those NDP members who think it would be better to invest some money in the front lines of the Ministry of Children and Families, maybe redeploy that money from the investment of Skeena Cellulose, please stand up or raise your hand. All those NDP members who would like to see the government reorient its spending priorities to reflect what children need in British Columbia, please raise your hand. All those NDP members who have been secretly, quietly and carefully lobbying the cabinet members behind closed doors to get their priorities straight, to take the $3 million they spend in advertising every month and put that into the front lines of the Ministry of Children and Families or invest that in waiting lists in health care. . . .

I hope that all those NDP members who have been secretly lobbying for that will take the opportunity to speak tonight and get it on the record. I hope they'll do that, because otherwise we don't know that they're doing it. But then again, maybe they're not. And if they won't get up and say that they will, I have to assume they're not. If they are, they sure are ineffective, and they sure should be doing a better job.

This government's priorities certainly don't reflect those of British Columbians. But then, how would the government know anyway? We've got a government that is so out of touch with British Columbians that they must be scared to even listen to them. They must be scared to even go out and find out what's going on with the public.

And here we are tonight, late night sittings again, instead of having a legislative system that works, instead of having a chamber that operates something closer to year-round, instead of having committees that go out and listen to the public, so that our time is maximized to be able to engage them in governing in British Columbia, to be able to excite them about some of the decisions that the government is making, to make sure that what we do reflects what they want. That's our purpose, surely, in being here in the House.

So here we are. With less than 24 hours' notice, the government says: "Well, suddenly, we want to ram everything through as quickly as we can." It's not because there's a particular crisis we want to discuss. No, no. On the government side of the House, they don't like to get up and discuss the problems; they don't like to do that. They like to do it quietly, or not at all -- not so that we can deal with the crisis, but just so the government can push through its legislative agenda as quickly as it can, in as short a period of time as possible, so that they can avoid having the House sit too long and having too many question periods to face.

I'll tell you, hon. Speaker, that in my short experience as an elected official in British Columbia and as an MLA in this House, that's not my experience of what the public wants. That's not what people in my riding suggest that they'd like from government. The government members might be surprised at the number of people that tune in to the legislative channel to see what happens in this chamber. They might be surprised to know that when people turn their TV dial and it comes up blank or blue or with just a picture of the Legislature, it's unexpected. They're hopeful that the Legislature might be sitting. Maybe they won't even watch it, but surely it must be a comfort to people to know that the chamber that they pay for is operating and that the decisions that government is making on their behalf are being scrutinized.

Maybe the public doesn't want to be engaged in every single decision, in every moment that this House sits. But

[ Page 8524 ]

I'm not like one of those government backbenchers. If I have an issue with this government, I'm not going to raise it -- and my constituents can be assured I'm not going to raise it -- quietly, covertly, secretly, behind closed doors so that none of my constituents know. I'm going to raise it in the House, but the House has to be sitting for me to do that. The House has to be sitting here; the chamber has to be convened. And for the chamber to be convened, it requires the agreement of the Premier and the executive council.

That's what we all wait for every year with bated breath: for this Legislature to reconvene so that we can do the people's business, so that we can do it in a timely way, in a way that allows the public maximum access to the system as often as possible. But instead of doing it logically, the government said: "No. What we're going to do is stick as much of the legislative year into as few days as possible. The way we're going to do that is by having night sittings." Well, that's disgraceful. It's an insult to the people who pay for this chamber.

It's an insult to them because this isn't about whether the politicians want to stay late, whether I want to stay late; that's not what it's about. It's about the public's right to have the decisions that government makes on its behalf scrutinized. It is about the public's right to have issues that concern them and their families being raised in this legislative chamber when those issues are still timely and can be addressed.

While the government has spent the last year -- well, more than the last year -- kicking the forest industry in British Columbia to death, where have we been? We have not been in this Legislature debating it. It's only been for the last two months that we've been able to do that. While the government has been putting family after family in British Columbia out of work, have we been able to come into this Legislature and debate that? No, we haven't. Have we been able to call a crisis debate about the forest industry in British Columbia to get the government to address it when it happens? No, because the House doesn't sit often enough. We are not here to be able to do that.

If there's a message I would like to leave with the government tonight, it's to beg them, to beg the executive council, to decide to try and make this chamber work more frequently, more accountably, more respectfully of the people who pay for it, more respectfully of all those people who are hurting and who are suffering as a result of this government's policies and who are waiting for relief -- more respectfully of those people, so that they know that their issues can be raised and will be addressed, so that they know that when their job gets redistributed by the Minister of Forests, it can be raised in the Legislature, so that they know that when they're redistributed and they're having trouble making their mortgage payment, it can be raised in this chamber before the public, with its scrutiny.

That's what this is about: it is about accountability in government. It is about government being prepared to listen to people and being there to allow people to be heard. That is what this Legislature is surely most fundamentally about. If there's a message I can leave with the government today, it's to beg them to finally find a way to live up to all the nice, pretty words that they had in opposition and to make their government as accountable as they said it would be before they were elected to that side of the House.

C. Hansen: This is now the third session that I have been a member of this House. It was a little over two years ago, in the last election, that many of us in this chamber were elected for the first time. In that period of time, during those three sessions, I have discovered that this chamber can truly work well. It can work the way it was designed to work. It can work the way the British parliamentary system was meant to work. But to do that, it takes cooperation.

Any legislative chamber in the Commonwealth that's operating under a British parliamentary system has the potential of working as a very fine institution on behalf of the voters of whatever jurisdiction it's in. Certainly this chamber in British Columbia has the potential of doing the people's business in a very responsible way. But I think for that to work, it requires a government that recognizes that this chamber is not a property of the government.

Those members, as a result of a democratic election, have the right to sit on that side of this House. I didn't like the results of that election. Obviously the government members did. As a result of that election that gave them 39 of the 75 seats in this province, in this chamber, they were given the democratic right to form government. Even though they only had 39 percent of the vote in this province, it gave them the right to form government. They established the executive council. They get to form the government's agenda. They get to bring in government legislation. But that, hon. Speaker, does not give them the ownership of this chamber. This chamber does not belong to the government.

This chamber belongs to the people of British Columbia. This chamber is not made up of 39 NDP MLAs. This chamber is made up of 75 MLAs from both sides of this House, representing the New Democratic Party of B.C., the Liberal Party of B.C. and the independent parties. That's what this chamber is all about. We wind up coming into this building on a Monday afternoon after being in our constituencies doing constituency work, and we find that the government has decided that tomorrow they're doing this, or they're doing this.

Do you know that yesterday I came back into this chamber to discover that we were going to be faced with Ministry of Labour estimates? My responsibility on behalf of the taxpayers of this province and the official opposition is to make sure that we lead a process of scrutinizing the spending of the Ministry of Labour. I take that responsibility very seriously, as do all critics and MLAs on this side of the House when it comes to scrutinizing spending that the government plans to do. That's our responsibility.

[9:30]

Well, there are two reasons. First of all, they don't have a program, and secondly, they are not operating in the spirit of

[ Page 8525 ]

The public doesn't expect us to stand up and all agree; that's not what the system is about, and that's not what this House is about. We will provide vigorous opposition. We will fundamentally disagree with many of the measures that this government tries to bring in. We will actually agree with some measures that this government is going to bring in. But whether we agree, whether we have heated words across the chamber, whether we have a spirit of unanimous support for measures, that has nothing to do with the cooperation that's necessary to make this chamber work on behalf of the people of B.C. We could disagree fundamentally on absolutely every single measure that's brought into this House, and yet we can still do it in the spirit of cooperation. And do you know what that means, hon. Speaker? It means that the Government House Leader has to cooperate with the official opposition in terms of the scheduling of the business of this chamber.

The official opposition came into this House on a Monday afternoon to find out: "Oh, by the way, sorry if you had meetings planned for Tuesday evening, because the House is now going to sit." Well, many of us did have meetings planned for tonight. I will bet that the government back bench had full notice that this was going to happen. We've certainly seen lots of examples of that in the past, where it is clear that the government back bench has known for a long time what's going to happen in this chamber. But that information has not been shared with the official opposition.

If you start to wonder why it is that frustrations arise on this side of the House and why it is that the people's business cannot get done efficiently, it's because of those kinds of games that get played by the government. If this government wants to do a service for the public of B.C. . . . They obviously have a legislative agenda -- maybe. We haven't seen very much of it. But certainly they want to get the budgets passed; they want to get the estimates of the various departments passed. The way that they can do that most efficiently, so that the time in this chamber is used most efficiently, is to work within that spirit of cooperation that we have not seen in the last two years. In fact, we have not seen it since this Premier took over as leader of that party, where his direction has been dictating the kind of atmosphere that we have in this chamber.

Part of that spirit of cooperation is the whole role of committees that we have in this House. I know that the Premier has said in the past that he saw a greater role for committees. I want to come back shortly to talk about some of the commitments that the Premier has made in terms of how this House can work better, because we've heard the words in the past, but what we haven't seen is the action to follow it up. How true is that story? How many times have we heard that, where they don't walk the talk?

Let's look at some of the standing committees that we have in this chamber -- the standing committees that should really be the underpinnings of that sense of cooperation that could make this chamber work effectively and could make our roles as MLAs work effectively. The list is in alphabetical order. We have an Aboriginal Affairs Committee. The convenor of that committee is the member for Bulkley Valley-Stikine. We haven't heard the member for Bulkley Valley-Stikine speak very often in this chamber -- rarely. As my colleague from Port Moody-Burnaby Mountain was saying, we're certainly not convinced that this member is speaking out loudly behind closed doors in caucus, because we don't see the evidence of it in terms of any impact on government policy. Here is an opportunity for the member for Bulkley Valley-Stikine to make a true contribution to governing this province.

We could activate the Aboriginal Affairs Committee. This is a committee that was activated in the last two years and actually produced a fine report. We agreed with some parts of it; government agreed with some parts of it. It was a contribution to the debate on aboriginal affairs in this province. I would say to the government members that if there was reason for the Aboriginal Affairs Committee of this House to meet two years ago, there are a hundred times the reasons for it to meet today. When that committee was called to meet, was actually mandated to have meetings, it seemed like the whole settlement of treaties in British Columbia was very far off. It was obvious that there was a need for a public debate -- partly to get information but partly to make sure that the public understood the ramifications and the importance of those treaty settlements.

Here we are two years later. There is a report that's come out of that Select Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs, and yet, I would say that today we are further away from a settlement on treaties in this province than we were two years ago. So if there was ever a need for committees to meet on aboriginal affairs, it's now. It's an opportunity for some of the government backbenchers, instead of feeling that their time in the House while the Legislature is sitting is somehow wasted because they have to sit in the back benches doing nothing, to sink their teeth into some real, meaningful policy development in aboriginal affairs. We can make a contribution, and we can move that process forward.

We have a Select Standing Committee on Justice, Constitutional Affairs and Intergovernmental Relations. If this government were to build on the spirit of cooperation that we are prepared to offer them in how this House operates, we could activate that committee. Just think of the issues that could be before that committee today. We have a resolution that was put to this House on national unity. We had a citizens' committee that traveled around the province. There are probably many issues that that committee could be addressing today to make sure that British Columbians can make an ongoing contribution to ensuring that Canada remains a strong and vital country. That's work that that committee can be doing.

I should say this to the backbench members of government: they don't have to sit there and wait for the great policy initiatives to come out of the executive council. They could be developing some of this work. We could be doing it cooperatively. We have got good minds on that side of the House and on this side of the House, and if we worked together in that spirit of cooperation, we could come up with at least some of the solutions to those problems.

We have a Select Standing Committee on Education, Culture and Multiculturalism that, certainly in the three sessions that I've been here, has never met once. And yet, if I look at the issues that just come out of the constituency of Vancouver-Quilchena in the whole area of education, there are more than enough issues in that one riding to keep this committee busy. And we all know that with 75 ridings, we all have issues of great concern in terms of education that could be the focus of some cooperative work to make this chamber work.

You know, I had an issue that was brought to my attention earlier this year in terms of the need for seismic upgrad-

[ Page 8526 ]

The one thing that is clear to us on this side of the House is that this government does not have its priorities right in terms of how it's spending taxpayers' money. Hon. Speaker, I don't hold the back bench responsible for that; I hold the executive council responsible for that. I am sure that many of the backbench members have had the same issues brought to them by their constituents as I have had brought to me by my constituents. The only difference is that I'm prepared to stand up in this House and speak for my constituents on those issues, and I don't hear the bank bench on the government side standing up to speak on behalf of their constituents on these very issues. If we activated the committee system, it would give all members in this chamber an opportunity to bring forward those kinds of issues.

We have a Select Standing Committee on Economic Development, Science, Labour, Training and Technology. I'm a member of that committee. I would like to be able to stand here and say I'm proud to be a member of that committee. But I can't say that, because that committee has never met -- not once. The convener of this committee is the hon. member for Columbia River-Revelstoke. Every day I go to my messages on my desk to see if there's a message from that member to say that the committee's meeting tomorrow. But now after two years, that committee has not met once. I asked some of the members on the other side: "Please pass a message to the member for Columbia River-Revelstoke. Tell him to give me a call." I would love to hear that that committee is meeting.

Just think of the issues that should be before that committee today. Economic development. We are in a crisis in this province today when it comes to economic growth. We in this province have gone from being number one in economic growth in all of Canada to last place. In terms of the economic growth of this province, there is only one year that the NDP have been in power that we have had a positive economic growth per capita, and that is 1994. Think of it: economic growth per capita is a measure of our standard of living. That's how each of us, as individuals, manage, not as some great statistic in terms of gross domestic product. We're talking about individuals, and on average, individuals in this province are poorer today than they were when this government was first elected in 1991.

Now, that is an issue that clearly the members of cabinet and the Premier haven't got the foggiest clue about as to how to get us out of that mess. But I have no doubt that the 75 of us in this chamber, working together through this committee, can come up with some of the answers. We've certainly put them forward from this side of the House, and I think that if we were to work with that committee, we could come up with a lot of the solutions. We could be delivering those solutions to the executive council, and they could be bringing forward the legislative changes that are necessary in order to get the economy of this province back on its feet again.

This committee also deals with science. We've all heard how high-tech is going to be one of the drivers of the future economy in British Columbia. Granted, we have actually seen some growth in the high-tech industries in this province. But I'd say it's in spite of the policies of this government, not because of them. If you start comparing the track record of British Columbia in terms of high-tech job creation, we pale compared to our neighbours in Washington State and Oregon. It's certainly not because we have less talent in British Columbia. The only difference is government policies, and that's what this committee could be looking at.

Let's start looking at the work that's being done in Oregon with their Oregon Shines program, the cooperation that they have in the high-tech industries, where they actually get the academic community and the business community and governments working together. Isn't that a novel idea? Cooperation to find the answers for job creation to make sure that young people in British Columbia have job opportunities in high-tech ten and 15 years from now. We deserve the same job opportunities -- and better -- that our neighbours in the states to the south have. We have the capacity for doing that. The only thing that's different in this province is government policies.

[9:45]

I know that the number one subject that came up was taxes. That's part of economic development. Mind you, that's also a subject that could be referred to the Finance Committee if it ever met.

What was the number two issue that came up in those discussions? The number two issue in terms of what we have to do in government to revitalize our economy is called balanced labour laws. And the message that came across loud and clear in those consultations was: "Do not change the Labour Code; it's far enough out of whack already. Given that the changes that we've had in past years, it's already driving jobs out of British Columbia."

That is one of the issues that comes up when people start asking: "What can we do in terms of investment opportunities in British Columbia? Where are the areas that we can have investors come in to create jobs in British Columbia?"

One of the issues of concern that comes up consistently, and the reason those investment dollars are not coming to British Columbia, is the imbalance in our labour legislation. Yet here we have a government that is seemingly determined to destroy even more jobs in this province, to bring even more imbalance into our Labour Code. Why are they doing it? Well, the only thing I can think of is that they've got some friends that they owe some commitments to. Because it's certainly not being done in the interests of the average British Columbian; it's not being done in the interests of the 197,000 unemployed that we have in this province.

These are issues that could be referred to that committee. Because what we've learned is that for us to stand up in this House and make constructive suggestions to the members of cabinet in terms of how they can revitalize the economy. . . . Whenever we do that, it's clear that it falls on deaf ears. So let's try something new. Let's try a spirit of cooperation invol-

[ Page 8527 ]

The other area that this committee deals with is training, and training is an area that's going to be absolutely essential. We've seen some initiatives in terms of ITAC, the Industry Training and Apprenticeship Commission that was set up last year. There have been some positive initiatives in that area. But if you start looking at that whole area of training, it's far broader than just the apprenticeship programs that we have in British Columbia. Certainly the rigid factory model that we've had for apprenticeship is clearly not the answer to a future dynamic workplace in all sectors. It may have some of the answers, but we have to be flexible. We've got to look for new ideas, for new ways of training that meet the needs of a changing labour force.

We have an opportunity to do that by working through our standing committees. We can come up with some of those innovations, and we can make that positive contribution. Instead of having government backbench members who are sitting at evening sessions at 9:50 p.m. looking bored, we would have government backbench members who would be sitting and looking excited about the kinds of contributions that we can make toward making this province a better place.

We have a Committee on Environment and Tourism. The member for Victoria-Hillside is the convener of that committee. My understanding is that that member has never called a meeting, that there has never been a meeting of that committee to look at the issues of environment and tourism in British Columbia.

We could be dealing today with the issue of how we process Crown licences in the Ministry of Environment. Because the one thing that's clear to all of us is that it's obvious that the Minister of Environment doesn't know how to manage that department and how to get the priorities of that ministry straight. The workings of this committee could make a positive contribution. And I have no doubt that the member for Victoria-Hillside would be able to make a very positive contribution to how we could reshape some of those initiatives. We have to find ways of making sure that our environment is protected in British Columbia and at the same time allow for industrial growth. We have to make sure that we have approval processes through the environment review process. Let's look at things like the one-window policies, in terms of getting the federal and provincial governments working together to make sure that. . . .

When somebody wants to open a new mine in this province, we want to make sure that it's environmentally sound, but it doesn't have to take three years. Certainly, we could sit down as a committee and find ways of speeding up that process. We could find ways of dealing with the regulation that is strangling so much of economic development in this province.

In the area of tourism. . . . So many people talk about that as being the golden opportunity for the future. There's no doubt that it is. We have a tremendous opportunity to build tourism in this province. Whether it's skiing, ecotourism or hiking, we have a wealth of opportunity. But we can't sit back and expect the Minister of Small Business, Tourism and Culture to come up with all of the great ideas as to how to make that work. If we wait for that to happen, we are going to sell the public of British Columbia short. He does not have all of the answers. In fact, often we wonder if he has any of the answers. But certainly the Committee on Environment and Tourism, drawing on the wisdom and the experience of members from both sides of this chamber, can come up with many of those answers that we need.

We have the Committee on Finance and Government Services, which could start looking at something called, maybe, a debt management plan or a financial management plan. Wouldn't that be novel? Something that we could actually believe in, that we knew the government was going to follow through on -- to make sure that it was going to, in fact, be something real instead of some puffery in a budget speech that nobody ever picks up afterwards.

What we've seen in the past -- up till now -- is a debt management plan, financial management plans, that are all part of a public relations process. They have nothing to do with any inkling that this government might have to control debt -- or, in fact, to find ways to bring down the total debt load of this province, which is now in excess of $30 billion.

We have a Committee on Health and Social Services, which is chaired by the member for Comox Valley. Again, it's a committee that's never met. Just think of the opportunity. With a cooperative spirit in this chamber, that committee could be looking at ways of reducing wait-lists. Many people have said to me that there is more than enough money in the health system in British Columbia to make it run the way it should run. I think we recognize, given our changing demographics, that there has to be an increase in the funding for health care in the years to come. But I've had many health professionals say that there's enough money there today, if it were properly allocated. That is an opportunity for cooperation in this House to come up with some of those answers.

We've had an experience over these last two years of a government casting about, trying to find answers to how to administer health care. We've had New Directions; we've had back-off on New Directions; we've had no directions in the end. But we could have the kind of cooperation that would lead to some answers in terms of the delivery of health care in British Columbia.

Before I sit down, I do want to draw the Premier's attention to some of the commitments that he made in terms of the Crown Corporations Committee. You know, we had a debate in this chamber on July 29 last year. The Premier, in talking about the Crown Corporations Committee, said that he would have liked to have activated it but it had slipped his mind, and he didn't have enough time to do it in what was left of the session last year. He's now had almost a year to do something about the Crown Corporations Committee. Nothing has happened.

Let me quote from what the Premier said in Hansard of last year: "Not to beat a horse here, but if we could manage the House business better and have Wednesdays free, then we could have the Crown Corporations Committee and others meeting, debating and discussing either annual reports of various Crowns or setting up policy review guidelines -- all of the things that would enhance public accountability, which I think we need in this province for Crown corporations."

That was a commitment that this Premier made before the last election. That was a commitment that this Premier made when he was running for the leadership of the province. He has now had two and a half years to deliver on his commitment of an active, functioning Crown Corporations Committee. He has done nothing. Last session he committed

[ Page 8528 ]

Interjection.

C. Hansen: I would like to say to that Government House Leader that rather than treating this chamber as her pet toy, let's treat it with the sense of cooperation that is needed to make sure that this chamber operates on behalf of the people of British Columbia. And we can get some answers to some of the many problems that are out there today.

M. Coell: I'm pleased to be here to offer a few comments on the motion to recess, which at this point seems a little redundant. But I think we all know why we're here. We're here because the government wants to sit at night. I think we all know that the reason for that is twofold: one is a labour bill, and the other is that, as we all know, socialism has always worked best in the dark.

Picture this: the NDP government hanging upside down in a dark cave as the sun goes down, as it is all over British Columbia. They spread their wings, fly out into the night and suck the life out of the economy of this province. That's what they're about to do with the labour bill they intend to bring in. Of course, they have to do that at night and hide it and make sure that no one sees the debate. But I've got to let you know that people are watching you. They know that the labour bill that's coming in is the last nail in the coffin of the economy of this province.

Seven years ago this government got elected on a lot of promises for change and for good government, and that hasn't happened. They're drunk on power and will do anything to keep it. They run this Legislature, the people's House, as if it was their own. They run it to keep power.

That's not what I used to hear the members say seven years ago on the other side of the House. They were for social change. Now it appears that they're here just for power and that they're here to put their own agenda through. Their own agenda is only for about 35 percent of the population. They're in touch with 35 percent of the population, and they don't care about the other 65 percent.

But one thing I always thought was that once a government was elected, they were the government for everyone -- not the government for 35 percent of the population, not a government for their friends and not a government that doesn't care about everyone. Government should care about everyone, should govern for everyone and should govern for a consensus. But that's not what has happened here. You have a government that has governed for friends, insiders and for their own philosophy.

Throughout Canada, we've had NDP governments; we've had socialist governments. They've messed up the economy on almost every occasion. Other parties come in, clean up the mess, pay off the debts and get the economy working -- and that will happen here. I don't think for one minute that the people of British Columbia will put up with another NDP government in this province. They've had their socialist experiment. It's failed. They've had an experiment with a government that governs for 35 percent of the population; it's failed.

[10:00]

The Speaker: Through the Chair, hon. member.

M. Coell: I'm glad for that, Madam Speaker.

This government has spent $24 million on propaganda every year for years. You know that it's to cover up their mistakes. It's to cover up a terrible agenda, an agenda for 35 percent of the population, an agenda that is probably 40 years out-of-date -- a socialist agenda that is so out-of-date that it's the only one left in North America. It's sad when you get a government that gets in power and says: "Our agenda is to have seven deficit budgets, and we're going to end off the seventh budget with the biggest budget deficit of all -- $1.2 billion. We're going to spend $24 million to cover it up. We're going to put ads in the newspaper, ads on TV, ads everywhere saying: 'We're doing a great job.' '' Well, you're not. This government is doing a terrible job.

We have had downgrades. We have had triple-A credit ratings slashed -- thrown out the window every year. We're now on a negative credit watch. But the last straw is when the Wall Street Journal prints: "British Columbia's Economy Sours After Years of Growth." There couldn't be anything worse for this economy and this province than that paper going all over the world saying: "Don't invest. You've got a socialist government led by a labour leader. The Finance minister is an ex-labour leader."

So what have we got? We've got the best news ever, eh? All over the world: "Don't invest in British Columbia." You know what that is? That's young people without jobs. It's young people with no future. It's got no potential for growth. And we've got a government that wants to sit at night to ram through some labour legislation. The last nail in the coffin of this economy is coming, and we're told: "Oh, it's not going to be a tough piece of labour legislation." You know, it almost doesn't matter, because no one believes the government anymore. You'll probably get another Wall Street Journal ad for British Columbia saying: "More labour legislation. Stay away."

This government wants to sit at night to hide what it's doing. The lights are out; the bats are flying all over the place, sucking the energy -- sucking the life out of this economy. And they can laugh and say: "No, we're not doing that. We just want to stay up late at night." We understand, and the people of this province understand, that you want to sneak a whole bunch of stuff through on them, and you don't want them to pay any attention. It's ridiculous.

The member from Parksville-North and Bingo over there has been spending the whole night maligning this side of the House. But she probably spends more on ads propping up her own misfortunes than anyone else in this House.

We're going to spend the next two months of nights in this chamber. We're going to be debating a whole range of issues. We're going to be debating the labour issue -- the nail in the coffin for this economy -- and it will be seven years of success by this government. Wreck the economy. Wreck health care. Wreck education. What's left? You've been successful. Call an election. Get it over with. Let the people throw these socialists out on the dump with the rest of them.

The Speaker: Seeing no further speakers, I recognize the Government House Leader.

[ Page 8529 ]

Hon. J. MacPhail moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 10:08 p.m.

PROCEEDINGS IN THE DOUGLAS FIR ROOM

The committee met at 2:29 p.m.

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF MUNICIPAL AFFAIRS
(continued)

R. Coleman: I want to go back to the discussion we were having before lunch relative to some issues that deal with the B.C. and the National Building Code. The question I've been asking has been pretty straightforward, and that is: has anybody ever had communication with the ministry relative to changing the Building Code as it pertains to building design? Basically it's the envelopes relative to the exchange of air and the wrapping of buildings, as was recognized up to three years ago with regards to this. We were having some discussion before lunch about the fact that the Building Code is in place only for health and safety issues. Yet we do get involved in the glazing of windows and other areas of design relative to the Building Code and specifications. So my question to the minister would be. . . .

[2:30]

Hon. J. Kwan: If the question is whether or not there have been any staff recommendations to change the Building Code in relation to the leaky-condo issue, the answer is no.

With respect to the question on the mandate of the commissioner, the mandate clearly states that the mandate is for the commissioner "to determine the reasons for and the factors contributing to faulty condominium construction, with particular focus on the issue of leaky condominiums." I await the commissioner's report.

R. Coleman: I'm going to go back to the Building Code of the early nineties, which contributed to the problem. As I said, prior to the changes in the Building Code in 1989, housing units experienced four to seven natural changes of air per hour. I want to bring the minister back to our discussion earlier, because I'm not trying to point to the Building Code as the sole and major contributing factor to the difficulties we're having with leaky condos. But as we walk through the leaky-condo issue and the issue of construction in British Columbia today, we need to get to a realization that the way our Building Code is applied is a contributing factor.

Given the lack of drying time on the west coast, interior cavities never have the opportunity to dry out, particularly since so much plastic is required on the exterior walls. Those requirements were the changes to the Building Code that were brought forward. They cannot be said to have caused all the current problems with leaky condominiums, but there's no doubt that they are a contributing factor. I would ask the minister if her ministry was aware three years ago, when the reports were on the table, that the contributing factors to the leaky condos were the lack of drying out in buildings and the lack of air changes taking place in a wet climate that were brought on by changes to the Building Code from 1989 through to 1994.

Hon. J. Kwan: The member references the issue of air and vapour barriers as a contributing factor to the leaky-condo issue. The technical information and reports that the ministry has received to date simply indicate that most of the evidence suggests that the building-envelope failure is a result of outside moisture entering the envelope and not interior moisture migrating outward. To that end, a consortium of technical people, including CMHC and the ministry, has been working on a best-practices guide to deal with this matter.

R. Coleman: I'm aware of the best-practices side of this equation, but we're still not down to the answer to the question. The question is. . . . Let's try to put it another way. Would the minister agree that prior to the Building Code changes in 1989, housing units experienced approximately four to seven natural air changes per hour?

Hon. J. Kwan: I quite frankly do not know whether or not the prescribed formula that the hon. member has cited is in fact the case.

R. Coleman: Isn't it amazing? A team of experts can come out with something to do with building envelopes three years after we were already aware of the problem, and we can put that on the table, but we can't know what the air exchanges were prior to changing the Building Code in 1989, which was almost ten years ago. The amendments to the code in '89 caused the industry to apply heavy polyethylene overlap and seal, effectively reducing air changes to less than two changes an hour. Prior to the changes in 1989, the air changes were four to seven times an hour. The inside of the units, therefore, became starved for air and would pull air from cracks or crevices in the building -- and every building breathes, we should understand -- in order to eqalize indoor and outdoor air pressure.

I realize that we're looking at how the water is getting into the buildings. One is when the exterior surface is saturated with water, the moisture would be drawn into the wall cavity with a result of basically creating a vacuum of the building. Would the minister agree that those changes to how we wrap buildings actually took place through changes to the Building Code in 1989?

[ Page 8530 ]

R. Coleman: Again, I'm going to go back to this, because what we're dealing with here is a fundamental change to the Building Code, a change to a practice of construction that contributed to a problem; it did not create the entire problem. The ministry has known this for three years, and we've discussed it in estimates three times in three years. We discussed it because we identified what we saw was a concern within the marketplace, and the Building Code can be changed by the ministry.

In 1989 when this happened, we ended up with a situation where interior cavities were affected relative to our building envelopes. Then we had some changes that took place at the municipal level and also at some inspection levels -- practices guides and what have you -- relative to how we did business. All of these are contributing factors, and in order to identify the contributing factors, we have to deal with each factor at a time.

The Building Code is one of those factors, and the minister is still not. . . . Even though they keep saying that they have a team of experts, as soon as we ask a question of any technical information, they don't have the expertise to answer the question. But the bottom line is that we did change the Building Code in 1989, and we did change how we wrap buildings, and the air exchange that takes place in buildings changed from four to seven times an hour to two times an hour. We did create some vacuuming on buildings. There is a point in time when the ministry has to recognize that relative to the Building Code. The two building codes are the responsibility of the provincial and federal governments. I ask the minister if she will recognize that those changes took place. Did they or did they not take place in 1989, with other changes to the Building Code in 1994?

Hon. J. Kwan: Changes may well have been made; in fact, a number of changes were made in the 1992 Building Code. But as it relates to the leaky-condo issue, the question becomes. . . . Perhaps I could get some understanding from the member across the way: is it his belief that the Building Code is the significant contributing factor to the leaky-condo problem? Although he says from time to time that that's not the case, his line of questioning seems to indicate that. I will ask for the member's clarification on whether or not it is his belief that the Building Code is a matter significantly impacting the leaky-condo issue.

R. Coleman: I might remind the minister that these are her estimates, not mine, and I'm not going to answer her technical questions for her. It's her responsibility to answer her own questions. I mean, the fact of the matter is. . . . You changed the Building Code in 1987-88, in 1989 and in 1992. You made some emergency changes in 1994 that had the effect of creating negative interior pressure and sealing of the building envelope so that any moisture trapped in the wall cavity could not dry out. That's a known fact. There are enough technical briefings on this matter that the minister and her staff should be aware of it. It is known science and a known fact that it took place.

Nobody's saying that it is the only or the major contributing factor to the issue of buildings that leak. But the fact of the matter is that there was a problem created by these changes to the act. Also, when those problems were recognized by the industry and by the ministry, there were no changes made to the code. I'd like to know why, if we knew this, there were no changes to the code to address the issue of wrapping a building the way we did as a result of our Building Code changes. Why did we not change the act and address the problem when we became aware of it? Why have we sat on it for three years?

Hon. J. Kwan: Because in consultation with all the list of experts I outlined this morning, they have not identified the Building Code as a significant factor relating the leaky-condo issue. I have provided that information, and I have repeatedly provided that information for this member with respect to this line of questioning.

The Chair: I will caution the member, under standing order 43, to keep the questions from being tedious and repetitious. Perhaps you would like to take a different line of questioning.

R. Coleman: Under standing orders, there is also a requirement that my questions be answered, and my question is not being answered. The question is very simple. I will take a different tack. I will tell you that you can take all the teams of experts you want, you can take all the time you want, you can ignore the fact that you didn't do anything three years ago, but that means there are probably 30,000 condominiums built on the lower mainland that may be overwrapped and may be leaking as a result of the Building Code clauses that were not applied because you failed the consumer. You failed to move.

At that time you should not only have moved on that but also on all the other standards that are necessary. You shouldn't have waited until there were 30,000 people out there with buildings at risk. You should have moved in. And what you've done is you've sat on your hands. You've studied it. You've got your experts, and you played the game. But the fact of the matter is that you have a Building Code that has impacted on a problem and changes made by this ministry that have impacted on the problem.

[2:45]

Let's move along a little bit to deal with the envelopes of the Building Code and with how they're applied. Would the minister admit, then, that if we overwrapped the building and trapped the moisture, and if it was allowed to suck moisture into a building, and given the other factors of quality of construction and everything else, that if a building starts to rot and starts to smell and have mushrooms in it -- and the rest of the things that come with this type of moisture content not being properly managed by our codes, our construction and our design -- that that's a health issue? Would the minister agree that that's a health issue?

[ Page 8531 ]

A Voice: You knew, and you did nothing.

Hon. J. Kwan: Again, I go back to say that the technical experts have been consulted. That includes the industry folks, the Association of Professional Engineers, the UDI, the Architectural Institute of B.C., etc., all of whom suggest that there are a number of reasons why leaky condos leak -- inappropriate design, inadequate accountability, poor workmanship, to name just a few of those items contributing to the leaky-condo issue. Again, they have yet to identify the leaky-condo issue as a significant factor relating to the Building Code. Whether or not this is a health issue, clearly I'm concerned around this issue. I remain committed to addressing the issues with respect to the leaky-condo item and await the commissioner's report.

A. Sanders: I think what the member for Fort Langley-Aldergrove has pointed out is that absolutely nothing has been done in the last three years with respect to the issue by the Ministry of Municipal Affairs, and that is very concerning for all those people who have leaky condos. I can certainly speak to that from personal experience.

This morning the minister mentioned that "changes to the Building Code had been made for health and safety reasons," and the member for Fort Langley-Aldergrove asked the minister specifically what health reasons had been involved in looking at this issue. We had talked this morning about it -- and the minister had concurred -- that remedies in the past in the Building Code had been made for safety issues -- such as snow load and the pitch on roofs in areas of high snowfall. There have been changes to the Building Code based on health issues that have to do with air quality. My question to the minister is: what environmental consultants, with respect to the leaky-condo issue, have been among the consortium of specialists and experts that she has addressed in her tenure as minister?

Hon. J. Kwan: I ask the member to please clarify her definition of "an environmental consultant."

A. Sanders: An environmental consultant or occupational hygiene consultant is a person who comes in and looks at factors that affect human inhabitation of areas. These are people who would be very much in demand in terms of leaky condos. They certainly are in other areas of the public service. Specifically, to the minister, have any environmental consultants been brought in to look at the environmental quality? I gave the example already of air quality. That's a very straightforward one. Have any of these consultants been involved in the consortium of consultants that this minister or this ministry has discussed the leaky-condo issue with?

Hon. J. Kwan: The ministry has been in discussion with health officials, with the Ministry of Health, relating to this matter. But I want to highlight one piece of information and say that while the health officials or environmental consultants or hygienists may be able to identify issues related to the mould -- because of the dampness within a room or structure, let's say -- they will not be able to identify the solutions to that problem as it relates to the leaky-condo issue in the larger context.

A. Sanders: I beg to differ with the minister. The fact is that studies have been done quite extensively on this. The maxim that all the epidemiologists, environmental consultants and occupational hygienists will tell you is that if you have a place that is clean, dry and ventilated, there will be no problems with respect to air quality and environmental control with respect to bioaerosols. This is what the minister mentions in terms of the common name of moulds.

Again, the minister has said that in the past, government has changed the code for health and safety reasons, has pointed out the safety reasons and has tried to circumvent the health reasons. Based on that particular issue, I guess, the question to the minister is: is this minister willing to make herself aware of air-quality issues in leaky condos? Pending that, has her government made any effort in the last three years to find out the health issues that will result from the fact that the Building Code was changed by this ministry and nothing was done, with respect to the reports that came in, to ameliorate the problems?

Hon. J. Kwan: Yes, we understand that there are health issues related to a room -- if it is wet, damp and dirty -- and that there would be concerns, as she has cited. I'm sure the hygienists and the environmental consultants would advise accordingly. The health officials have advised accordingly as well. However, as that relates to the leaky-condo issue, having identified the health problems because of the dampness in the environment, the question then becomes: how does one address the leaky-condo issue? That is why I have appointed a commissioner to look into this matter.

A. Sanders: Is this commissioner addressing the health issues? That's a new point to me. Could the minister clarify that?

Hon. J. Kwan: The commissioner has been given a very broad mandate. The mandate is to look at the reasons for, or factors contributing to, faulty condominium construction, with particular focus on the issue of leaky condos.

A. Sanders: My understanding is that the commissioner is to talk to the people who own the leaky condos and those in communities. I have never heard anything about health issues being described, with respect to people such as Dr. John Millar being consulted. So if that is the case, that's something totally new.

Specifically, let's focus on the issue of bioaerosols. Is the minister aware of aspergillosis or stachybotrys?

Hon. J. Kwan: I refer the member to the terms of reference for the commissioner. In the terms of reference you'll find the mandate which has been given to the commissioner for his work.

With respect to the so-called supermould, the question is: am I aware of this thing called the supermould? Yes, I'm aware of this issue.

A. Sanders: Both of these species, Aspergillus fumigatus and stachybotrys, have been shown to be, in British Columbia as well as in North America, significant problems with respect to air quality in our schools -- again, having to do with poor ventilation, wetness and untidy or and unclean factors

[ Page 8532 ]

[3:00]

A. Sanders: It doesn't fall under the Ministry of Health if the mandate of the Ministry of Municipal Affairs is to change the Building Code with respect to health and safety issues. Therefore, cross-referencing to other areas where we have our own epidemiological studies that show that high concentrations of these moulds, as well as other kinds of bioaerosols that can create significant health problems ranging from asthma to allergic reactions to chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and many other kinds of pneumonias and respiratory illnesses. . . . People who have mushrooms growing in their carpets at home are at much higher risk than those in our schools, where I've never seen a mushroom growing in a carpet. But I certainly have seen them in the carpets of leaky condos.

With respect to the issue of bioaerosols and the work that we have done in other ministries -- and hoping that the minister has the ability to cross-reference those microbial assessment works that are already done -- why has nothing been done in the last three years, when we have found that people have mushrooms growing in their carpets? We know, from areas such as the Ministry of Education, that bioaerosols are significant health hazards. Why has this ministry done nothing from a health perspective to help people who inhabit leaky condos and nothing about the Building Code with respect to health issues?

Hon. J. Kwan: The assumption is that the Building Code will get rid of the leaky-condo matters. Again, the experts who have been studying this issue advise us that the Building Code is not a significant factor as it relates to the leaky-condo problem.

A. Sanders: I guess that the minister is thinking that if she just repeats that over and over like a mantra, someone will actually believe it. But in fact what has been said on this side of the House is that the Building Code is one factor. What this side of the House is pointing out -- I think very capably -- is that with respect to health and safety issues and the fact that this ministry has known for the last three years about the serious problems that were involved in the Building Code, nothing has been done. I assure the minister, the other factors will be canvassed. There will be a multi-factorial analysis of the leaky-condo situation, the Building Code being just one factor.

One final question to the minister, because I don't think it was asked before: could the minister please introduce the staff for the benefit of the opposition?

Hon. J. Kwan: At the beginning of the. . . . Oh, she's gone. I thought she was interested in knowing who our. . . .

A Voice: She reads Hansard as well.

Hon. J. Kwan: Oh, she reads Hansard as well. Then she would know, from the first day of our estimates, that all of the staff have been introduced. But nonetheless, I will re-enter into the record the staff that are here with me today: Suzanne Veit, my deputy; Ken MacLeod, assistant deputy minister; Lori Wanamaker, assistant deputy minister; and Gary Harkness, assistant deputy minister. We have just had two other staff persons enter the room. One is Leta Hodge and the other is Peter Chinneck.

G. Farrell-Collins: Can the minister tell me whether she believes that the Building Code is a factor in the leaky-condo issue?

Hon. J. Kwan: The Building Code may be a factor. I await the report of the Barrett commission. I await his recommendations, and I will take all his recommendations into consideration.

G. Farrell-Collins: Can the minister tell me how many studies have been commissioned by her ministry in the last three years to look into this issue?

Hon. J. Kwan: I will ask the member to be very specific about which issue.

G. Farrell-Collins: The leaky-condo issue.

[B. Goodacre in the chair.]

Hon. J. Kwan: Two.

G. Farrell-Collins: That's got to be the longest time taken to get the shortest answer in the history of this chamber. Can the minister tell me what the names of them were and when they were commissioned?

Hon. J. Kwan: The reports are: "Report of the Task Group on Condominium Construction to the Minister of Housing, Recreation and Consumer Services," which was published on January 9, 1996; and "Improving Quality and Accountability in Residential Construction: Discussion Paper," which was published in December 1997.

G. Farrell-Collins: Can the minister tell me how many internal reports were done for the minister or the senior staff in the ministry's office?

Hon. J. Kwan: This being an important issue within the ministry, there have been many discussions within the ministry around this issue. I would be happy to get that information for the member opposite.

G. Farrell-Collins: Can the minister tell me when I can expect to get that information and in what form it will be?

Hon. J. Kwan: As soon as staff can put together the information.

G. Farrell-Collins: Will the minister be giving us copies of that information or just a date and a time line of how many?

[ Page 8533 ]

G. Farrell-Collins: I didn't quite understand the last part of the minister's answer. I had trouble hearing. Could she repeat the last part of it for me, please?

Hon. J. Kwan: Any information relating to cabinet decisions or to legislation would be information that I cannot make available. But as to any information where we don't have restrictions in that regard, we will be able to provide it to the member.

G. Farrell-Collins: Can the minister tell us how many -- and perhaps even how much money the ministry has spent on this -- outside consultants are looking into this issue and giving advice, recommendations and reports, to the ministry or the staff of the ministry?

Hon. J. Kwan: We'll provide that information to the member opposite.

G. Farrell-Collins: I'll ask the same question: when can I expect it, and in what form will it be? I've been here seven years, and I have been offered information by a long line of ministers. That's why I'm asking for a more precise timing, other than just, "When we get around to it," or "When we get it." So if the minister can give me an idea of how long that will take -- if it's going to be a week, a day or two days -- it gives me some idea of when to expect it.

Hon. J. Kwan: We'll make that information available as soon as we can.

G. Farrell-Collins: The minister has been a minister for a while. Her staff have been staff for a while. Estimates have been going on for a while. They happen every year at this time. Normally what happens is that staff comes in and they have these big, thick binders, and in them they have all sorts of information that's prepared for the minister in the form of briefing notes. She probably has a bit of that in front of her. Generally what happens is that the ministers answer the questions when they're asked them, and they have that information available to them.

If the minister is telling me that this issue, being a public issue. . . . It's been an issue for some time and certainly a public issue for a good deal of time. If this minister is telling us that she has such great concern and that it's the top priority for her in the ministry, which is what I'm told and certainly what she has said repeatedly in this House and in this room itself, then she'd have a big fat binder titled "Leaky Condos" on the top, and she'd be prepared to answer these types of questions.

It's a basic question: how many reports? It takes two minutes -- two -- for the minister to get the answer from her staff. I asked what their names are; it takes another two minutes to get the answer for what their names are. I asked how many outside consultants have been contracted. Nobody seems to know. I asked how much has been spent on them. Nobody seems to know. If this is the top priority in the ministry, I'd hate to see what a bottom priority is. These are basic questions that a minister should be able to answer in estimates. For the minister to say, "We'll get them to you whenever we get around to it," isn't good enough.

This is a priority. We can keep these estimates going for another week, and that might give the minister some time to get this information. Or we can get the information today or tomorrow and have a commitment from the minister that that's going to happen, and then we won't need to do that. Otherwise, we can go on to all the other issues that are pertinent -- those ones that are down at the bottom of the list -- which I'm sure the minister is even less prepared for. We could have a lengthy discussion about those ones in the meantime, until the minister is ready to come back into this room and have answers about the "top priority" in her ministry.

I don't think it's too much to ask a minister of the Crown to come prepared -- once a year -- to present answers to questions about her ministry, particularly about the top priority. I've sat here for half an hour or 45 minutes, and legitimate questions have been asked of the minister. The giggles and chuckles coming from the staff and the minister herself, when they're not prepared to answer the basic questions, are a little much for the opposition to tolerate. So when those questions are asked here, we expect answers; it's our job. And it's your job, hon. minister, to have those answers ready. If you're not ready with them, then you should have some commitment to get to them in a reasonable time frame -- or these estimates will go on for some time, until we get them.

It's basic information. How many reports? When were they? What were they called? How many outside studies? How many consultants? How much money have you spent on them? And then the next question I'm going to ask -- and I can't imagine what the answer could possibly be, given that the minister doesn't know the answer to the first ones -- is: what have you done about them? You know, we've had. . . .

The Chair: Member, could you please address your remarks through the Chair.

G. Farrell-Collins: Thank you, hon. Chair.

We've had the former Housing critic, the member for Fort Langley-Aldergrove, who knows a great deal about the housing industry in this province, asking some questions, trying to get to the minister, trying to get her to make a statement about what role the government's Building Code may or may not have played in this issue. He's not asserting that it's the only problem; he's not even beginning to assert that. He's just saying that here is one part of government that may or may not have a role in the leaky-condo issue, and he's asking about that. He's trying to find out what the impact is. He's trying to find out when the problem was known and what was done about it.

It's a pretty basic question, and the minister stands up with probably the one briefing note that she was prepared for these estimates with and says: "I am told that it is not a significant issue." That's not good enough. Can the minister tell me if she's had. . . ? Let me give you a range. Is it less than two outside consultants? More than two? Let's say: between two and five, five and ten, or ten and 20? Can she give me a ballpark figure on how many outside consultants have been retained on contract to investigate the leaky-condo issue in the last three years?

[3:15]

[ Page 8534 ]

As well, relating to the Building Code issue, it is not just ministry staff who have been looking at this issue but rather a consortium of experts in the field, specifically relating to the Building Code issue. To date, the experts in the field have not identified the Building Code as a significant contributing factor to the leaky-condo issue.

Clearly there are still some questions out there with respect to the leaky-condo issue. To that end, I have appointed a commissioner to undertake the work in this matter, and he is expected to report out very shortly -- on June 19, actually.

With respect to how many consultants have been contracted and exactly how many dollars have been spent, the ministry, as the hon. member opposite knows, is not a big ministry. We may have contracted perhaps up to ten consultants. With respect to the specific list, we can make that list available to the member opposite, as well as the dollars that were spent on the independent consultants.

G. Farrell-Collins: Can the minister tell me when the first contract was let?

Hon. J. Kwan: Over what period of time?

G. Farrell-Collins: We're discussing the leaky-condo issue. Can the minister tell me when the first. . . ?

Interjection.

G. Farrell-Collins: The minister wants to know what time frame. Well, whenever. . . . I mean, for how long has the ministry been aware of and working on this issue? Here's a wide-open question for the minister: when was the first one?

Hon. J. Kwan: We believe that perhaps the first report was let when there was a Ministry of Housing. The Ministry of Housing has now been collapsed, and staff would have to go back to the archives to dig up those reports.

G. Farrell-Collins: Can the minister tell me what specific action her ministry has taken to solve this problem since the reports were sent to the archives some years ago? What has the ministry actually done? What concrete action has the government taken to alleviate this problem?

Hon. J. Kwan: We supported improved consumer education through two initiatives: a consumer guide for new homebuyers and financial support for two videos -- "What To Do When Your Condo Springs a Leak" and "A Condo Buyer's Guide."

We're also working with an industry and consumer group to develop a how-to guide for homeowners and strata councils dealing with water leakage problems. We are members of the Building Envelope Research Consortium, which is producing a best practices guide to building envelope construction. We supported better training for building inspectors through a grant to the Building Officials Association. We worked with industry stakeholders towards a legislative solution, although we were ultimately not able to reach agreement. We established an independent commissioner of inquiry into the quality of condominium construction to determine the reasons for and the factors contributing to faulty condominium construction.

G. Farrell-Collins: Can the minister tell me what effect that has had on the construction of condos? What effect have all of those changes combined had on the construction of leaky condos -- stopping it happening? What have all of those things combined done to stop the construction of leaky condos?

Hon. J. Kwan: These initiatives through the province would have to be taken in context with other initiatives that other folks have undertaken, including industry and the municipalities. As well, we await the report of the Barrett commission, to which. . . . I'm sure they will have recommendations dealing with this matter.

But just for the member's information, because I don't think he was here when we had discussed the Building Code issue, in the fall of 1998 we're anticipating changes to the Building Code. The consortium of industry experts, etc., has been working on bringing forth recommendations with respect to Building Code changes.

G. Farrell-Collins: Let me just get this straight. This issue was identified. The ministry actually commissioned people to do studies as late as when we used to have a Ministry of Housing, which has now been collapsed and its documents moved off into the archives. I mean, it was that long ago that the ministry knew about it.

And in that time, this is what the ministry has managed to accomplish to help protect people who today -- right today -- are out signing on dotted lines to buy condos that may end up leaking: they've had an education pamphlet, a video, a condo-buyer's guide, a how-to guide for strata councils and owners of leaky condos, and particularly -- this is the good part -- who to call when it springs a leak. That's very helpful, hon. Chair, because you certainly don't want to call the ministry. What they'll have to do is wait until this ministry collapses, pack it up in the archives and then try and deal with it after the fact.

They've also done a best-practices guide. I'll be asking the minister whether any of that is being followed or implemented, and when that was implemented. Is it implemented? Who's following it, and who's not following it? Does the minister monitor that?

I've got a document that my colleague from Fort Langley-Aldergrove has from the Canadian Home Builders Association of British Columbia. I should probably give a copy of this to the minister if she doesn't have it, because I'm getting more information out of this one page than I've gotten out of the minister in half an hour. It says that in 1995. . . . Here's a chronology. It says, for the report in July '95 or August '95: "Media turns its attention to the leaky-condo issue." So the issue was out there. The ministry knew about it, and it was certainly talked about. They'd done studies or had commissioned outside experts, and they'd long since packed up their information into cardboard boxes and shipped them off to the archives.

On August 10 there was a letter. There was a forum in August. There were letters from the Ministry of Municipal Affairs in August. There were meetings in September, and there was another meeting in October. There was a letter to the ministry in October. There were three more meetings with other ministers of the Crown, including the minister who's

[ Page 8535 ]

The minister can't tell me, in all that time, of one specific thing her ministry has done to prevent one individual in British Columbia from moving into a leaky condo. There isn't one thing that's been done. We've done all the studies. We've got the videos. Everybody's got the videos -- they just have to put a plastic bag over the VCR so it doesn't leak onto the VCR while they're watching the how-to video. We've got a guide on who to call when the condo starts to leak. And in that time not one concrete, specific thing has been done by the ministry to try and alleviate this problem in any meaningful, concrete way.

So what do we do? The grand solution: rather than look at the reports that the minister's got, rather than talk to the up to ten consultants, I think, that have been contracted over the last little while and read their reports -- you know, without dealing with what was in the archives boxes or whatever -- rather than deal with all that stuff, what does the minister do to solve the problem? She appoints Dave Barrett to do a commission of inquiry. It's now -- what? -- probably four or five years since those boxes went to the archives. And that's the solution? And the minister is telling me now that she awaits the results of Mr. Barrett's commission?

[3:30]

I'm sorry, hon. Chair, but that doesn't cut it. Whether it's this minister or her predecessor or the one before her, this issue has not been the top priority issue for that ministry. At least I hope it hasn't been, because if this has been the top priority for the last five years, what about all the other priorities? What about all the other things the ministry is responsible for? It is simply unconscionable that after hiring ten special outside contractors to come in and give advice, after publishing two reports -- one of them over two years ago and another one about a year and a bit ago -- with a whole bunch of recommendations, the ministry still, to this day, has done nothing concrete to stop the problem.

I would say that the minister, rather than standing up proudly and telling us how extremely excited and thrilled she is about the Barrett commission and awaiting -- yet again, more waiting -- his results, should be hanging her head in shame on behalf of her government and the predecessor government before 1996. Despite the questions that have been asked in this House by members of the opposition responsible for that area and the assurances they received from the various ministers that they were dealing with it -- that it was under review; stuff was happening; they were going to solve the problem -- here we are, how many years later, and nothing is happening. Nothing's been done. So I guess when we get assurances from the ministers from time to time that they're working on a problem, they're trying to get to the bottom of it, they're actually making progress, they're actually going to do something about it, we should just assume that it's not a fact. It's really not going to happen; it's just a bunch of talk.

I too await what the government is actually going to do. I await the day when the first concrete step is taken to make changes to ensure that the leaky-condo problem doesn't continue on and on. But I can tell you, in the brief time I've been in here today -- the 45 minutes that I've been asking these questions of the minister and the time I was sitting here and listening before -- I haven't heard anything that leads me to believe that this ministry is dealing with it in any meaningful way. I haven't seen anything here today that leads me to believe that they've been taking this issue seriously, that when the questions have been asked in previous years by members of the opposition, the critics for Municipal Affairs and Housing, the ministry took it seriously and was actually going to do anything about it. I too await the day when something actually happens to solve this problem. I can't wait to hear the minister's answer when that day comes.

Hon. J. Kwan: There was no question asked.

G. Farrell-Collins: I thought I had phrased it in a question. If I didn't phrase it in a question, I'll do it more simply for the minister. Can she tell me when she expects the first concrete step to be taken?

Hon. J. Kwan: I take exception to the member's comments. The ministry has in fact taken many concrete steps, and I have listed them. As well, I have advised the members -- and they, I assume, know -- that we're anticipating a report on June 19 from the commissioner with respect to this issue. We will take further action when we receive that report.

G. Farrell-Collins: I would just argue that there hasn't been one concrete step taken. I don't think the videos have had a big effect. I don't think telling people who to phone when you find mushrooms in your bedroom is going to solve the problem for people. It certainly doesn't prevent them from being there in the first place. So I think it's pretty clear to anyone who has monitored this issue or anyone who has listened to the debate or who will be reading this debate that no concrete action has been taken. There has been a lot of talk. There have been a lot of meetings and maybe a dozen contracts let to consultants. There have been two reports at least. There have been a whole bunch of other documents sent to the ministry's office. But really, not one single, solid, concrete thing has been done -- lots of talks, lots of meetings, lots of letters, lots of paper -- to alleviate the problem in the years that it has been known, despite the assurances that members of the opposition received, year after year, in the estimates debate. I think that's pretty clear.

R. Coleman: I'd like to go back to a couple of things relative to the Ministry of Housing. There have been seven Ministers of Housing in this province since 1992-93. Then the ministry has been split up, of course, in a number of ways. The first time. . . . There has been a number of times. But in earlier days, the first task force that was put together -- it was put together in the summer of 1995 to look at this particular issue -- reported out to the Ministry of Housing, Recreation and Consumer Services at the time. The minister had a press release that she released at that time to the public.

But in addition to that, she also identified some issues. I'm going to go back to a couple of Building Code questions here, because -- I'd asked the minister, who asked me, if she'd answer a question for me in a second -- one of the comments in her own report is: "The Ministry of Municipal Affairs is responsible for the provincial Building Code and, in conjunc-

[ Page 8536 ]

It goes on to basically touch on some division of responsibilities, but it comes right down to accountability and responsibility to the ministry. That was two and a half years ago. Two and a half years ago, we had a report that told us. . . . First of all, a report on leaky condominiums was released by the minister of the day. In the press release, the minister said: "Government will be looking at ways to strengthen consumer protection under the law." Then they go on, and they discuss the entire framework, right down to the legislative framework, and identify that the minister is responsible for the Building Code, and then they issue a number of recommendations.

First of all, would the minister tell me: has she read this report? Is she aware of its contents? And is she aware of the recommendations that are contained in the report?

Hon. J. Kwan: The report of the task group on condominium construction that the Minister of Housing, Recreation and Consumer Services did is a report that I'm aware of and have read.

R. Coleman: Can the minister tell me, then, please: in the past 30 months since this report came to the ministry's attention and in the previous months before when it was identified that it had to deal with leaky condominiums, how many of the recommendations in this report have been implemented? Which ones have been implemented?

Hon. J. Kwan: If the member would go back and reference Hansard, he will find my answers with respect to the recommendations arising out of this report. The questions were asked by the member for Richmond East.

R. Coleman: Then let's get more specific. I guess the question would be: does the minister agree with the statement in the report which states that the Minister of Municipal Affairs is responsible for the Building Code?

Hon. J. Kwan: Yes.

R. Coleman: Having said that and having gone back to the fact that we have Building Code changes that took place that had some impact on this particular issue, it's categorically -- to me -- an abdication of responsibility on behalf of the Minister of Municipal Affairs to have had a ministry-produced document in conjunction with most of the same stakeholders and that she's trying to produce another document today. Also, in conjunction with the other ones we have here, which we'll get into in a minute. . . . It's an abdication of responsibility not to have dealt with this relative to Building Code changes and other issues dealing with leaky condominiums 30 months ago. Thirty months of construction has taken place, in addition to the time we have sat around and studied it and had our task force meetings -- and prior to that. Somebody has abdicated their responsibility here. I want to know from the minister if that is her ministry. Did her ministry fail the consumers of the province by not acting on the seven recommendations relative to this particular issue that came out of this task force?

Hon. J. Kwan: I would take exception to the statement that the ministry has abdicated its responsibility with respect to the leaky-condo issue. With respect to the Building Code issue, prior to the lunch break we talked a lot about the Building Code and its relationship to the leaky-condo item. For the last year and a half the ministry has had and continues to have a panel of experts who are reviewing the leaky-condo issue in relation to the Building Code. To date, those experts have not identified that the leaky-condo issue relates significantly to the Building Code matter.

Highlighting a point, as well, it was the Liberals who suggested that a neutral panel of construction industry experts should be appointed to deal with solutions to the leaky-condo problem. The fact is that we have been in consultation with a panel of experts on this matter for a long time now. Specifically relating to the Building Code issue, they have yet to recommend or advise that the Building Code issue is a significant factor relating to the leaky-condo issue. Having said that, I will await the Barrett commission's recommendations.

R. Coleman: Actually, I guess the next question before I go on to some discussion on some of these issues is. . . . I would like the minister to provide me with the list of this panel of experts -- and their qualifications -- who see no impact on the Building Code. The minister did say that they haven't said they have. So I don't know whether they've said that there is no impact on the Building Code or whether they've said that maybe there could have been or maybe there hasn't been, and maybe they haven't looked at it. I guess the question I have for the minister is: could I be provided with the list and the backgrounds of that panel of experts?

Hon. J. Kwan: The list is actually in Hansard. If he takes the time to read it, he will actually see that.

R. Coleman: I am aware of the fact that the list is in Hansard. I asked about their qualifications and for a list of their names, and I am told by my colleagues that it does not exist. So will the minister provide us with the qualifications of the panel of experts? We seem to be relying on this, and it's what we're standing on as far as the answers are concerned. So maybe we can contact this panel of experts and ask them if they do believe categorically that the Building Code changes, the wrapping of buildings and changing the air exchange in buildings have absolutely nothing to do with water in buildings in the province. I'd like to know whether the panel of experts actually has that opinion. I know their names; I'd like to know their qualifications. Will the minister provide that for me?

Hon. J. Kwan: I named the individuals as well as their affiliations to the organizations they represent, which presumably brings forward their qualifications in that field. That information was indeed provided when we canvassed this issue earlier.

[3:45]

[ Page 8537 ]

What I said relating to the Building Code issue. . . . For the last year and a half this panel of people has been reviewing the Building Code. To date, there is no agreement or consensus within this group pinpointing the Building Code as a matter significantly relating to the leaky-condo issue. Earlier I offered to make the minutes of these meetings available to the members opposite, and they will find that the minutes reflect the comments I provided on this matter today.

R. Coleman: It's interesting that the panel of experts have authored reports that I'm in possession of. Some of them are authors of reports that have made statements like: "While these changes alone cannot be said to have caused the current problems with leaky condominiums, there is no doubt that they are a major contributing factor," referencing the changes to the Building Code. I'm told that this panel of experts doesn't believe that the Building Code had any impact on the issue -- or at least, there's no indication to that effect from this panel of experts to the minister. And yet my understanding is that every one of these reports has been cc'd to the minister.

I guess we start by asking the people that have just been read into Hansard, who, according to the minister, don't see any impact of the Building Code on this particular issue. . . . I guess we're going to have to go away today, ask them, get their opinions and come back tomorrow to see if in fact they have all said -- or none of them have said -- that the Building Code has had no effect on the particular issue we're dealing with. It's kind of intriguing that we have this before us, and yet for some reason or another, the people that are saying that it impacts. . . . Some of the people who are on this panel of experts say it does impact and it did impact and that it was one of the factors -- not the only factor, but one of the factors.

I want to go back to the recommendations of the 1996 report. I wonder if the minister can tell me if recommendation 1 was ever accomplished, which was to establish a hotline to inform homeowners and strata councils of the proper steps to take to address water leakage problems.

Hon. J. Kwan: That question has already been answered. The member can reference Hansard.

R. Coleman: I guess all seven were asked. Is that a fact -- that all seven recommendations were asked of the minister?

Interjection.

R. Coleman: I'm getting an indication from the critic that they weren't. So I'll go to recommendation 2.

L. Reid: The answers were not detailed.

R. Coleman: Then I would ask for a more detailed answer from the minister than was given in Hansard before. Instead of just the recommendations, can the minister tell me what steps have been taken to develop a consumer education program -- materials for condominium owners as outlined in the 1996 report that was submitted to the minister at the time?

Hon. J. Kwan: I have in front of me the guide that I referenced earlier, "Buying a New Home: A Consumer Protection Guide." If the member would like to have a copy of this, I would be happy to make it available to him.

R. Coleman: I guess that would also include a copy of the video that my colleague asked for yesterday.

The other recommendation of this panel was the enhancement of disclosure requirements for relevant documentation of real estate transactions for purchases of both new and existing housing. We all know that disclosure requirements mainly go back to disclosure statements that are filed under the Condominium Act, which is under the guise of the Ministry of Finance. However, for the past three years in this House with regards to the Condominium Act, the minister responsible for this particular area. . . . This deals with condominiums and disclosure, which has now got to the point where we have to get some improvement in disclosure to protect the consumer.

Relative to the leaky-condo issue, I'm wondering if the minister has, at any time since becoming Minister of Municipal Affairs, had any discussion with the Minister of Finance with regard to at some point in time implementing the new Condominium Act discussion draft from April 1994. It was identified at the time, going back four years ago when this was completed, as one of the vehicles to protect consumers against leaky condos. I wonder whether those discussions have taken place and what the status of that is. This goes right to the core of consumer protection. It deals with the fact that we knew about the issue back in 1994, when this draft document was anticipated. It has been asked for by the people that have either presented to the commission or written to the minister. I'm wondering what the status is of your discussions with the Minister of Finance relative to the new Condominium Act.

Hon. J. Kwan: The answer is yes, I have discussed with the minister responsible for the Condominium Act with respect to what is happening around that in terms of future legislation. It is future legislation.

R. Coleman: I guess that goes right to just one more breakdown in the responsibility of this minister to the people who are now suffering the loss of and damage to their homes. The ministry just says it's future legislation, which they've had drafted since April 1994. That's four years ago that we had the legislation. Three and a half years ago, we knew about the problem of leaky condos and about the issues surrounding them. We had a report in January 1996, and we still have not addressed the seven points in that particular report. We now have another report, which we're going to get into, on improving the quality and accountability in residential construction. This is a discussion paper that the minister has, which I'll come back to. Even though that's done, we're still in a commission of inquiry into something that we already knew existed. We already knew why it existed. We know the factors that existed around it. We've had report upon report and discussion upon discussion.

I'm just wondering: if the minister should get a report on June 19 that has a number of recommendations in it, how long

[ Page 8538 ]

Hon. J. Kwan: Clearly I disagree with many of the comments from the members opposite. I won't rehash where we disagree, because we have actually done that pretty well all morning and afternoon.

But with respect to the report arising from the commissioner on June 19, I will simply ask the member opposite to hang tight. Decisions as to what action government might take arising out of that report will be made known.

R. Coleman: After four hours of discussion around the Building Code, the bottom line is this: they knew. They knew that their code was flawed. They knew that they had a problem with leaky condominiums. They knew that they commissioned the reports. They did not act on the reports. They did not act on the changes to the Building Code. They have abdicated their responsibility to the consumers of the province, just on this one factor alone. When we get into the rest of it, we're going to find out in just how many more places they've abdicated their responsibility to consumers.

The fact of the matter is that it doesn't matter how many more times you commission a report, there are still condominiums out there today that are being built to standards that have not been adjusted by a ministry that has abdicated its responsibility, that has shut down portions of the ministry that would have dealt with construction practices in the province and that is sitting on its hands, not doing what it is supposed to be doing.

I find it absolutely frustrating that the minister will not recognize that this is part of the problem and that part of the problem becomes part of the solution, but the first thing you have to do before you can solve the problem is start to recognize what the issues are. All we're doing is sitting around not recognizing the issues. I'm asking the minister to recognize that the Building Code, the lack of movement on the Condominium Act and the other issues that have been before her in the studies and have not been acted upon are a clear abdication of responsibility to consumers in condominiums by the Ministry of Municipal Affairs over the past four years. Does she recognize that?

Hon. J. Kwan: I clearly disagree with many of the comments and assertions that the member opposite is making, especially relating to the application of the ministry's responsibilities in these matters. The fact is -- and I know that the member does not want to acknowledge the answers -- that a lot of work has been done on this issue. The ministry has been dealing with these issues. Again, there is a final report coming forward from the Barrett commission, and I await his recommendations in order to consider the further actions of this ministry.

T. Nebbeling: I have been listening for a couple of hours now, and while the minister does give long responses, I don't really get many answers. I hope that by focusing a little bit more on some of the elements that the minister has used in defence of proper action being either taken or considered, I can get some answers that will clearly show either that the whole issue of leaky condos is being taken seriously or that we are going through the moves today because of the strong opposition of leaky-condo owners.

I think that what the government is really doing is still one of the outstanding questions. At this point I do not subscribe to the conspiracy theory that all of this is exclusively about giving the government an excuse to allow labour to take over the industry. I don't want to subscribe to that concept, because if that were indeed the reason we would start a whole new, different fight. I hope that the government is actually motivated to deal with a problem that has been in existence for a number of years and that has been ignored for a number of years, which has come to the point today that we can't ignore it any longer. People owning leaky condos are not going to just walk away until they get the proper answers and the right action.

[4:00]

Now, the mechanism that the minister has identified, besides the Barrett commission, is the so-called expert panel. Although I've been given some names, I really cannot judge by the name or the organization they represent if it is indeed an expert panel focused on the issue or if it is a panel that looks at housing and construction issues in general. So I'd like to focus for a little while on that panel and establish the validity of it being able to give the government some direction and ideas as an add-on to what the Barrett commission is doing. So my first question is: can the minister tell me if this panel has been appointed by the government? How has it been put together? Who appointed whom for what reasons, what terms? What is the structure of the panel itself?

Hon. J. Kwan: The Building Safety Advisory Council is appointed by the Minister of Municipal Affairs and has been in place since 1988. The purpose of the council is to provide a forum for technical experts -- folks from the building construction industry -- to deal with problems between different sectors and to make recommendations to the minister on any issues which they consider provincial action is required. That committee has been meeting for quite some time -- at least a year and a half -- with respect to the issue of the Building Code itself. In the last year and a half the minutes of their meetings are well-documented. As I said earlier, we're prepared to make available a copy of those minutes to the members opposite.

T. Nebbeling: I'm actually surprised to hear that this committee has been around since 1988. This morning, when questions were asked, the minister's defence in response to a question of why, in 1996, when recommendations were made to the ministry in regard to how we can deal with the leaky-

[ Page 8539 ]

The impression, with me at least -- and, it wouldn't surprise me, with my colleagues as well -- is that this is a group of experts put together in response to a study done in 1996. A result of that study was 13 recommendations which were not acted on but were somehow justified by the creation of this new committee of experts that was going to recommend to the minister, but up to now they have not found consensus to make recommendations.

Now I hear that this is an existing committee that was not created in response to the study of 1996. It is a building safety committee. It was not specifically on the leaky-condo issue, which is what we are focusing on and where we expect some focus on. If that is the case, can the minister then tell me what other issues this committee discusses besides the leaky-condo issue? That is what we are focusing on. We're not talking about firewall retention, which is a safety issue; we're not talking about steps not being more than 28 centimetres, which is a safety issue. We are talking exclusively about the leaky-condo issue.

I'm under the impression that this expert panel that we keep hearing about was dealing exclusively with that issue; now I find out it is not. How much time do they spend on other issues? What are the other issues? How often does this panel meet? Where do they meet? Who do they speak to? Who do they bring forward to get background and other information from parties, who may be able to give them the necessary information, to come to a conclusion as a panel?

Hon. J. Kwan: This panel meets between eight and ten times a year. Generally speaking, they meet at a location in the lower mainland -- Vancouver, Surrey, New Westminster. The mandate that has been given to them is actually quite broad, and that is to make recommendations to the minister on any issues on which they consider provincial action to be required. For the last year and a half, the committee had been working and focusing its energies on areas of the Building Code and changes related to the Building Code. What I advised the members opposite throughout the estimates debate today, with respect to the Building Code, is that this advisory council has not identified part 5 of the Building Code as a significant contributing factor to the leaky-condo problems. They have been working on a number of other areas relating to the Building Code. As you know, you can appreciate that the Building Code deals with a number of other areas as well. They are bringing forward their recommendations, with changes to the Building Code as a whole, for my consideration later on this year in the fall.

T. Nebbeling: This morning the minister made much of the fact that the Building Code issue and the impact of the Building Code on leaky condos was, in the minister's opinion, really not the responsibility of the government, because the government's responsibility, as far as the Building Code is concerned, is safety and health. You have repeated that a number of times.

As I said before, I was made to believe that after the 1996 recommendations, which were not implemented, the government, through this expert committee, was trying to find answers on the leaky-condo issue. I also found out just now that this committee is actually a building safety committee. How can it be that on the one hand leaky condos are not a safety issue or a health issue -- therefore safety is not an issue -- but the investigation, study and analysis of what should be done are done by a safety committee? Isn't that a contradiction?

[E. Walsh in the chair.]

To complete my question, then: can the minister tell me the issues that that safety committee is really involved with? There must be a number of safety issues related to the building industry. I would like to know which safety issues this committee has been discussing -- let's say, in the last two years -- besides the leaky-condo issue, which I thought was the exclusive reason for that committee being in place.

Hon. J. Kwan: The Building Safety Advisory Council is a group which has been put in place to provide a forum for the building construction industries to deal with problems between the different sectors. Really, the issues that they deal with are building construction industry ones, and for the last year and a half, they have been reviewing the Building Code. They are looking at making changes to the code and bringing forward their recommendations for my consideration in the fall.

T. Nebbeling: The point I'm trying to make is that this morning the minister made it clear that the leaky-condo issue is not a safety issue and not a health issue. For that reason, the minister took some distance from the issue and felt it legitimate to do so. Now I find out that all the studies that have been undertaken have been by a building safety committee or building safety panel, or whatever title you want to give it. I'm afraid that one of the reasons there has been no consensus on these issues related to the leaky condos may well be caused by the fact that this committee had no intention of focusing on the issue but has been looking at safety issues in the building instructions as a whole.

We have been made to believe that there was a committee that was actually dealing almost exclusively with the leaky-condo commission to make recommendations to the minister. But when I hear the mandate of the committee, I do not believe for a second that this committee is the right forum or has indeed been involved with the leaky-condo issue with the objective of finding the answers that the minister is going to need to make decisions in the near future on how to deal with it.

Hon. J. Kwan: Let me just capture what I said in a sentence or two this morning. What I said was that the Building Code is a safety and health issue. The code has not been identified as a significant factor in relation to the leaky-condo matter, as advised by this panel of experts. The name of the group is the Building Safety Advisory Council, and it has been given a broad mandate to look at issues in the building construction industry as well as to make recommendations to me on any issue on which they consider provincial action to be required.

To that end, what they have done for the last year and a half is review the Building Code with a view to seeing whether or not changes are necessary within the code. Where the issues that they have arrived at with respect to the areas within the Building Code deal with leaky-condo issues, this advisory council has not put forward the view that changes need to be made to the Building Code to deal with the leaky-condo matter.

[4:15]

[ Page 8540 ]

T. Nebbeling: Can I then ask the minister if she can give me an indication of what has come from that committee to the ministry, although without consensus, as far as the leaky-condo issue is concerned?

Hon. J. Kwan: I have not yet received the recommendations from the committee. They are expected to bring forward the recommendations to me sometime in the fall. However, staff advise us that we're anticipating that their recommendations will be somewhat to the effect of advising the province to adopt the 1995 National Building Code, specifically in relation to part 5, in that. . . . While this part has been significantly revised from the provisions in the previous edition of the National Building Code -- although the substance of the requirements is not changed, and this part includes more references to standards that apply to many materials used in envelope construction -- the principal effect of the changes is to make the requirements somewhat clearer. But they remain performance-based and not prescriptive.

T. Nebbeling: I just can't believe that the minister claims that a committee has worked on an issue for a year and a half and that -- the way that committee is going -- the minister has concluded that there is no consensus on that issue and that there is no report whatsoever presented to the ministry -- an interim report or any other form of report -- to give the minister an idea that this committee indeed is functioning towards finding a solution.

Every time it gets a little bit tricky, the minister takes a piece of paper and starts talking about section 5 of part 5, which I suppose is the provincial Building Code, and keeps telling me what the code is all about. Well, we know that the code doesn't deal with leaky condos, according to the minister. The code is not there to protect the leaky-condo owners, the code is there for safety and health. I say this again for the third time, because the minister keeps talking about section 5.

My point is that I feel a little bit done in by the minister on hearing, in defence of not having acted on the 1996 recommendations, that further study was needed. These further studies were undertaken by the Building Safety Advisory Council. Today we find out that by a panel of experts. . . . This is the first time I've heard that it is the Building Safety Advisory Council, which has been in place since 1988. That is focused on totally different areas of the Building Code.

So I feel a little bit taken for a ride, in that I find out that there has been no panel, put in place after 1996, to deal with the leaky-condo issues and that there have been no recommendations made in regards to the leaky-condominium issue. I'm even more surprised to hear -- after the year and a half that the minister's told us discussions have been going on within this Building Safety Advisory Council -- that there is no report coming to the ministry on the leaky-condominium issue.

I mean, I've been in government now for 12 or 13 years, but I've never seen or heard of a council working in total isolation, like a vacuum, when it comes to this very serious issue that we face today. When I met with condominium owners, they were aware that there was some expert panel dealing with their issues. They were not satisfied because they didn't hear anything. But there was always that commitment with this panel.

Well, now we know that this panel was really not created for the purpose of looking at the leaky condominiums. That panel was there since 1988, looking at safety issues. The minister doesn't think the condo issue is a safety issue. So I think we've been taken for a little bit of a ride. I think that is not honourable for the minister.

What I would like to know -- now that I see a whole shifting in where this past activity has taken place, I suppose to pacify people, to give them the false impression that something was being done about the leaking issue -- is: are there representatives from the government on this panel? How many? What is their role?

Hon. J. Kwan: Government says staff are there as a resource to the council. However, they don't sit on the council as council members.

But I do take exception, hon. member, when the member opposite suggests that the information that I've been providing to him and to other members of the House is misleading. The fact is that I have never said that there is a leaky-condo panel; what I have always said is that there is a commission on the leaky-condo issue. What I have always said with respect to the leaky-condo item, as it relates to the Building Code, is that there is a section within the code that clearly outlines and stipulates that water leakage from the exterior wall cladding entering into a structure must not take place and, in the event that it does, that there must be a mechanism for it to dry. That's the relationship which the Building Code has as it applies to the leaky-condo issue.

But I've also said with respect to the leaky-condo issue in relationship to the Building Code -- when the member opposite asserted that the Building Code is a contributing factor to the leaky-condo problem and that the code must therefore be changed to deal with that. . . . I've advised the member opposite that we have a team of experts in this field who have studied changes to the Building Code for the last year and a half. In that year and a half, this team of experts has not advised that the Building Code needs to be substantively changed in order to address the leaky-condo matter.

They will be making some recommendations later on this fall for my consideration, and I'm advised by staff that their intent is to make recommendations to adopt the National Building Code as it relates to part 5. When the member asks us what part 5 is, it is in fact the component in which the Building Code deals with what they would call environmental separation matters.

T. Nebbeling: I think I'm slowly drifting away from this panel, because obviously that panel has not given the worth and the value that we were made to believe it represented as far as the government being serious about how they will tackle this issue of leaky condominiums. This morning I listened very carefully when questions were asked as to why in 1996, when recommendations were made to deal with leaky condominiums and no action was taken, the minister -- she can go to the records -- used the expert panel. She quoted the expert panel by name and who they represented and what organizations they represented. That was the show-stopper in a sense. Those were the people who had taken on the responsibility of. . . . Rather than implement the 13 recommendations, to further study what really was needed and how it could be implemented. . . . I think the panel was given a lot more credit by the minister than it. . . . It's not a matter of "deserved" or "given credit for" when it comes to the issue of leaky condominiums that we've been discussing, because clearly it was just an add-on to an agenda that they were already discussing, which had to do with safety and health issues.

[ Page 8541 ]

Hon. J. Kwan: Does the member mean to ask me to define the term "commissioner" as it applies in Webster's dictionary?

T. Nebbeling: No. The reason I asked that question is that every time the minister needs to get away from an issue, she throws Commissioner Barrett and his commission into the discussion. So before I go on to some questions dealing with that commission, without looking for conclusions that are in the making, I would like to know what the minister sees as the definition of the role that Mr. Barrett is playing as commissioner.

Hon. J. Kwan: What the member is asking about is the mandate of the commissioner. I cited the mandate earlier in Hansard, and the terms of reference as well. But for the member's information, what do I expect the commissioner to do? I expect the commissioner to find out who is responsible for the leaky-condo problem. I expect him to come back to me with recommendations to address two areas. One is with respect to the current homeowners -- what options are available to them. The second is with respect to future homeowners -- how to ensure that there are means of protection for future homeowners.

T. Nebbeling: That's a mandate; that's a job description. I'm asking for a definition of the commissioner -- his job. What does the job as the commissioner imply? What are the values that the commissioner represents? What are his powers? It is a pretty standard question to have not only a job description but also a definition of what the job really represents in legal and moral values. That's what I'm asking the minister for, not a job description.

Hon. J. Kwan: The commissioner has been appointed under the Inquiry Act. His job is to look into the leaky-condo issues and to report back to me with his recommendations for my consideration.

T. Nebbeling: I appreciate the further explanation of the job description. Maybe I can illustrate it a little bit. When the conflict-of-interest commissioner was appointed, the search committee looked at people who had a legal background, so that when legal issues they had to evaluate had merit or merited some action, they could look at those with a legal background. That is part of the definition of a conflict-of-interest commissioner.

I'm asking for the definition of another commissioner. I'm not asking about the job he's going to do. In this particular case, it is the commissioner that heads the Barrett commission. What is the definition?

[4:30]

Hon. J. Kwan: I think the member opposite is looking for an answer with respect to what was taken into consideration when the commissioner was appointed to undertake the work that he has been asked to do. So let me start by saying what the terms of reference are. That is the job description, as the member had referenced.

The first term of reference for the commissioner is to inquire into the quality of condominium construction in British Columbia, particularly the adequacy of protection for and accountability to consumers for faulty condominium construction. The second term of reference is to determine the reasons for and factors contributing to faulty condominium construction, with particular focus on the issue of leaky condominiums. The third is to submit a report to the Lieutenant-Governor-in Council by May 29, 1998, through the Ministry of Municipal Affairs, recommending any measures, including but not limited to changes to legislation, regulations or administrative practices that the commissioner determines are needed. Of course, the deadline of May 29 has now been changed to June 19 at the request of the commissioner. From that point of view, given that this is a job with tasks, a consideration that cabinet and I have taken into account is that we feel that Commissioner Barrett is a person who would be able to accomplish these three tasks.

T. Nebbeling: First of all, how many people were considered publicly or internally for this job?

Hon. J. Kwan: That's a cabinet decision. If the member actually reads Hansard, he would know that the question has already been asked.

T. Nebbeling: I did not read Hansard; I didn't hear the answer. If the minister is refusing to answer it, that's fine. But don't give me the story about reading Hansard. There are many meetings going on, and if I spend my time reading Hansard, I wouldn't do my job. So if the minister doesn't mind answering the question: how many people were considered for this position? Was it one, two, three or four? I'm not asking who.

Hon. J. Kwan: The answer is that it's a cabinet decision and therefore is not subject to discussion. I'm not prepared to discuss cabinet decisions around this table. When I referenced Hansard, the fact is that in the estimates we try not to repeat ourselves over and over again. That's what Hansard is there for: to reference what has been talked about and what hasn't been talked about for the members' information and for the record. Again, I know that if the member opposite takes the time to look at Hansard, he will know that that question was asked by the member for Richmond East.

T. Nebbeling: Well, I'm happy that the minister is getting a little bit more animated and aggressive in her response, because if we speak faster, we get to the next question more quickly.

When we were selecting a commissioner for the conflict-of-interest position, it was public knowledge that there were five or six candidates. Sure, who was ultimately selected and why they were selected was a cabinet decision, but I'm not asking for the criteria. I'm just asking a question about how the commissioner's position has been answered. If the minister really wants to create an atmosphere of suspicion that there may be something wrong, then she's definitely giving the right answers. In other commission appointments, there is no secrecy, no question of the public knowing how many candidates there are. Suddenly, in this particular case, it is all cabinet minister privilege, and I can only wonder why. What

[ Page 8542 ]

Of course, the first question I would like to ask the minister is if she can give me some background on this commissioner. Let's go back 40 to 50 years.

Hon. J. Kwan: The conflict-of-interest commissioner is an officer of the Legislature. To that end, the decision on the commissioner was made through a committee of the House. There is a significant distinction between that versus the commissioner whom I have appointed to undertake the leaky-condo inquiry.

As the member knows, Commissioner Barrett is a former Premier of the province. He is well respected; he is known to be a fighter for the little guys in our community. He is not easily intimidated by anybody. I feel that Mr. Barrett is a good choice for the work which I have given him the mandate to undertake within his terms of reference.

T. Nebbeling: Sure, the conflict-of-interest commissioner is a decision by all-party committees and is supported by all-party committees, and Mr. Barrett is a political appointment. But that doesn't mean that people should not know why and what has qualified this individual for playing the role of commissioner. I asked the minister not to talk about the last six or eight weeks of his life. We know what he's been doing; we know he's been having these hearings on the leaky condominiums. I really would like to know -- aside from having been a minister, aside from having been a political appointment for all kinds of positions -- what he has done in real life. What real work did he do to make him an expert on the building trade, which is quite complicated? In all fairness, the last 20 to 25 years that he was in political life have seen a fair amount of changes. Unless he was somehow affiliated with the industry -- and I'm not talking about the union, but by doing some real work. . . . What gives him the authority to set up criteria that he expects the building industry to live by, or to have lived by, when he has never been involved in that industry? I would like to hear more of his background -- beyond his political career, be it appointed or elected.

Hon. J. Kwan: The member opposite is asking for background information regarding Dave Barrett. Actually, I have a lot of information about him. With respect to his educational background, Mr. Barrett attended a public school in Vancouver and graduated from Britannia high school in 1948. He attended Seattle University in Seattle, Washington, and in 1953 he was awarded a bachelor of arts degree in philosophy. In 1956 he received his master of social work degree from St. Louis University in Missouri. In 1974 St. Louis University granted him an honorary doctor of laws degree. Mr. Barrett was also recognized for public service by Simon Fraser University, which also granted him an honorary doctor of laws degree.

As for his professional background, he was a probation officer for the St. Louis County juvenile court in Missouri in 1956. He was a supervisor of social training and personnel and a staff training officer at Haney correctional institution, department of the Attorney General, government of B.C., from 1957 to 1959; a supervisor of a counselling service, John Howard Society of British Columbia, 1959-64; executive director of the Jewish Family Services Agency, Vancouver, 1965-70.

His political background. . . . In 1959 Mr. Barrett joined the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation, known as the CCF and later constituted as part of the NDP. In 1960 he was elected to the Legislative Assembly as the MLA for the Dewdney electoral district and was re-elected in 1963. Following redistribution of electoral districts, he was elected MLA for the Coquitlam electoral district in 1966 and re-elected in 1969 and 1972. Following the general election of August 1969, Mr. Barrett was chosen House Leader for the New Democratic Party, and in June of 1970 he was elected as leader at a convention of the party. Following the general election of August 30, 1972, Mr. Barrett was named Premier and president of the executive council of the province. Between September of 1972 and September of 1975, he also held the position of Minister of Finance. In the general election of December 11, 1975, the NDP lost the majority in the Legislative Assembly, and Mr. Barrett and his cabinet resigned on December 22, 1975.

Although Mr. Barrett was defeated in the Coquitlam electoral district in the 1975 general election, he returned as MLA for Vancouver East in a by-election held on June 3, 1976. He was appointed Leader of the Opposition on June 14, 1976. Mr. Barrett was re-elected as MLA for Vancouver East in the general election of May 10, 1979, and again on May 5, 1983. In 1984 Mr. Barrett resigned as Leader of the Opposition and MLA. In 1988 Mr. Barrett was elected Member of Parliament for Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca and acted as his party's free trade critic. After the general election of 1993, he returned to his communications pursuits.

With respect to his broadcasting and communications background, in 1984 Mr. Barrett entered private broadcasting on radio and television. He hosted a daily open-line show on radio station CJOR in Vancouver from 1984 to 1986, as well as a weekly television program on station CKVU from 1984 to 1985. During this same period Mr. Barrett also initiated a private communications company, through which he lectured widely across North America and published a series of articles in magazines.

Mr. Barrett was a frequent guest on national radio and television as a commentator on current events, and he was a weekly panellist with Dalton Camp and Eric Kierans on the CBC program, Morningside. In the fall of 1987 Mr. Barrett was appointed a fellow at the institute of public policy, John F. Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University, where he conducted a seminar program on Canada's health care system. In the spring of 1988 he was appointed a visiting scholar at McGill University, where he gave a series of lectures on public policy. After his election to the House of Commons in 1988, Mr. Barrett continued to deliver lectures in the United States and Canada on current subjects through a variety of public and private groups.

Interjection.

The Chair: Order, member.

Hon. J. Kwan: Hon. member, these are very impressive credentials. He has been recognized by Simon Fraser University with an honorary doctor of laws degree. He's been recognized by St. Louis University with an honorary doctor of laws degree. Actually, he has a very impressive list of abilities and capabilities, and I have no doubt in my mind that he would be able to meet the mandate I gave him with respect to the leaky-condo inquiry.

T. Nebbeling: I didn't get it all. Would you mind repeating that?

Interjection.

[ Page 8543 ]

Interjections.

The Chair: Order, members.

T. Nebbeling: What is clear is that Mr. Barrett has no understanding or knowledge of the building industry. Mr. Barrett has not been a roofer; he has not been a carpenter. Listening to this very impressive list of achievements, I do not detect anywhere in there that he actually laboured at one time to make a living, an experience that would qualify him for being a commissioner today. I did not hear that he was in the building trade in any of its aspects.

[4:45]

Hon. J. Kwan: Mr. Barrett's experience ranges in a whole array of areas. He has public policy experience; he's got federal-provincial government experience; he's got knowledge of government. Perhaps most important of all, Mr. Barrett is known to be a fighter for the little people, as I said earlier. He is known to not be intimidated by anybody, and he has the capacity and the ability to draw people to speak with him on issues. What we need with respect to the leaky-condo inquiry is someone to get to the bottom of the leaky-condo issues and to come forward with recommendations in the two areas: one, with respect to future construction and, two, with respect to current homeowners.

T. Nebbeling: What does the minister mean by: "He's a man of the little people"? Is this a class issue? I don't understand this "little people" label. I think some people may well be offended by being identified as "the little people." Can the minister maybe explain what she meant by that -- in the context of his job as commissioner?

Hon. J. Kwan: The phrase "fighter for the little people" is commonly used. They are the people. . . . I would say that once upon a time my family and I were the little people, and the person whom we feel actually advocated on our behalf and fought for our rights would be a person like Mr. Barrett. My family immigrated here in 1975, struggling with many challenges, and we, as little people in our family, looked to different people who were perhaps political or community leaders. We actually felt, in my family's example, that Mr. Barrett would be a fighter for us, as little people within the community.

T. Nebbeling: Well, I think the statement of the minister could well be interpreted by a lot of people as demeaning. I too came to this country, two years after the member arrived. I didn't have the fortune of bringing a family with me; I came here on my own. I didn't have much. I struggled with my own hands, and I made something out of myself. I think that opportunity has been given to every person who came to this country. It was certainly not because of a person who was described as standing up for the little people and then seeing the little people identified, in part, as immigrants to this country. I find this very offensive. I don't care what Mr. Barrett has done in his life, but let his participation in B.C. society never be described as standing up for the little people and then identify little people as people like myself. I feel offended by that.

Having said that. . . . I want to get past it because I think the minister is beginning to lose sight of what we're really doing here, and that is trying to find out what indeed has been done by the government about the leaky-condo issue. We found out that the panel that was supposed to have acted after the 1996 reports came out. . . . As we know by now, the recommendations were not addressed, not honoured, not acted upon. To cover that lack of action by the government, the minister has used this panel, which we now find out is a building safety council and had nothing to do with the leaky-condo issue. . . . They were there far before the leaky-condo issue became an issue.

So I think we have uncovered that issue. We haven't seen any action. The only action that we can truly focus on, then, is the commissioner's role. We find out today that the commissioner has no expertise whatsoever in that area. His only motivation is -- and I quote the minister; I would never use that myself -- "standing up for the little people." That is going to give him the moral and legal right to make decisions that will have an impact on many thousands of people in this province. I find it a farce; I find it. . . . I'm not going to say the word I was going to use because it could be wrongly translated. I think we are going through a move here that has very little to do with the need and the hardship that the people owning these condominiums have -- again, just to see the government cover itself. I'm beginning to believe the second motivation is that the minister sees this as an opportunity to get the industry quietly transferred to an attempt to unionize the workforce.

So if the minister can answer my last question: can she assure me that the interest of the condominium owners was foremost in her mind when she appointed Mr. Barrett and that under no circumstances has he ever considered the role of the building trade unions to overtake the job that is being done by the private sector?

Hon. J. Kwan: At the outset of making the appointment, I stated very clearly that this is not a labour issue; it is not a union-non-union issue. It is an issue relating to leaky condos, around quality construction. It is an issue as relates to the problems that are faced by current homeowners, an issue of protection for future homeowners. But it's not me who supports Mr. Barrett's appointment. In fact, Nona Saunders, president of the Condominium Home Owners Association, has written to me, and her comments with respect to Mr. Barrett and his team of people on the inquiry are as follows:

"Mr. Barrett, Ms. Allen and Mr. Leask are to be commended for the thorough, apolitical and empathetic manner in which they conducted the hearings. For many presenters, this was a first opportunity to be part of a critical democratic process with the potential to influence positive change. Public representation came from a broad cross-section of affected owners who covered all economic, ethnic, age and marital status groups. All major groups associated with the residential construction industry were also heard."

[ Page 8544 ]

I feel confident that Mr. Barrett will come forward with a good report and with recommendations for my consideration. As a point of clarification, Mr. Barrett does not make decisions; the government makes the decisions. I take his recommendations into consideration.

T. Nebbeling: Just a quick follow-up to the statement just made by the minister, can the minister tell me if she believes that a commissioner playing such a vital role representing this particular commission should have an open mind, a neutral mind and a mind not made up as to what should happen if he or she as a commissioner had their way?

Hon. J. Kwan: I have every confidence that the commissioner will conduct his work in a non-partisan manner and bring forward recommendations for my consideration.

T. Nebbeling: On purpose I didn't throw in "non-partisan." I asked about an open mind, a mind that has not been made up and has not reflected in discussions or through other means that the decision has already been made as far as that individual is concerned. Does the minister believe that a commissioner should indeed have an open mind and not be hampered by previous decisions he has made on the issue that he's investigating?

Hon. J. Kwan: I'm confident that Mr. Barrett will conduct his work in an unbiased manner and that the set of recommendations that he'll table to me on June 19 will be ones that I will take into consideration.

T. Nebbeling: Can the minister tell me how she will disregard the article that Mr. Barrett wrote in the Globe and Mail, pretty well handing the building industry to the unions, in his opinion?

Hon. J. Kwan: I ask the member to judge Mr. Barrett's work upon receipt of his work and not on the assumptions that he has.

T. Nebbeling: I will judge Mr. Barrett's performance, his conclusions, definitely on. . . . I have an open mind, I should say, but clearly when the minister states that his first and foremost interest is the little people and their interest, then I think there is a bias. If the minister didn't mean to indicate that that advice is there because of his previous action as a politician for the little people, then maybe the minister should state it.

Hon. J. Kwan: If there is any bias at all that Mr. Barrett may have, I would assume that the bias would be towards the people who own leaky condos right now. Again, I am very confident that he will come back with a fair report -- a report that reflects what he has heard -- and with recommendations for my consideration.

L. Reid: I want to put a number of issues on the record this afternoon and to state a concern. I have been in this House for a number of years, and when issues have been asked for and those requests have been granted during the estimates debate, typically the minister or the deputy minister has taken the next earliest opportunity to provide that information.

There are issues outstanding from yesterday; there are issues outstanding from three weeks ago. It's been almost 24 hours since the last requests were made, and there are individuals here who could provide that information. Should they be directed to do so?

The minister has agreed to provide a number of items. The minister will know that the request is timely. For me to receive this information after this estimates debate has concluded is not helpful. If the request was granted simply to put it at arm's length -- to suggest that somehow that information would be forthcoming at a much later date -- the minister needs to know that that's not how professional estimates are run. That, frankly, is an issue that I will make some comment on this afternoon.

The minister will know -- and the deputy minister particularly will know, because she has behaved very professionally in past estimates that she and I have been engaged in -- that the information is provided at the start of the next day's debate. That's the practice. I'm alarmed that the practice has obviously changed for this set of estimates. I would again ask the minister, in terms of the information that was requested yesterday, for the cost of the Barrett commission, the costs of the individual panellists: Peter Leask, Robyn Allen, Dave Barrett -- a breakdown of the sum of $300,000. This is the estimates debate for the Ministry of Municipal Affairs. This is an estimated cost that the minister yesterday agreed. . .and again in the Blues, on page 11, made the comment -- and I will quote it into the record -- that that information was available to me for the past three weeks.

Three weeks have elapsed. I do not have that information. Upon asking this morning, the response I received was that the deputy minister did not have time to return to her office. This is a technological age. Have someone send us a fax. I don't find that to be a reasonable response.

In the cost of production of the videotapes that the minister referenced yesterday, the time line was a reasonable question. The cost and the list of the contributors were reasonable questions. When the staff has more than 24 hours to respond to those questions, I would ask: why is such disrespect shown to me, in that that information is not available? The minister agreed it would be. Twenty-four hours have passed since those requests were made, and the information has simply not been forthcoming. I'm troubled by that, and I would ask for the minister's comment.

[5:00]

As well, for the member's information, the Inquiry Act really is a matter that falls under the Ministry of Attorney General. Mr. Barrett was appointed under the Inquiry Act. Therefore the contracts weren't submitted to this ministry but rather were submitted to the Ministry of Attorney General. So our staff has undertaken to get that information. As soon as we receive that information, we will make that available to her.

When the member cited some three weeks ago. . .something about the information being made available, my under-

[ Page 8545 ]

Relating to another request that the member asked for with respect to the videos, the production of the videos was done under Double M Productions, not through the ministry. What the ministry did is provide a grant to Double M Productions, with a number of other partners in that production. The distribution and availability of the video is something that we have to seek from an outside source. As well, with respect to the total cost of the production and who else was involved, we will have to seek that information from Double M Productions.

L. Reid: I appreciate the minister's commentary. I would suggest that, frankly, it's not factual. I would cite for the minister page 17 of yesterday's Blues, with respect to the cost and the contract document for the commissioner's staff team. These are the minister's words: "I was under the impression that those documents were already made public to the member opposite."

Interjection.

L. Reid: Because of the. . . .

The Chair: Through the Chair.

L. Reid: The minister will know that the request was made more than three weeks back. That material was promised more than three weeks ago -- yes, directly to your deputy minister. The minister is correct: we indeed began these estimates on May 22.

The minister is fond of suggesting that this information is readily available. It is not. As recently as 12 o'clock today, with calls to the Barrett commission, that information is not forthcoming. Frankly, it's not. So the minister obviously didn't know that or again would have me go off on a wild goose chase, when that information is not available to this member of the opposition. That attitude is frankly not appreciated.

Certainly the minister's comments of yesterday. . . . Again, I would cite page 11 of the Blues, when she talks about providing the information on the cost of those videos and providing a list of contributors. I would suggest that it is a phone call that someone within the ministry staff could have made yesterday. I'm not feeling that this is a difficult series of requests. Frankly, I have not appreciated the minister's suggesting that somehow I have made an unreasonable request -- that expecting the information 24 hours later is somehow not possible. I believe this information should be available.

This is the one opportunity for the opposition to scrutinize this ministry. It's the only opportunity in a 12-month calendar. It comes up once every 12 months. For the majority of questions that have no answer, a percentage is not helpful. So if the minister could kindly clarify her remarks of yesterday, in concert with her remarks of today, because frankly they do not mesh.

Hon. J. Kwan: Indeed, with respect to the documents being made public, I was under the impression that the Barrett commission representatives were actually making that information public. If in fact that's not the case, I have made a commitment to the member opposite that we'll endeavour to get that information to her. The ministry staff has made a phone call to get that information. As soon as we receive it, we'll make that available to her.

As well, I just want to say that because, again, the commissioner is appointed under the Inquiry Act, which falls outside the Ministry of Municipal Affairs but rather falls within the Ministry of Attorney General, we cannot be responsible for another ministry in that fashion. Rather, we will endeavour to get that information to the member as soon as we can and as soon as we receive it.

With respect to the request having been made to my deputy minister some three weeks ago at the briefing, I have spoken with my deputy minister around this issue. She has referenced her notes. Her notes do not reflect a request for that information. Having said that, I don't want to argue about whether you actually made the request or not. My deputy minister's notes do not reflect that. Having said that, though, if she has forgotten about the request -- if it was indeed made -- I would give my apologies to the member opposite on behalf of my deputy minister and again for the information that the member opposite is requesting. We have already made the request to the various third parties to get that information. As soon as we receive it, we will make it available to the member opposite.

R. Thorpe: Sitting here listening to some of this debate, I just jump up on this point: I find it absolutely unbelievable that the minister who has appointed this commissioner and a ministry that has the involvement that it has. . . . Having listened to the debate here all afternoon on that subject, I'd just like the minister to tell the answer to this question. . . . Neither she nor staff in her ministry have those cost figures in their offices -- as the ministry office that appointed the commissioner. Is that what the minister just said?

Hon. J. Kwan: For the member opposite's information, the commissioner was appointed under the Inquiry Act. The Inquiry Act falls under the Ministry of Attorney General, and if the member wants those figures confirmed, then the confirmation needs to come from that ministry.

R. Thorpe: With respect, I do not remember seeing the Attorney General's name announcing that commissioner in the press release. Somehow I recall that it was this minister. But that wasn't the question. The question is: does the minister or her staff have a breakdown of the costs in their possession, in her office or in the deputy minister's office?

Hon. J. Kwan: The answer is no, we do not have a breakdown of the estimates in my staff's possession. The Inquiry Act is the act under which the commissioner was appointed. That was actually made very clear to the public. Item 4 of the OIC that was passed clearly states: "To assist in achieving the objectives of the inquiry, the commissioner may appoint or retain counsel, research assistants and professional advisors that the commissioner considers appropriate and the rates, fees and expenses applicable to these appointees will be those established by the Attorney General."

R. Thorpe: Well, I guess hon. Chair, that's how we go from having an announced, balanced budget or a surplus to a $1 billion deficit, because quite frankly in this government nobody's watching how the money is being spent in British Columbia. For a minister of this Crown not to perhaps even

[ Page 8546 ]

My question to the minister is: can you tell us of the current status in your estimates this year -- and hopefully, it's your ministry that looks after it -- of the downtown revitalization program?

Hon. J. Kwan: I won't debate some of the earlier comments with respect to the leaky-condo issue.

On the question around the downtown revitalization program, the revitalization program actually doesn't exist in its original form. What we have is the neighbourhood enhancement program, and the budget for the neighbourhood enhancement program is $100,000.

R. Thorpe: I believe the minister said $100,000 for the 1998 program. What was the comparable figure in the previous year for this program?

Hon. J. Kwan: The program did not exist in 1997. The downtown revitalization program was eliminated in 1996.

[5:15]

Hon. J. Kwan: That is correct.

R. Thorpe: With respect to the B.C. neighbourhood enhancement program, how many FTEs are assigned to that program?

Hon. J. Kwan: Two.

R. Thorpe: What are the broad-stroke criteria for application of that program? Are there any maximum amounts available to communities?

Hon. J. Kwan: The upper limit for the grant application is $5,000. The focus of the neighbourhood enhancement program is very much a community focus and looking at ways to improve the local community. We can actually make available a copy of neighbourhood enhancement program information to the member. In fact, I know it's just sitting on a tray in my office. If we recess for five minutes, I'll run up and get it -- and go to the bathroom at the same time.

The committee recessed from 5:20 p.m. to 5:23 p.m.

[E. Walsh in the chair.]

R. Thorpe: So we have the B.C. neighbourhood enhancement program. It has a budget of $100,000, and we have two FTEs managing that. What would be the cost attached to those two FTEs?

Hon. J. Kwan: Just to be clear, so that there's no confusion, the $100,000 that I mentioned earlier is the $100,000 that is available for the purpose of grants. The program in itself is to be run by the two FTEs. Part of their responsibility is to work on the B.C. neighbourhood enhancement program, but not all of their energy is restricted to just the neighbourhood enhancement program. The salaries for the two FTEs are approximately $100,000. So a portion of their salary, I guess, would be applicable to the B.C. neighbourhood enhancement program.

R. Thorpe: Thank you to the minister for that answer. What other areas, then, would these two FTEs. . . ? I understand that the program manager has a lot of expertise in this area and is appreciated significantly by communities throughout the province of British Columbia. In what other areas would we be using this individual's expertise, on programs that he's working on?

Hon. J. Kwan: A significant part of the staff's responsibility is the court-of-revision process that runs from January to March.

R. Thorpe: Back to the downtown revitalization program, which no longer is, and the scaled-back B.C. neighbourhood enhancement program and the $100,000, how are these funds awarded? Are they awarded once a year? How do communities know about it, and how are they selected? Obviously a lot of communities aren't going to get very much money out of this program. So how does that whole process work? Are all communities throughout British Columbia advised at once that these funds are available, or does somebody just have to be lucky and happen to know that the program is there? How are the -- for lack of a better word -- winners picked?

Hon. J. Kwan: The grant system is done on an annual cycle. With respect to information about this program, I believe that nearly all of the local governments, if not all of them, are made aware of this information. I know that previously the program manager, Martin Thomas, has worked very closely with local governments and local communities on this matter. This is a program that is really very much locally driven, so we have been working closely with local governments on that.

R. Thorpe: On the assumption that we get more than 20 applications -- because, quite frankly, in today's world $5,000 isn't a whole bunch of money -- how do we select them? Do we have a set of criteria to select the communities that are going to get the funds? Is there a set, established list of criteria?

Hon. J. Kwan: This is the first year of the program. At the present time, the program is not overly subscribed to, although perhaps it will become very popular and become overly subscribed to down the road. Generally speaking, the criteria that staff use is really looking for public support, a locally driven kind of a strategy with respect to this program, and looking for the contribution of the program benefiting all the citizens and being consistent with the official community plan. As well, generally speaking, the focus is for smaller communities with this program.

[5:30]

Hon. J. Kwan: Generally speaking, smaller communities could be referenced as communities of fewer than 5,000 people, but we don't use a prescribed definition in that form. In speaking with Martin Thomas, he advises me that the smaller

[ Page 8547 ]

R. Thorpe: Could the minister provide for me an outline of what the small community protection grant is designed to accomplish?

Hon. J. Kwan: Actually, the small community protection grant is a big component within the ministry. Just looking at the chart here, in terms of population base, it ranges from as low as 80,000 to as high as 160,000, generally speaking.

R. Thorpe: I assume the minister was talking about dollars. My question. . . .

A Voice: Population.

R. Thorpe: Oh, you're talking about. . . .

The Chair: Through the Chair.

R. Thorpe: Of course, through the Chair, my question to the minister is: what is the program designed to do? That was my question.

Hon. J. Kwan: It is designed to provide financial stability for smaller communities, and it's also there to provide for continuity from the previous basic grant programs.

R. Thorpe: Could the minister expand upon her definition of "stability"? Surely we have a clear definition somewhere of what this small community protection grant is. Surely it is defined somewhere. Do we have a definition of what this small community protection grant is? If so, could the minister perhaps read it to us? People don't seem to be too aware of what this particular grant is all about.

Hon. J. Kwan: Rather than read off the information about eligibility, the amount of the grant, etc., as it relates to the small community protection grant, we can make this available to you so that you can go through it in your own time.

R. Thorpe: What is the total amount in your 1998-1999 budget for these grants?

Hon. J. Kwan: It's $18.9 million.

R. Thorpe: Hon. Chair, the minister made reference earlier to numbers of 80,000 and 160,000. Could the minister clarify if that was community size? I just didn't. . . .

Interjection.

R. Thorpe: Oh, they range from 80,000 to 160,000. Is that what. . . ?

A Voice: It's dollars.

R. Thorpe: Okay, they're dollars. We've got $18.9 million. The minister said -- at least I thought she said -- that it was for stability, and we're going to get a definition on that later, and also transition. Could the minister just allude to what she was referring to with the word "transition" with respect to these grants?

Hon. J. Kwan: With respect to the question of what the small community protection grant is or what kind of continuity it provides for, it basically replaces the old basic grants that used to be in place under the old structure.

I'm guessing at this now, but perhaps the member is really trying to head in the direction of overall government contributions to local government by way of grants, and what some of the issues are with respect to issues of stability in grant applications, etc. For the member's information, we have been working with the UBCM on this matter. In fact, very recently, at the last joint council meeting, the president of UBCM, Steve Wallace, and myself actually signed a sub-agreement, in terms of agreeing on a set of principles to find alternative local government financing authorities to be provided to local governments.

R. Thorpe: Quite frankly, I was just asking some questions, because so far everybody I've asked who's related to this hasn't been able to tell me the answer to the question. So I thought I was asking a question; I wasn't heading anywhere. But thanks for the direction, and perhaps I'll go down that road a little bit later.

Could the minister just give me, because she didn't answer my question. . . . You mentioned the word "transition," and you didn't come back and answer that question. I guess you don't want to make reference to or are maybe nervous about that word -- and if you're not, perhaps you'll answer. Could you give me two examples of what communities would use these grants for? What would be two examples of eligible expenditures that they could use for these funds? Or do they just go into general revenues within municipalities?

Hon. J. Kwan: I believe the word that I used earlier was continuity, not transformation.

With respect to the criteria for the funds, they are unconditional grants.

R. Thorpe: Well, actually, you didn't use the word "transformation" and you didn't use the word "continuity." You used that the second time, but the first time you did use the "word" transition, and that was why I was asking for your definition of the word "transition." But I'm sure that you'll check Hansard later and understand that.

With respect to these grants, then, do they stay stationary from year to year? Do they go up or down? What kind of criteria are there for these transition-type grants?

Hon. J. Kwan: Things that might impact the grant are population changes and assessment changes. Therefore, depending on a community's changes with respect to its population, then the grant accordingly may also adjust within the range of $80,000 to $160,000.

R. Thorpe: Would the devolution of roads to municipalities be one of the criteria, then, that could impact on the size of these grants?

Hon. J. Kwan: No, that's an expenditure issue and not an issue with respect to the criteria for the small community protection grant.

[ Page 8548 ]

Hon. J. Kwan: The answer is no.

R. Thorpe: Given the hour, I move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 5:43 p.m.

[ Return to: Legislative Assembly Home Page ]

Copyright © 1998: Queen's Printer, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada