[ Page 9229 ]

The House met at 2:06 p.m.

J. Weisbeck: In the House today are Bill and Doreen DiPasquale. I had the pleasure of working with Bill when I was a city councillor in the city of Kelowna. Would the House please make them welcome.

S. Hawkins: It is my great pleasure to introduce Mr. Jagjit Singh Dhaliwal. Mr. Dhaliwal is visiting friends of ours in Kelowna and family in Vancouver. He is visiting from England. He is very interested in parliaments around the world, and I'm glad he's had the opportunity to come and visit us here today. Would the House please join me in making him feel welcome.

Hon. G. Clark: Earlier today the Women's Equality minister and myself had the great privilege and honour of meeting with some very accomplished women. They are the 1998 YWCA Victoria and Vancouver Women of Distinction award recipients. The minister will be introducing most of them, but as Minister Responsible for Youth, I'd like to introduce the 1998 Young Women of Distinction award recipients. Adriana McMullen from Victoria serves meals at the Upper Room, visits elderly hospital patients and lifeguards at Commonwealth Place. She is a tremendous community volunteer. Leah Costello from Vancouver is the founder of her own catering business, although she just sold it, and is very active in community programs, particularly those related to youth and entrepreneurship. So Adriana McMullen and Leah Costello are the winners of the Young Women of Distinction award this year. I ask the House to make them welcome.

Hon. S. Hammell: As the Premier just mentioned, we had the pleasure of having lunch with these remarkable women. It gives me great pleasure to introduce to the House the Women of Distinction from both Victoria and Vancouver. Alma Lee has earned an incredible reputation around writing. Farida Sayani is the owner and managing director of Executive Inn Hotels and Suites. Leora Kuttner is an instructor at UBC's department of pediatrics and works in pain relief for children. Gillian Lockitch is a UBC professor of pathology and deals with the complex biochemistry of infants, children, adolescents and pregnant women. Anita Dadson has devoted her life to working on behalf of people with disabilities in the community. Luba Lyons Richardson is a midwife and was recently appointed as the first-ever chief of the department of midwifery in Victoria. Georgina Wong is also from Victoria and is a committed community activist and volunteer. Pauline van den Driessche is internationally known for research in mathematical biology and combinatorial matrix analysis; she is a University of Victoria professor. Nella Nelson is a proud member of the first nations community and works with the Victoria school district. Judy Joseph is a public relations officer for the department of athletics and recreational services at the University of Victoria. Christina Truscott is the owner of Body Blueprint, a fitness company in Victoria. Last, but not least, is the lifetime achievement award for Norma Mickelson, the chancellor of the University of Victoria, who has been a source of inspiration for many women in her role as scholar, teacher, author, lecturer and advocate. On behalf of the House, I welcome these women here and ask the House to help me welcome them also.

I. Chong: I have two introductions today. Firstly, it's my pleasure, on behalf of the member for Victoria-Beacon Hill, the hon. Speaker, and myself, to introduce two very special guests who are visiting in the gallery today. They are Mr. John Hopper and his son Tristin. John and Tristin were the hon. Speaker's guests for lunch today. John happens to be a constituent of mine, and he is here today in his capacity as a local businessman who is interested in the future of downtown and in the youth of Victoria. I ask all members to please help make him welcome.

Secondly, it is my pleasure to introduce to this House ten seniors who are residents of Berwick House, a seniors care facility in the riding of Oak Bay-Gordon Head. They are here today with their coordinator of activities, Mrs. Kendra King. I also ask the House to please make them welcome.

J. van Dongen: I'm pleased to introduce to the House today two visitors from the Victoria area, Rosalynn Karadimas and Sherry Davies. They are here as representatives of Parents for Healthy Children. I ask the House to please make them welcome.

Hon. J. Kwan: Visiting us today in the precinct is Mr. Shing Kuo Shih. He is the adviser of the Taiwanese Canadian Cultural Society. With him are his brother and two sisters from Taiwan and, as well, his son Eric Shih from Vancouver. Would the House please make them welcome.

Introduction of Bills

PUBLIC EDUCATION COLLECTIVE AGREEMENT ACT

Hon. P. Ramsey: I move that the bill be introduced and read a first time now.

Motion approved.

Hon. P. Ramsey: Hon. Speaker, this act puts into law the agreement recently negotiated by government and the teachers of British Columbia -- an agreement that is unprecedented in its commitment to our education system.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members. . . .

Hon. P. Ramsey: This agreement, which a strong majority of British Columbia teachers have endorsed, brings an investment of $200 million into our schools in the next three years. It provides lower provincial class sizes for students in kindergarten-to-grade-3, giving them more support and attention in the early years when they need it most. This is a good agreement for our children, and teachers have given up pay increases for two years in exchange for these investments in classrooms.

[ Page 9230 ]

Once passed, the Public Education Collective Agreement Act makes the agreement negotiated by government and the teachers union legal and binding as of July 1, 1998, when the current agreement expires.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, hon. members, while the minister finishes his statement.

Hon. P. Ramsey: I was deeply disappointed by the trustees' rejection of that agreement. It is clear to me that trustees and teachers will not return to bargaining, let alone reach a better agreement for our children. As a government, we simply can't risk this agreement in the hope that these two parties will put aside their longstanding differences and work out anything better.

[2:15]

Interjections.

The Speaker: Hon. members, come to order. Minister, we need the motion now, please.

Hon. P. Ramsey: I am not pleased about having to do this, but. . . .

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members will come to order.

Hon. P. Ramsey: I am not pleased about introducing this bill, but I honestly feel that it's the only way we can ensure that school opens this fall.

I move that Bill 39 be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Hon. members, come to order. I'm going to put the motion for movement to second reading.

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

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members, come to order. The House will come to order. Nothing further will proceed. . . . Order, hon. members.

Oral Questions

BUSING EFFECTS OF EDUCATION AGREEMENT-IN-COMMITTEE

Worse yet, children from the same family will be split and sent to different schools out of their neighbourhoods, and this can happen at any time of the year. Will the Minister of Education tell us why he is so intent on forcing five-, six- and seven-year-old kids to be bused or taxied to and from school every day?

Hon. P. Ramsey: I'm frankly shocked that this member would continue to misrepresent this agreement with teachers. The BCTF has assured both BCPSEA and government that there is no intent to bus children to other communities. That is simply not in the agreement, and I ask the member to stop fearmongering. We'll have ample opportunity to debate the elements of this agreement later this session.

The Speaker: First supplementary, the member for Okanagan-Vernon.

A. Sanders: This minister knows very well that that is exactly what's going to happen. It's happening now in some communities, and it will be happening more with the implementation of this bill. The minister doesn't understand that parents don't want to see their littlest school kids go off to schools across town; they don't want it. They don't want to see their kids split up, and that is exactly what this class-size deal will do and what is going to happen. Will the Minister of Education please tell parents of the most vulnerable school-age kids why he and his cohorts are willing and prepared to sacrifice and split up families by imposing a bad deal?

Hon. P. Ramsey: This agreement with the BCTF provides significant steps towards lowering class size and making sure our children have more attention. Our goal is clear: we want every child to have the individual attention he or she needs to be able to read and write before the end of grade 3. The lower class sizes in the agreement are significant steps towards making that possible. I look forward to the debate, when the Liberal opposition will try to explain to parents why higher class sizes are better for learning.

NATURE OF AGREEMENT WITH BCTF

[ Page 9231 ]

Hon. P. Ramsey: I assume that the member is referring to a letter signed by the president of the BCTF and my deputy, which says very clearly that school boards are not required to take funds from other programs to fund this agreement, nor are they required to bus students more than they do now.

The Speaker: First supplementary, the member for Matsqui.

M. de Jong: Well, I'll tell you what the secret protocol of June 10 says, hon. Speaker. In it, the ministry acknowledges that meeting the obligations set out in this deal -- the deal he is about to legislate -- will require school boards to do the following: create more split classes, adjust school boundaries and bus or transport kids across town away from their neighbourhood schools. That's what the document says. When exactly was the minister going to get around to telling the parents and the students who are going to be affected by this secret protocol that he's cut another backroom deal? Why is it a secret? Why is he so embarrassed to tell people the truth about the deal he's cut with the BCTF?

Hon. P. Ramsey: As classrooms fill up, school districts right now adjust school boundaries. At times kids are bused; at times these split classes are put in place. The member obviously. . . .

Interjections.

The Speaker: Hon. members, the question has been asked. The minister is entitled to make a response.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members!

Hon. P. Ramsey: Far from not telling anyone, the letter that the member refers to was faxed to every school district in the province. Far from being ashamed of this deal, we on this side of the House are proud of working for smaller class sizes so our kids get a better education.

TURNING LANES FOR HIGHWAY 97 NORTH INTERSECTION

Hon. H. Lali: I want to thank the hon. member for his question. We take the safety of the travelling public as a high concern. I knew that an accident had taken place. Certainly I'll get back to the hon. member with some details on that particular situation.

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

J. Weisgerber: There's a lot of traffic in and out of that golf course and campground during the summer months, when the traffic is the heaviest on the Alaska Highway. The ministry has just awarded a contract to repave the road in the precise area where the accident occurred. It would be a logical time for the ministry to put in turning lanes if they are intending to do so. Will the minister commit today to investigating the need for these turning lanes, and will he agree to give it the highest priority so that this opportunity can be taken advantage of?

Hon. H. Lali: The hon. member has been a member of this House for about a dozen years, and I take his advice quite seriously. As a matter of fact, I will direct my regional staff to meet with the hon. member so we can come to a resolution of the issue.

NURSES WORKING CONDITIONS AT BURNABY CORRECTIONAL CENTRE

Hon. P. Priddy: I'm not sure that it's not a question that's more appropriate for the Attorney General. But I have spoken with the nurses. I understand their concerns. I spoke with them as recently as yesterday. I've also talked with the Attorney General, who is conducting his own review. As a result of that, I expect that the Attorney General will decide on the next step. It is critical that nurses are able to work in safe working conditions, and I will absolutely support actions towards that.

The Speaker: First supplementary, the member for Okanagan West.

S. Hawkins: The nurses that work in Corrections are very, very concerned for their personal safety, and I know the minister recognizes that. There used to be ten nurses at the Burnaby Correctional Centre. Now there are only five, and three of them resigned because of the working conditions. I'll ask the Minister of Health again: will she ask the Attorney General to post a guard for the nurses today, right now, so that they don't have to worry about their personal safety anymore?

Hon. P. Priddy: In my discussions with the Attorney General about the safety of nurses in that facility and the concerns they expressed, the Attorney General indicated to me that their safety was his top priority -- in spite of the fact that he has a report pending, it is his top priority as well -- and that he would take whatever actions were necessary.

FOREST SERVICE RECREATION CAMPSITES

[ Page 9232 ]

Interjections.

The Speaker: Hon. members, order. The member for Shuswap has the floor.

G. Abbott: Soon we'll have to get him to work on FRBC. Maybe he can do something there as well.

We understand that just moments ago the Minister of Forests announced that, miraculously, over a million dollars has been found to maintain the 1,400 recreation campsites in British Columbia. My question to the Minister of Forests: why is it that the opposition has to expose the hypocrisy and doubletalk of this NDP government before it will recognize its existing responsibilities?

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, hon. members, so we can hear the Minister of Forests.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: It is true that I've announced that the campsites will remain open this year.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Hon. members, order.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: But I have to assure the members that it is no miracle; in fact, it's due to hard work by ministry officials over the last three months that we were able to find the money to keep them open.

[2:30]

G. Abbott: If it was a product of hard work, why the heck didn't you start working a few months ago so we didn't have to go through this embarrassment?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Of course, the opposition would like to spend more and more and more -- until they're confronted with the realities of trying to do difficult things, like balancing the budget.

They're comparing apples and oranges. The recreation campsites have a much lower level of service, and it has in fact been two months of hard work trying to rearrange budgets since the regional staff first found out what their budgets were.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, hon. members.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: I'm pleased to say that it's been fruitful work and successful. . .

Interjections.

The Speaker: Hon. members. . . .

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: . . .and that we're able to keep the campsites open.

The Speaker: Second supplementary, the member for Shuswap.

FORESTS MINISTRY RESPONSIBILITIES AND FRBC BUDGET

Interjections.

The Speaker: Hon. members, order, please.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: FRBC is going to have a difficult time rearranging all its budgets to meet the needs. We will remain committed to creating jobs in the forests through enhanced silviculture. The board of FRBC will be going through a strategic planning exercise.

You know, I wish this opposition. . . . Had they given back the million dollars they spent on the mailer, we would have been able to open the campsites sooner.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members, come to order, please.

I recognize the Opposition House Leader.

G. Farrell-Collins: There has been some discussion about the adjournment of the House which took place this morning. I see on the order paper today, under "Adjourned Debate on Second Reading," Bill 26, which went by the wayside earlier this morning in the absence of the minister responsible for it.

The Speaker: This raises a point of order.

G. Farrell-Collins: Yes, it's a point of order.

Interjection.

G. Farrell-Collins: It would be nice to know. You probably wouldn't be in the situation you're in now, hon. minister.

I notice in the House of Commons Hansard, page 455, from 1952, the. . . .

Interjections.

The Speaker: Hon. members, come to order.

[ Page 9233 ]

"When it is essential that proceedings on an order of the day, cut short by an unexpected adjournment, should be resumed at the next sitting of the House, a notice of the motion is placed for that purpose, in the name of a minister of the Crown, upon the notice paper for the next sitting, at the commencement of public business, and the drop order is placed, printed in italics, at the head of the list of the orders of the day, or at the place among the orders of the day at which it is proposed to be taken."

The Speaker: Thank you, member, for your point of order. You are correct that it is indeed listed on the order paper in italics. It is there as a traditional notion. The order is currently a dropped order -- and that is a correct point -- as a result of the adjournment of the House during consideration of the adjourned debate on second reading this morning. That is a traditional way of informing all of us about that. The bill may be called again after passage of a motion on notice to restore it to the order paper.

The Opposition House Leader rises on what point?

G. Farrell-Collins: It's the same point of order, hon. Speaker. That wasn't the point of order I raised that you just ruled on. The point of order which I raised, if I can restate it, is that there are two things that must be done. One is that it be placed in Orders of the Day in italics, as has been done; but also that the notice of the motion be printed in Votes and Proceedings, and that has not been done. So only half of the requirement has been completed. I would ask either that the notice be placed in Votes and Proceedings -- the first part of what must be done -- or else that it be removed from the order paper today and be placed on it tomorrow, when both requirements are met.

The Speaker: The second part of my comments related to the nature of when the notice of motion could be put on the order paper -- and that that must be done as well. That is in the hands of. . . .

Interjection.

The Speaker: No, it has not been done yet. But it may be called.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Hon. members, it cannot be called when it's in italics. A motion needs to be put forward in order to remove it from italics and put it in the proper order. It is not in the hands of the table officers to do that; it's in the hands of the government to do that.

G. Farrell-Collins: I understand that. That's not the point I'm making. The point I'm making is that there are two requirements that must be done in order for the issue to go forward. One is that a notice of motion be placed in Votes and Proceedings, and the second is that it placed in italics in Orders of the Day. The first half has not been done, so there's no need to do the second half. They should be done together, so members have a chance to see what's there before they're asked to debate it.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Hon. members, come to order. The Chair will say it again: the dropped order will remain on the order paper in italics. It cannot be acted upon until such time as a notice of motion is passed.

Petitions

Interjections.

The Speaker: Hon. members, order, please.

B. Penner: I also rise to present a petition. This petition is signed by 74 residents of Chilliwack who are calling upon the provincial government to install mandatory assessment of all those convicted of impaired driving.

Tabling Documents

Orders of the Day

Hon. P. Ramsey: Hon. Speaker, I seek leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

Hon. P. Ramsey: I've just been informed that Carole James, president of the British Columbia School Trustees Association, is in the precincts. I don't know if she's in the gallery now. Ms. James is well known to many of us in this chamber, and I'd ask the House to make her welcome.

OIL AND GAS COMMISSION ACT
(second reading)

[ Page 9234 ]

Another significant part of the act will ensure that all stakeholders' views are represented, by providing for an advisory committee. This committee will support the operations of the commission and will be comprised of representatives from local government, environmental groups, local industry, first nations and oil and gas producers. The commission, which will be headquartered in Fort St. John, will cost approximately $12 million annually to operate. It will be fully financed through user fees and should be open for business in September of this year.

The joint industry-government initiative is part of the government's overall strategy to draw job-creating investment to the province. Oil and gas is important to British Columbia as a source of jobs and revenue, with annual investments in B.C. of about $1.7 billion. The oil and gas sector contributes over $400 million a year in provincial revenues through royalties, bonus bids and other fees. Direct and indirect employment is 40,000 persons. As government, we are committed to ensuring that the industry continues to grow and prosper. This legislation is part of that commitment.

In closing, I would hope -- and in fact I am reasonably confident -- that all members will support passage of this important bill.

[2:45]

One of the purposes is that the government is trying to make it so that the oil and gas industry can double its production of oil and gas and, of course, bring in more revenue for this government. Why does this government need more revenue? Because they've destroyed our economy since 1991. Our economy has gone down to the point where we're almost at a disaster stage. For example, in the oil and gas industry itself the revenue that came in from the last six months was somewhere around $55 million. I haven't got the exact figures, but I'm not too far out. Yet the year before, the revenue from gas and oil producers was over $200 million. Consequently you can see that the revenue situation of our resource industries in this province is desperately in trouble.

We do feel that there may be something that we'll look into in second reading, and that is the appointment of the commissioners. I can only assume and hope that the commissioners that are being appointed by this government will be in concert with CAPP. As I say, they have been working, and I just assume that the government's going to work with them and that these appointments aren't going to be people who are card-carrying NDP members or something like that. That's where the problem arises in all these situations. The NDP does come up with some good ideas every once in awhile, but then they have to spoil everything by getting too political. As a result of being too political, everything seems to fall apart -- just like our economy. It's falling apart again now. We are in a desperate situation; we need jobs. We have the highest unemployment rate in the history of this province, since prior to the last depression. Now we're heading into another depression. If we're not already into it, this gang will drive us into a real deep depression, and that's where it's going to cause a lot of hurt all through the northeast, especially up in the area that the bill is centred around.

Interjection.

D. Jarvis: As the member for Shuswap just mentioned, the new name of the NDP is now the "New Depression Party." We're heading down that road.

In any event, the appointment of the commissioners is a concern, and we will assume that the government will use common sense, listen to the oil producers and get someone in there who's going to be satisfactory to all concerned.

There is another aspect in the bill that does bring some concern -- but, as I said, not too much. We will look into it and check this out during committee stage. That is that the bill enables the commission that's going to be appointed to borrow and invest money and enter into agreements with almost everyone. So we'll ask the minister if he can possibly explain that. I assume he will, and we'll be looking forward to it.

This bill is ostensibly an enabling bill that is going to help the oil and gas producers in this province bring more revenue into the province, and that is good. But there's always that question as to whether we'll see too much government interference into a bill. That always leads me to great concern.

When I look back over a year ago, they said they were going to have the Mining Association. . . . The mining industry wanted a right-to-mine bill. They said they would put one

[ Page 9235 ]

Now, all these bills -- like this gas bill, the right-to-mine bill, etc. -- are bills that are necessary to go through in order to increase the production in our resource industries. These are classic industries. The energy division, which this gas bill comes under, and the mining division are second in production of revenue in our province today, and they have been for many years. But there are problems arising. It's the philosophy of this government that is driving investors and developers out of this province. The key thing that we have to be concerned with is that they act fast and act properly and in concert with the industry that they're working with.

On that basis, Madam Speaker, I would like to say that there's really not too much more I can say without going off on long tangents on subjects that would probably bore you to tears. But they are subjects that the rest of this province is interested in. The people out there are concerned. They're concerned about, number one, jobs and, number two, the economy. This government doesn't seem to have the knack of really concentrating their minds on the fact that these are problems. Instead of philosophies, there are problems out there: jobs and unemployment. So we will look forward to a discussion during committee stage. At this point we are prepared to support this bill.

M. Coell: I'm pleased to offer some comments on Bill 32, the Oil and Gas Commission Act. I guess my comment, Madam Speaker, would be: why did it take so long? The facts are that the people in the north part of this province feel abandoned by this government, and the oil and gas industry has been driven to the brink of disaster in many parts of this province, I believe, because of actions of this government -- or more, the inaction of this government. The inability to cut red tape and the taxation of the province have hurt this industry. It's taken seven years for this government to act. That's simply not good enough.

The people of the north deserve a government that spends a great deal of time and energy in that area. It is an area that, of course, has built the wealth of this province -- mining, gas and oil exploration, and forestry. This government has ignored that part of the province.

Interjection.

M. Coell: Well, it's ignored most of that part of province except the minister's own riding, which seems to get a lot more attention than the rest of the northern part of this province. So I am pleased to see that the oil and gas industry is at least getting the attention of the minister.

Hopefully, this will create jobs. The idea of this act is to create jobs. I would hope that's what the minister means. It's supposed to create jobs for the people in the northern part of this province. This industry has been a backbone of this province. This industry has created jobs in this province. This industry has been ignored by this minister -- totally ignored.

I am going to comment positively on a couple of areas. One is the $5 million environmental fund that CAPP and the ministry have worked out. I think that's very positive. I think that money can be well used in the north to create programs that enhance the environment. I think it shows a recognition of the industry and of the ministry that jobs can be created and that the environment can be protected.

I think that's what is important -- that government finally realized that there is a balance between economic development, job creation and industry. The oil and gas industry is an extremely important industry to this province. One which we're hoping for is that this commission act will improve exploration, job creation and the lives of many people in the northern part of this province, because it's been many years since the government has paid significant attention to this part of the province.

As the speaker before me said, at one time years ago, the oil and gas industry could come to Victoria and get a permit in two days to a week. In the time that this government has been in power, it's stretched from a week to six months. I think this act, in establishing a single window, is important to the industry. Red tape which has been created will dissolve, hopefully. We'll be watching very carefully to make sure that this does happen. The oil and gas industry will grow in this province if allowed to by this government.

We are supporting this bill. We have some questions for committee stage with regard to the appointees being arm's length from government, and we look forward to those questions. But just in summarizing my comments, I very much support the $5 million environmental fund, and I look forward to good projects and enhancement for the north out of that fund. We will have, as I said, some questions for the minister during committee stage.

[3:00]

The gas and oil industry is, by far, the most mobile of all our resource industries. The gas and oil industry can be in British Columbia today, in Saskatchewan or Manitoba tomorrow, and back in Alberta the day after. It's a very competitive industry; jurisdictions tend to be competitive. I must say that British Columbia has always struggled with the differences between our province and the neighbouring province of Alberta, which dominates the gas and oil business or industry in this country.

We have historically had problems with things like our 7 percent sales tax and our different approach to things, such as safety through the Workers Compensation Board. There have been a number of areas that have been ongoing concerns for the industry. The whole issue of royalties and taxation is a key issue for the industry. The industry goes where it feels welcome. Initiatives by government are very much inclined to affect the industry and the judgments that industry makes.

Most recently, the frustrations have been over the length of time that it takes to get approvals for oil exploration. Let's be very clear. It's not the production of gas and oil that tends to be so dependent on these approvals; it's the exploration. Companies decide that they want to be involved in seismic work, in drilling in new areas. They have to build roads, they have to clear well sites and they need to deal with a whole range of ministries in order to get those approvals.

[ Page 9236 ]

Over the last six or seven years, that time frame has grown. It's grown in part, I believe, because of a greater bureaucracy. I think the government certainly has to accept some responsibility for the growth in time and the slowdown in approvals, but I also think it's fair for us to recognize that we're operating in a significantly different environment than we were in 1986, for example. The need for us to come to some new solution has become increasingly evident.

Again, I want to go back to this notion of the competitiveness of the industry. It's not only what is the norm in British Columbia that tends to guide actions in the gas and oil industry but also how well those procedures compare with those in other parts of the country, particularly in western Canada. I am pleased to see the government moving ahead with the establishment of this commission. I believe that as the government has listened to the industry, both in the area of royalties and with respect to this issue of approvals, there has been some appropriate action taken. I too will be greatly interested not only in the appointment of the commissioner -- and that will be important -- but also in seeing how the bureaucracies in the line ministries respond to this initiative.

Bureaucracies can be strange creatures. If somehow they feel abused by a process, there is almost unlimited ingenuity in finding ways to get retribution or to deal with the problem. I'm going to look to see whether or not this exercise has cooperation, particularly from the Ministry of Environment. The Ministry of Environment, should it decide to do so, has an amazing array of hurdles that it can throw in front of a project. I don't believe we should ignore environmental concerns, but I think it's also important. . . . The real test for this exercise, and probably for the commissioner, will be the ability to bring into force the intent of the commission.

I have no argument with what is intended with the establishment of this commission. I recognize that the industry will be paying for the costs. They've already been paying for a significant amount of the cost, so what it does is tend to move the responsibilities around a little bit. It makes a more direct relationship between achieving something the industry wanted to see and the fees that they pay in order to get their approvals.

I believe also that we will see as a consequence of this, either intended or unintended, a much greater focus within the petroleum sector of the ministry in the area where production takes place. I think the exercise of creating this commission and putting it in Fort St. John will strengthen the role that government has and the amount of activity that takes place in Fort St. John and in the Peace region versus the activity that has been taking place in Victoria. I think that's good news. For those people who are currently employed in the ministry here in Victoria, who may find their jobs now being located in Fort St. John, that may or may not be good news. I hope they look at it as an opportunity, as a change that is good for them professionally and financially. Certainly they'll find housing and other things much less expensive when they move into the Peace.

But I'll make it clear that I -- and, I believe, my constituents -- support the establishment of the commission. We are going to look with great interest at committee stage of this bill, where we can ask some specific questions, and we will watch with great interest the successes we hope the commission enjoys in the very near future.

Hon. D. Miller: Briefly, to respond to some of the comments. . . . I appreciate the comments of the last speaker, the member for Peace River South, in terms of his knowledge of the industry, but it really is a bit much. I know people like to use these little chances to make their political pitches, but really, let's put on the record what has happened with respect to the oil and gas sector in British Columbia.

Notwithstanding the spurious nonsense I heard from the member for Peace River North and from the member for Saanich North and the Islands, who clearly knows nothing about the industry, this industry has experienced significant growth in this province, particularly over the last couple of years -- and this before we attempted to deal with the sector more broadly in the accord and with this initiative and others. There has been a huge growth in the oil and gas sector in British Columbia.

To stand in this House and say that it has been ignored and that the industry is in decline portrays a fundamental misunderstanding of what's really happening in British Columbia. While it might be fine to stand here and make these uninformed statements, it seems to me that for people who are watching this House for some kind of leadership, they do a disservice to British Columbians. To stand up and say that the oil and gas industry somehow is suffering, when the exact opposite is true, is irresponsible.

Surely the members opposite, if they want to criticize the government -- and there are lots of areas in which they can criticize the government -- have just a small obligation to try to be accurate and informed, rather than just spouting whatever comes into their minds.

Interjection.

Hon. D. Miller: Perhaps I do give them too much credit.

Just a couple of statistics. The drilling activity last year had huge growth in terms of what took place the year before that. This year in drilling activity, 437 wells were drilled by the end of May -- a 30 percent increase over last year, which was a record increase over the year before. Don't give me this nonsense about the oil and gas sector. Try to do some homework. Let your critics, the people who actually do a bit of work in this. . . . Maybe they could be informed, like the member for Peace River South.

Interjection.

Hon. D. Miller: No, I never. . . . I'm talking about. . . . The member for Peace River South takes the time; he's informed. I'm disappointed in the member for Peace River North, because he knows better. Ever since he skipped from the Social Credit Party to the Reform Party to the Liberal Party, he's been trying desperately to ingratiate himself with his new Liberal caucus. I think he's trying too hard.

[ Page 9237 ]

Interjections.

Hon. D. Miller: Why I care so much about the opposition, I don't know. I mean, I'm tempted to give up on them almost every day, but I continue to try to give them some advice, and they continue to ignore it.

Interjections.

An Hon. Member: Are you just going to stand there?

Hon. D. Miller: No, I'm just kind of waiting for a little order here, Madam Speaker. You know I could speak louder, but. . . .

As well, I want to say that this is the first significant attempt to change a regulatory framework. It's not always easy. Again -- listening to the member for Peace River South who recognized that we do live in a changing environment and changing world -- while it's easy on one hand to say that regulation and red tape inhibit investment, I think the days of simply forging ahead without consideration of some issues are gone.

I would only draw the House's attention to an issue that occurred in Fort St. John, where my ministry did give tentative approval for a company to drill a well. I think they did it without taking an undue amount of time to do that. That well was well within our guidelines. We borrowed our guidelines from Alberta, in terms of proximity to built-up areas. Yet there was an adverse reaction in Fort St. John, where people in a particular neighbourhood said: "We don't want you to approve that well. It's too close to our residential neighbourhood." That same member for Peace River North has now been assailing me, saying: "Don't approve that well." So I just use that to illustrate that it's not quite as simple as saying: "Well, we should be able to give you a permit in half a day, and to heck with the consequences." As the population centres grow, as you get the urban interface with industrial activity, you'll find more and more that people are saying that you need to give more consideration to some of these questions.

[3:15]

I finally comment on the attitude that might be encountered in the line ministries. I've had one comment from a senior person in the Ministry of Forests, whose comment to me when I was in Fort St. John was: "Thank goodness you're doing this; it's overdue. We tend to be tripping over ourselves in the line agencies." In other words, from that individual at least, I received an indication of strong support for the direction we're taking.

This is really the second initiative. I would argue again that the Mining Rights Amendment Act put all the authority for issuing permits for access and for exploration under one roof -- my ministry, the Ministry of Energy and Mines -- instead of having applicants go around to the various agencies. So there is a real new beginning with respect to looking at the way we administer rules and regulations, trying to do it in a more efficient, more streamlined way and in a way that works not just for the industry in question but for other issues that are also important in the communities.

Having said that, Madam Speaker, I would move second reading.

Motion approved.

Bill 32, Oil and Gas Commission Act, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

Hon. D. Miller: Madam Speaker, I call committee stage of Bill 27.

NORTHERN DEVELOPMENT ACT

On section 1.

J. Weisgerber: My question under the definitions section doesn't deal with the commissioner, which is defined, but with the lack of a definition for the north. We've established a northern commission and a northern commissioner, but as I examine the legislation, nowhere do I see a definition of north -- north of Hope, north of Williams Lake, north of Quesnel, north of Prince George, north of Fort Ware. North normally has to be north of somewhere. So I wonder whether the minister could tell us whether or not he intends there to be a definition, whether he can provide us -- perhaps on the record -- with a definition for it, or whether or not he might seek a friendly amendment that would serve to define the north for him. I know that, as a member who resides in the North Coast riding and who has lived many years in Prince Rupert, the north means something to him. It means something to me, but it may mean something entirely different to a person living in Quesnel, for example.

Hon. D. Miller: I'll tell the story, then I'll give you an answer. I think I've told the member this story before. I was in Fort St. John speaking to the B.C. Petroleum Association and talking generally about some of the initiatives we were working on for "northern B.C." These guys all started yelling at me and telling me that Prince George wasn't in the north. That's a definition I refuse to accept.

My own definition is the constituencies. That's generally what I use. There are nine "northern" constituencies. I don't think that we should have a solid line in terms of defining the north, because all too often you're working on issues that might cross that line. So that's generally been my definition. If, for example, someone in Hickson or Quesnel thought that what we were doing in the north was something that might be more germane to them, and they wanted to be able to tap into those kinds of things, then I think we ought to be fairly

[ Page 9238 ]

J. Weisgerber: I would, with all due respect, suggest that perhaps regional districts might be a better way than constituencies. First of all, they tend to follow areas of economic interest a little bit more closely and follow geographic lines a little more sensibly. I think the real question is around the area south of Prince George and where you draw that line -- Quesnel being the classic question. Is Quesnel a northern community? Are their ties closest with Prince George, or do they. . . ? I think one could argue quite successfully that by the time you get to Williams Lake, when you move into that south Cariboo area, the direction of commerce and interest tends to be more southerly and more easterly.

The constituencies -- unfortunately, I think -- are now up for grabs every decade or so. And let me say this: if we were successful in persuading the Electoral Boundaries Commission to establish. . . . I've pursued this notion of four northern constituencies, and I'm coming to the conclusion that maybe we should describe an area as the north and allot eight seats whose boundaries could be moved within that area, but for which there could be a larger variation in population. I just use that to stretch the point, in order to get some thoughts I've had recently on that topic into the record.

I do think that regional districts would be a good idea. I think that would give you an opportunity to bring all those things that are going on in the relevant regional districts into the commissioner's hierarchy of economic development activities. For example, if you're going to call the regional economic developers together for a conference, that would relieve the commissioner of having to decide, on an almost case-by-case basis, whether some of those southern areas should or should not be included. I don't think it's a huge issue, but it's something that is worthy of some thought and some discussion.

Hon. D. Miller: I certainly take the advice of the member. He's right, at least with respect to the constituencies on the far western and far eastern side. I guess both of them. . . . My own, for example, goes to the mid-coast. Interestingly enough, I've had inquiries from northern Vancouver Island, not asking whether they are in the north, but asking could they please be in the north. I've been flexible. So I take the advice of the member.

Section 1 approved.

On section 2.

M. de Jong: These purpose sections, by their very nature, tend to be general, although I think the question begs asking. The establishment of the office itself won't create one job or any economic development. The question is: what action will the commissioner and the office that arises around him or her take, and what is in the minister's mind in sponsoring the establishment of this additional office within the government bureaucracy -- beyond simply the hope that that will happen?

Hon. D. Miller: Let me make it clear that this is not being established "within the government bureaucracy." It is being established outside of government bureaucracy. The reason for that is very clear. At the Premier's Summit on Northern Jobs and Development, northerners were very outspoken in their advice to government, saying: "We don't want another bureaucracy; we want an organization, if you like, that's small, that's focused, that can work on our behalf." We've taken great pains to try to reflect that in the legislation, particularly as we move into other parts in terms of reporting relationships and of those kinds of questions.

I don't think it's possible to define in absolute terms the kind of role in a way that just wraps everything up that succinctly. The commission really needs to not only work with existing agencies and organizations in northern B.C., of which there are a number that are in fact engaged in looking at ways to expand the economy, ranging from the work that municipal and regional governments have done. . . . Aboriginal communities are a very important consideration in northern British Columbia. There are a variety of sort of quasi-municipal business organizations. There is the Northwest Communities Coalition; the northwest mayors have a group that meets regularly. There are a variety of these kinds of organizations that are working on certain initiatives. We've got our northern transportation corridor corporation. So the commission really needs to work with all of those.

[3:30]

But there's a lot more that needs to be done. A lot of that, in fact, is to work with the government of Alberta, which we're doing through a transportation task force that we've established with them that has the strategic vision -- and I think the member for Peace River South clearly shares this; in fact, he scooped me on this in one of our forays up north -- to ask: can the municipality of Dawson Creek be the grain-gathering centre for the Peace River region of B.C. and Alberta? And can we then look at ensuring that we ship that grain out through the northern port? The government of Alberta seems to share that vision. We share that vision. But there are a lot of specific initiatives that need to be concluded before we can actually realize it. There's a lot of work to be done, but you can't do it on your own. You have to harness the energy and talent of those people who are interested in that specific issue to focus on that particular question.

I won't go into other. . . . There are three or four discrete initiatives that we've been working on with respect to northern economic opportunity, and the commission will be working on all of those.

I've been. . . . I haven't, actually. One of my assistants who knows how to use the Internet has been spending some time looking across western Canada at the approaches taken by governments with respect to that question of northern development. It's clear to me that all of them have a strategy. It varies somewhat. Alberta has the Northern Alberta Develop-

[ Page 9239 ]

There are common problems in northern Canada, and I would say that that's another issue that the commissioner needs to pursue -- finding out, looking at. . . . One of the topics we talked about last Friday in Prince Rupert, at a meeting of northwest ministers, was best practices. What are they doing? Is there an idea that's working in Saskatchewan, for example, or northern Manitoba, for example, that might be germane to northern British Columbia?

There's an endless number of initiatives and work that can be done. The commissioner's job will be to bring focus to those questions, to fight for the northerners and there's some other. . . . I'm sure we'll get into it in terms of some other sections of the bill. Perhaps I've gone on too long in that answer.

M. de Jong: I should begin by saying that I wish I were as confident as the minister about the independence of the office, but we will get to this later as we debate the bill in committee stage. Things like the appointment process and section 6, which really places the commissioner at the disposal of independent ministers, suggest to me a role that is something different than the completely independent advocate that I think the minister was trying to present this person as being.

What many of the people in the north are looking for out of an office of this sort is an individual who will, at times when it is appropriate, call to the attention of government the impact that various policies might be having in the north -- negative impacts which may have been unforeseen and may have been unintentional but which, nonetheless, are very real. An individual, who at the same time is responsible for replying and responding to the demands of various ministers in terms of preparing reports, doesn't possess, to the extent that the minister would have us believe, that degree of independence.

We have come to expect from the various advocates -- House officers who are appointed to advocate on behalf of various segments of our society -- a degree of independence that will allow them to be critical of any government, not just this government, with whom they are dealing or reporting on. I'm not sure that the minister and I are in complete agreement as to the degree in which this commissioner will play that role as an advocate.

Hon. D. Miller: Well, I don't know what I can do to help you.

G. Abbott: I want to ask the minister how the office of the northern commissioner will dovetail with the new position of the jobs accord advocate. How will those two mesh? Obviously a part of the jobs accord advocate's responsibilities, as laid out in the jobs and timber accord, is job creation and economic development and so on. How will those two offices merge or mesh in the government's vision here?

Hon. D. Miller: I haven't given it a great deal of thought. I presume that the jobs and timber accord is focused on a particular sector. It's not the wish of the commissioner -- or indeed myself as Minister Responsible for Northern Development -- to supplant or replace existing line ministries and their responsibilities. It wouldn't work. Any attempt in the past to try to do that has failed. The job, rather, is to look more broadly and strategically at the north. What are the opportunities? What needs to be done in a variety of areas to create the conditions for economic expansion generally, without being limited to any particular sector? I'm sure that if there is any overlap with respect to particular initiatives, they'll work it out.

G. Abbott: Some of the differences between the way in which the jobs accord advocate and the northern commissioner are being put into place. . . . In this case, the northern development commissioner is gong to be set out in statute, as opposed to the jobs accord advocate, who has no statutory basis. The only basis on which the jobs accord advocate exists is via the jobs and timber accord.

In the case of the jobs accord advocate, the government has hired the advocate for a five-year period, which in fact goes beyond the term of the accord itself. As the minister explained it in estimates, the accord advocate will be something which may or may not be continued, at the will of government, beyond the five-year term for which the commissioner has been appointed. Could the minister advise: (a) whether there is some difference in thinking in terms of making the office statutory as opposed to non-statutory, as in the case of the northern development commissioner; and (b) whether the minister foresees, unlike the accord advocate, a northern development commissioner being a permanent office, rather like the job protection commissioner?

Hon. D. Miller: I don't understand what this has to do with the jobs and timber accord. We're speaking to a bill that creates the northern commissioner. It's a piece of legislation. The answer is self-evident.

G. Abbott: I'm sorry to hear that the minister feels that the question is not in line. I think the question is entirely in line; it's just a matter of asking how, from the public policy perspective and vision of the government, these different offices are going to fit in.

Interjection.

G. Abbott: I'm just asking you the question, for God's sake.

Interjection.

The Chair: Member, through the Chair. Minister, through the Chair, please.

G. Abbott: Frankly, hon. Chair, I'm quite astounded that I'm getting this violent reaction from the minister to what seems to me to be entirely legitimate questions about two offices that are being created in the province. They're new offices. Given that, I simply want to know how the offices merge. I'd like to know. . . . Again, as I explained in my question, the jobs and timber accord advocate is a non-statutory office. This is a statutory office. I'm just interested in the government's thinking around that. Does the minister envision this to be a permanent office that works with the other new offices that this government has created?

Hon. D. Miller: I don't really want to be rude, but we're debating a piece of legislation that creates an office, and the

[ Page 9240 ]

G. Abbott: I thank the minister for his patient and thoughtful response to my question. There seems to be some edge to the minister across the way with respect to what I think are relatively innocuous questions about the nature of the office. I am sorry that it provoked such a violent response from the minister. It's merely exploring the minister's vision with respect to this. Normally the minister is more than delighted to share his vision with the House. I guess that he's not feeling really visionary today and just wants to be a kind of meat-and-potatoes guy, as opposed to a visionary sort of guy. That's fair enough. We all have those sorts of days. It's unfortunate, perhaps, that the minister's having that kind of day today, but I guess we will have to try to live with that situation.

[W. Hartley in the chair.]

We know in the case of the jobs and timber advocate, the advocate will be paid an annual wage of $168,000. Of that $168,000, the portion which will be carried by the provincial government will be equivalent to a deputy minister's salary, and the forest industry, through one of its organizations, will be carrying the balance. Could the minister advise what the projected salary will be for this office?

Hon. D. Miller: I'm not sure exactly, but it's associate deputy level. It's in the $100,000 range.

Section 2 approved.

On section 3.

D. Jarvis: On the appointment of the commissioner, I'm not from the north, but I have worked in the north quite a bit. . .

An Hon. Member: You're from the North Shore.

D. Jarvis: . . .and I'm now from the North Shore. That's correct. The member from northwest Burnaby told me that.

Anyway, there's no question that a commissioner in the north is required for this job. It's going to require a very, very special person. I was referring to the fact. . . . The minister cannot hear me. I guess there's too much discussion going on over on his side of the House, because no one's talking over here. In any event, I just feel that there needs to be a special person for that type of job. I think everyone agrees on that. But there is a great concern as to how the minister would discern what a special person is. Is that special person going to be an NDP hack? Is that person going to be a friend of the NDP, who would tend to favour what the government would do or something along that line? We need someone really independent.

[3:45]

Hon. D. Miller: Yes. We intend to try to select someone who is capable and who has a proven track record in northern B.C. The responsibility lies with government to do that. I don't think there's a real problem. I think there are lots of people in northern B.C. who are capable. We'll make an announcement and make a choice at the appropriate time.

J. Weisgerber: This is an important position. I think it's one that northerners are anticipating and have a very genuine interest in. As we get along in the bill, I certainly want to spend some time talking about the role of the commissioner. Also, obviously, the qualifications of the commissioner are going to be key to the success of this undertaking, as I said in second reading of the bill. I too am curious to know whether there is a formal process or whether it's an informal process. In other words, will the position be advertised? Is there going to be some review process? Is there going to be a process similar to that of hiring an assistant deputy minister? I understand from the minister's comments that this position will be roughly on a level consistent with that of an assistant deputy minister. I wonder if the hiring process will in fact follow those guidelines, and whether, for example, there will be preference given to staff who are currently employed at a senior level within government. Will there be preference given to those people who currently reside in this area that we call the north? Again, I guess that with the lack of a clear definition, it would be one of those times when, if we were to say that the commissioner should reside in the north, we would obviously have to know where the north is.

Are there any formal job requirements? Has a list of credentials that would be beneficial to this position been identified?

Hon. D. Miller: I guess the really strong message out of the summit was that they want a northerner. In other words. . . . I think the member referred to someone out of the bureaucracy; I think that was firmly rejected. I think people want someone who knows the north and who is familiar with issues. The decision is essentially a cabinet decision. We're not going to do normal public service hiring. I'm just trying to recall what criteria were used in the regionalization process -- the member will know what I'm talking about -- in '87-88. I think there were positions filled at that time, and no doubt there may have even been allegations made at that time about their qualifications. But what's most important is that you get someone who's got a track record in northern B.C. and has a record in terms of having the confidence of people there, of getting things done and of working with others. As I say, I think there are a lot of good candidates up there. I am anxious to proceed, and once we get authority through the bill, I hope we can move fairly quickly.

[ Page 9241 ]

I can tell you without embarrassment that I went around and talked to an individual in the northeast who I believed would be particularly well suited to the job. It was a person I had worked with on other community, economic and social activities. He wasn't a political friend, but he was certainly an acquaintance through my work in the community. With a little bit of arm-twisting, I was able to convince the minister of that day that that was the person we should hire. It wasn't a perfect process, and I'm sure that perhaps some of those who were interviewed felt that the decision at the end of the day was pretty arbitrary; maybe it was.

I guess I'd like to leave the minister with a thought, though: even though people know that there is a commissioner's job that's going to be available, anyone who watches closely would know that with the passage of the legislation, the next logical step would be the appointment of a commissioner. I do believe that the position and people interested in the position would be well served by some kind of advertisement, some kind of notification: "The position is now under consideration. Here are the basic criteria. Here's where you would send an application." Then take it from there. So I would leave that with the minister. If the goal. . . . I have no reason to believe that the minister wants to do anything other than find the most capable person available to fill this position. I think you would be well served by putting out that kind of an advertisement.

I also think that it would, perhaps to a degree, address any concerns in the region outside of Prince George. There's a section in the bill -- I'm jumping way ahead -- section 15, that says: "The head office should be in Prince George." I don't have any argument with that, and I've said that before. But I think there is the issue in the northeast and in the northwest. . . . I think that if the position were advertised, people in those communities might feel a greater sense of inclusion in the process. Perhaps the minister could give that some consideration.

Hon. D. Miller: I think the member makes some useful suggestions, particularly the issue around the regions. I think that's going to require a lot of work. I've been trying to preach, if you like, in various visits to northern communities this idea that we've got to stop competing with each other -- in some cases, actually running each other down -- and look at how, particularly in the subregions, we can collaborate in ways that emphasize the strength of the regions. I spoke to the mayor of Kitimat on Friday. Although he and I have actually had some political debates, some of them quite public, my message to him is: "We should be getting together -- Kitimat, Terrace, Prince Rupert. I'd like to sit down with the mayors to discuss how we might collaborate in a better way to market the strength of the region and what we have to offer: serviced land, a labour force, those kinds of things." He was quite agreeable. My experience is that you can cut through politics pretty quickly if you're not there spinning a line but are actually wanting to do something. That has been my experience in northern B.C. Talking particularly to mayors, who come from all political stripes, there's really a willingness to try to deal with the issues. I think you have to maintain that. If you're up there playing politics, it won't work.

I can recall. . . . There was a gentleman named Barry Carter, who was part of that regionalization. I'd heard accusations that perhaps he was too close to the government, but at the end of the day, I don't think it impeded what they were trying to do. I'll leave aside any criticism of the process, but I think you've got to look at people. . . . I honestly do reject the notion that if people have publicly displayed their politics, that somehow renders them unfit for consideration for these kinds of appointments. If we were to take that narrow-minded view in our society generally, surely we would be limiting ourselves in our ability to select people who are qualified. And surely one of the features of our society ought to be that people be quite open and public. If they want to display their political leanings, so what? Why should that somehow remove people from consideration? I don't understand that argument. Art Phillips was appointed to be the first job protection commissioner. He worked well. He was a Liberal. Everybody knew he was a Liberal. So what? He did a good job. This fixation that somehow we're going to put a political label on somebody's forehead, and if it has certain initials, they're somehow unfit to do the job is nonsense, absolute nonsense.

I know where some members would like to go with this, and they can do what they will. At the end of the day, for northerners, for people who live there, it's what real work happens. That's going to be important. We're serious about what we're doing here. We haven't gone through this exercise. . . . It doesn't take a year to plan a northern summit for the Premier as some sham exercise. We haven't followed up with, you know: "Fifty percent of the highway funding for northern B.C. is just some. . . ."

I'm serious. There are serious problems in many of our northern communities. The regions of our province have not had the kind of growth rate, nor have they had the same kind of economic opportunity, as you get generally in the broader lower mainland region. Look at the poorer coastal communities now, with this fisheries announcement. . . . Does anybody over there really understand what's happening in some of those small towns? It's fine to stand up and make political speeches -- "the government this" and "the government that" -- but do you really understand what's happening in people's lives? You clearly didn't when it came to Skeena Cellulose. You haven't got a clue. So you guys want to play politics with us -- and I exclude the member for Peace River South, because he's not doing that. Go ahead.

Interjections.

The Chair: Members, please direct your comments through the Chair.

The member for Peace River South continues.

[4:00]

I agree with the minister inasmuch as I don't think belonging to a political party and being a political activist should be a handicap to a position. I don't think it should be

[ Page 9242 ]

Interjection.

J. Weisgerber: No, it's. . . . We can point across the floor at each other, and we will both be accurate in the way we approach it.

But you know, what we're doing in this society. . . . And we're getting off topic, but that's all right; the minister started it. What we're doing is saying to people: "Don't get involved in the political process, because that will be a handicap to you personally. Don't contribute to a political party as an individual or a corporation, because the party that you didn't contribute to will take the first opportunity to raise that issue publicly, to embarrass the other party with respect to affiliations and contributions." You know what happens as a result? Fewer people get involved, fewer people make contributions. And I don't think that that contributes very much to our political system at all.

As I have the luxury of standing back and looking at this issue, I think that as members we've got to start thinking about that pretty seriously. We've got to quit attacking people for their political beliefs. On the other hand, I think that criticism of a person appointed to a position because of their political activity rather than because of their attributes and abilities is a legitimate criticism. Again, I don't think we're ever going to wind up this debate.

But let me move on to some of the minister's earlier comments. The one thing I was very much impressed with at the northern conference was that, in my opinion and for the first time in the more than 20 years that I've been involved in economic activity and in northern issues, I saw northerners start to think of themselves not as Peace River South constituents, or as people interested in what's happening in the South Peace and in trying to take away business from the North Peace, but starting to think about the ways we could address issues to our mutual benefit. That's been said before, and I think it's worthy of being said again.

I think we've probably come back around to where we started. I do believe that, all these lofty thoughts aside, there is a bit of a danger that people will see this as too great a concentration in the Prince George area. I respectfully submit that an advertisement or two in some of the regional papers announcing that a job is available would perhaps be a step -- a pretty modest step -- in trying to play down some of those fears.

D. Jarvis: I agree with the minister fully on his last statement when he got up. That is why we've been trying to say we really feel there should be a non-partisan individual in there. The minister just turned around right after that and had the audacity to insinuate that I didn't know what was going on on the coast with regard to the fisheries and all the rest of it. Here's a gentleman who ostensibly has been all his life in one little small town in the north, and then he turns around and suggests to us that we do not know what's going on all over this province. That's a ridiculous statement.

I've worked in nearly every community in this province, and I'm quite aware of what's going on. I have family in different places throughout this province. So we know what's going on just as well as you do. The problem with what's going on is the fact that the government has become so political in everything they do that they've driven this economy down almost to its knees -- except for the fishing. They haven't done anything there, either, because they've been in a problem where they can't compete with the federal government, and the federal government's the one that has made the decisions over this government. As I said earlier, that could have been rectified earlier, maybe, if the provincial government had done a little better lobbying of the U.S.A. The Minister of Fisheries doesn't understand the situation himself, I don't think.

I feel as though it's a non-partisan job. Sure, it could be a person who could have a little bit of political knowledge of events and what's going on in the province and all the rest of it. Look at the government's position: nearly every appointment they have made in this province has been a political hack or friend of the party. And you go into the bureaucracy. . . . They've gone so deep into the bureaucracy with political friends that we know the decisions are all warped when they come up to the surface and are put forward in some of the legislation they put out.

The only reason they're going into legislation like this right now is that they're worried sick as to what's happening to our economy and our province, not because. . . . If they had been concerned, they would have done this years ago -- since '91 -- with things such as looking after the north and all the rest of it. But no, they haven't done that, but now's the time. What I want to ask the minister is: how can we be sure that a partisan individual is not going to be put into the job as commissioner? I wonder if he could illuminate me on that aspect without going off on a diatribe as to whether we have any knowledge of what's going on in this province of ours.

Hon. D. Miller: I've tried many times to give reassurance to the opposition and have failed miserably on all occasions, so I don't know how things might change now.

P. Nettleton: I'm delighted to have this opportunity to discuss the whole question of the northern commissioner with the minister. I guess it has been something of a disappointment to me personally, in that I represent Prince George-Omineca and a number of the communities affected by the appointment of a commissioner and this act, and at no time has the minister or any of his staff contacted me or my office and asked for any input in terms of this position or who it is that might be suitable for filling this position.

In a very real sense, I've felt very much out of the loop in terms of what's happening. I read the paper, like everybody else, and I see the speculation -- there's certainly been enough of that. I recall one newspaper heading. I think the heading read: "Party Hacks Need Not Apply." That pretty much captures the sentiment of a lot of the folks I've talked to about the appointment to the role of commissioner. I can tell you, hon. Speaker, everything I've heard here today hasn't been reassuring in terms of the whole question as to whether or not the minister is about to appoint a partisan appointee.

It's very much the view of northerners that what is needed to fill this role. . . . I should say, first of all, that there has been some question as to whether or not there should be a northern commissioner, and if, in fact, the addition of another level of bureaucracy would be helpful in addressing what are the obvious and very real concerns with relation to the resource sector in the north. Having said that -- and having, for the moment gone beyond that question, which we could

[ Page 9243 ]

In any event, I will give the minister a chance then to respond perhaps to some of the comments I've made. It may be that the minister wants to comment on that. I have a number of questions which I will put to the minister.

Hon. D. Miller: No, I don't want to comment, Mr. Chairman.

P. Nettleton: I have a couple of very direct questions for the minister then: has the position been filled; has the decision been made as to who he or she might be?

Hon. D. Miller: No. I've been waiting for the bill. We need the authority of the bill to do that, so the quicker we get it, actually, the quicker we can get on with the job.

P. Nettleton: Well, the minister hasn't answered my question. Do I take that to be a no? Is the minister saying that the position has not been filled?

Hon. D. Miller: To the best of my knowledge, it hasn't.

P. Nettleton: I take that to be a denial that the position has been filled. Correct me if I'm wrong, minister.

Does the minister, then, deny that a gentleman by the name of John Backhouse has in fact been chosen and assigned this role? Does the minister deny that?

Hon. D. Miller: Well, my understanding is that you need the authority of the legislation in order to appoint someone to the position. I've canvassed and have had discussions with quite a wide variety of northerners on this topic. But in answer to the member's question -- and I think I'm right -- technically, one requires the legislation to create the office in order to appoint someone to fill the office.

P. Nettleton: A simple yes or no would do. It's not a difficult question. A simple yes or no would suffice. Does the minister deny that he has hired John Backhouse to fill this position?

Hon. D. Miller: Help me, Mr. Chairman. Let me say it slowly. You cannot fill a job that doesn't exist. This piece of legislation creates the job. Once the legislation is passed, we will then appoint someone to fill the job created by the legislation.

The Chair: This is becoming repetitive, members.

P. Nettleton: Does the minister deny that he intends to hire John Backhouse as the commissioner?

Hon. D. Miller: I'm not in this chamber to be quizzed in terms of: do I deny this or that or the other thing? The bill is fairly clear. We are on section 3, and if the members have any questions about section 3, fair enough.

I've canvassed a range of names and have discussed that with northerners. The fact that I haven't discussed it with that member is something I can't account for. I talk to the other northern MLAs. They come and see me; they call me, and we have discussions about issues. That member has never knocked on my door once; he's never phoned me once. So I don't know what to say to the member.

S. Hawkins: I think people in the north have a lot of hope for this position. Maybe I can get the minister's attention. Sssh. Listen, for a change.

People in the north -- this minister purports to represent people in the north -- have a lot of high hopes for this position. I had the pleasure this morning of attending the Public Accounts Committee, and the minister a short while ago raised the issue of appointments to health boards. It's interesting, because that's what we discussed this morning: how the government made appointments to health boards. The auditor general had concerns about the way the appointments were made and what kinds of people filled those positions.

[4:15]

Everyone in the province has a vested interest in this position being successful. What the government is doing is investing taxpayer dollars in creating this office. Hopefully, this person will help drive some economic activity or some job creation in the north. What the members previous to me are trying to get out of the minister is some confidence, some answers from this minister that there will be a transparent process, that there will be a process of selection that people in the north and all over the province and certainly the members here will have confidence in, and that this will be somebody who will have the competency and qualifications for this job. Does the minister have any of this information, or is this just something they're making up as they go along?

Hon. D. Miller: I'm just wondering what the member means when she refers to those kinds of people who are appointed to health boards. Just what does she mean? Perhaps she might want to expand on that. The fact that ordinary British Columbians -- for example, people who work in ordinary, menial labouring jobs, people who are not the elites -- were appointed to health boards because they live in their own communities. . . . What does the member mean by "that kind of person"?

Interjections.

The Chair: Order, members.

S. Hawkins: I'm very happy to answer the minister's questions about those kinds of people. . . . If the minister

[ Page 9244 ]

Interjections.

S. Hawkins: Yeah. The minister is trying to put words in my mouth. I'm taking them out of the auditor general's report. If he read the report, perhaps he would see that when they're appointing a northern development commissioner, people get a little nervous, because in the past the appointments that have been made haven't exactly had the confidence of this House or the people of the province.

An Hon. Member: Yes, they have.

S. Hawkins: No, they haven't. The Minister of Women's Equality says yes, they have. But they don't.

The Chair: Member, could you take your seat for a moment, please.

All comments have to come through the Chair, not across the House.

Interjection.

The Chair: Order, member. All comments are to come through the Chair.

The Chair really needs to remind members that we are dealing with section 3 of this bill and that we need to have relevancy in regard to this discussion.

S. Hawkins: That's what I meant by those kinds of people, and I hope that's clear enough for the minister. It was the kind of people that didn't have, perhaps, the legal or administrative or financial background that was needed for the kind of appointment that they were appointed to. That's why we're asking the government if they have a list of competencies, a list of qualifications they're looking for, if they've set out a transparent process, so that people have the confidence that the person who's going to fill this position can actually carry out this role.

H. Giesbrecht: The hon. member who just spoke would not willingly, I would think, mislead this House or anyone else listening to this debate, particularly in terms of what happened in the Public Accounts Committee this morning -- which was recorded. If she hadn't left early, she would have heard the auditor general's office remark, quite categorically, that any statement they made had absolutely no reflection on the competency of the people who were appointed to those positions. They were merely commenting on the fact that there were no written criteria existing for the appointments. After I asked a question about what the minimum criteria should be, it was very clear that there was no reflection on the people who were in those particular positions.

I just want to then ask the minister a question, which I guess could be very simply stated as. . . . Would he explain how. . . ?

Interjections.

The Chair: The member for Matsqui, on a point of order. What is your point of order?

M. de Jong: I'm thrilled that the member is engaged in the debate. I may have been mistaken, but I thought I heard him preface his question -- which we're all awaiting with bated breath -- with the comment that the member for Okanagan West may have misled the House deliberately. If that is the case, I would ask him to withdraw that remark.

The Chair: I'm sure the member will consider that.

H. Giesbrecht: Thank you, hon. Chair. I'll withdraw -- simply because what I said was that the member would not willingly want to mislead. So I provided the clarification.

I wanted to ask the minister a question. Since we're debating this particular bill, which is of critical interest to those of us who live in the north, I wonder if he might explain how we northerners feel about being lectured by members from the southern part of the province.

Hon. D. Miller: Mr. Chairman, I'm just about to ask for your help. I think we've been spinning our wheels for far too long on a very simple section that authorizes the appointment of a northern commissioner. I think we've had a pretty wide-ranging debate that has had nothing to do with the section.

Interjection.

Hon. D. Miller: You can sit down; take it easy. You'll be able to get up when I sit down.

I would really make a simple observation, Mr. Chairman, that with respect to judging people's ability, I guess it's always done through some kind of filter. All of us in this House are here by virtue of the fact that under our Election Act, all the qualifications you need to run are to be a citizen and a resident of this province, to have lived here for a certain period of time. You're free to run and go out and seek the confidence of the electorate in your particular constituencies. I would say that there's a wide variety of experience in the House. There are those who indeed are highly qualified, have academic degrees; there are those like myself who are simply humble tradespeople. . . .

Interjections.

Hon. D. Miller: Well, I've done lots of menial work, I can tell you.

But it's a wide variety of experience that we all bring to this place. Who am I to suggest that any one of the members of this House is superior to another because of history or background? That suggests to me a somewhat elitist view of the world. Perhaps I'm wrong, but that does suggest a fairly elitist view of the world, and it's one that I reject. I grew up with the belief that regardless of what I did in life, I had equal

[ Page 9245 ]

Interjections.

The Chair: Order, members.

Hon. D. Miller: Does the Chairman. . . ? But at any rate, I just want to make the point. I think that in terms of kind of going around the Horn on this one, we've been there. I've tried to answer the questions. I guess that we've engaged in a bit of debate that has not led to anything productive at all. Apart from that, we could probably move on.

S. Hawkins: I've tried to get some questions answered, and the minister has very craftily avoided answering the question that I've asked at least three times. I'm beginning to think. . . . I'm getting in the habit of asking my questions at least three or four times before I even get the semblance of an answer in this chamber. What I asked. . . . First of all, the member for Skeena was wondering what the qualifications of the members over here were for asking these questions. Well, we do represent the people of B.C., whether I represent Okanagan West or people around the province. I take responsibility for representing a cross-section of people around the province. I did have the experience of living in northern and isolated communities in different parts of Canada, so I am familiar with northern communities.

But let's get back to the question I asked two or three times already, before I forget it; I think the minister must have forgotten it. I asked whether the minister has outlined competencies and qualifications for this position, whether there is a process in place, whether it will be transparent, and whether the position will be posted so that there will be competition for the position and it won't just be a picking of a favourite person that the minister might want to appoint.

Hon. D. Miller: The bill is very clear with respect to how the appointment will be made.

S. Hawkins: Well, the minister hasn't answered any part of the question. If this is the kind of arrogance we're going to see in this chamber, and when a minister is asked a question about whether there are going to be set qualifications, whether we have competencies set out, whether there is actually a process for appointing this position. . . . Those are all fair questions under this section, and the minister hasn't answered one of them. What kind of confidence is that going to instil in the people up north that are counting on this person? It's these members that went up north, hon. Chair, and had their northern summit, and out of the whole northern summit they came out with a position. Out of all these jobs they were going to create, they created one job. They're going to create one job out of this bill, and it's a northern commissioner. You know what? We don't even know what the qualifications for this job are going to be. We don't know what competencies for this job this minister is looking for. We don't know what the process is going to be -- whether it's going to be transparent or done behind closed doors. We don't know that. This minister isn't telling us. Either he doesn't know, he doesn't care or he just doesn't want to tell us. At committee stage it's fair to ask these kinds of questions. If the minister were serious about northerners, if the minister were serious about this appointment and if the minister were serious about getting the confidence of northerners, he would answer these questions for them. I'm sure that a lot of them are wondering.

The north is a huge place, as the minister knows. We hope the minister knows. It covers a large area. "This person will be from the north, hopefully, or at least have a good understanding of the north," and that's all we get from this minister. That's all we get about the qualifications for who is going to fill this position. What we get is: "This person will be from the north, and he will work in the north." Well, that could be just about anyone. We have no idea what qualifications they're looking for.

Then the minister wonders why people don't have confidence in the appointments they make. They have absolutely no idea, they say, about why people have no confidence in the appointments they make. In the past, we've seen -- certainly I saw it this morning in the Public Accounts Committee -- that there were concerns about the kinds of appointments made by cabinet to boards that have very serious responsibilities in expending taxpayer dollars and in holding positions where they're accountable to the taxpayers. This is the kind of appointment that I think people in the north are. . . .

[4:30]

S. Hawkins: Hon. Chair, I'm kind of having trouble keeping my thought processes together here, because it's awfully noisy on the other side. I wonder if. . . .

Interjections.

S. Hawkins: I want to make sure the minister can hear what I'm saying, hon. Chair.

The Chair: Perhaps the member could ask a question.

S. Hawkins: Well, I've asked the question three or four times, and I haven't heard an answer. Perhaps the minister would care to answer. . . .

The Chair: Member, could you take you seat for a minute, please. The fact that you're stating that you have asked a question three or four times leads the Chair to decide that you are being repetitious. Perhaps the member would like to pursue another line of questioning.

S. Hawkins: I'm wondering, then, if the ministry has a document that already outlines, in some kind of form, what the job description of the northern commissioner is, and if, on the basis of that, they will be putting an ad in the paper so that it will be an open competition for this job and so that people will know exactly what qualifications and competencies are required for this position.

Hon. D. Miller: The duties of the commissioner and the process of appointment are outlined in the bill.

P. Nettleton: I have a few comments, and then I'd like to pursue the line of questioning I introduced earlier. You know, hon. Chair, through you to the minister, I take this bill to be an admission of your failure -- not only your failure personally but also the government's. . . .

The Chair: Member, all comments are directed through the Chair, please.

[ Page 9246 ]

The Chair: Member. . . .

P. Nettleton: . . .the people of northern British Columbia.

The Chair: Member, would you take your seat, please. Your comments are not relevant to section 3. I would suggest that if you're going to continue, you should direct your questions to the section we're on.

P. Nettleton: Has any commitment been made to Mr. Backhouse with reference to the commissioner's position?

The Chair: The member may wish to pursue another line of questioning.

Interjections.

The Chair: Relevance and repetition, members. The same question was asked. Member, you have the floor.

P. Nettleton: Hon. Chair, with all respect, I would submit that in fact the same question was not asked. The word I have used now which distinguishes this question from the previous questions is the word "commitment." Has any commitment been made to Mr. Backhouse with reference to this position?

Hon. D. Miller: With all due respect, this is an enabling bill. We're debating the bill. The section we're on is the appointment of the commissioner; it outlines the process of appointment.

P. Nettleton: Does the minister deny that a car has been leased in the name of Mr. Backhouse for this position? Does the minister deny that?

C. Hansen: This is quite relevant, I think, to the exact wording that we have here. Section 3 is to authorize the appointment of a commissioner, and the question to the minister, I think, is totally in order as to whether or not any commitments have been made to Mr. Backhouse with regard to this position. It seems to me that it's directly relevant to the clauses before us, and I think it's incumbent upon the minister to give us an answer. He's talked about it being enabling legislation. My question to the minister is: have there been commitments made to Mr. Backhouse in advance of this enabling legislation being passed by this chamber?

The Chair: Members, the standing orders are very clear. The minister is not required to answer questions, and questions that are repeated are not relevant.

D. Jarvis: Just one quick comment, and that is that he was talking about non-partisan appointments and referring to the summits and everything like that. I just wanted to say that the northern summit that he keeps talking about wasn't non-partisan. It was so partisan that only select people could get into it. I'll say the same thing for the Kamloops summit. It was supposed to be a non-partisan summit to allow people from all over the province to look into. . . . Yet I myself was excluded from going. I was refused entry into it.

I would like to put forward a motion on section 3 as on the order paper.

[SECTION 3, to amend subsection 3 by adding the text highlighted in bold:

Appointment of the commissioner

3 (1) The Northern Development Commissioner is to be appointed by the Lieutenant Governor in Council, upon recommendation of the Northern Development Commissioner Hiring Committee as per (a), (b), (c)

(a) The Northern Development Commissioner Hiring Committee shall consist of all MLAs from the Northern region of British Columbia.

(b) The Northern Development Commissioner Hiring Committee will advertise the position of the Northern Development Commissioner.

(c) The Northern Development Commissioner Hiring Committee shall review all applicants for the position of Northern Development Commissioners and shall make three recommendations to the Lieutenant Governor in Council.]

D. Jarvis: I feel that this amendment is quite a good one, in the sense that if the minister is talking about being non-partisan and having an open policy towards appointing a person for the northern development commissioner's position, nothing could be better than that a hiring committee be submitted and all MLAs in the northern region be invited to come in and discuss it. Who else would know better, than the minister, than all the rest of the northern MLAs in the region?

Furthermore, subsection (1)(b) of the amendment states that the job be advertised in the northern papers and all over the province prior to doing so. This is certainly an open-ended situation. I don't know if the minister has already concluded that, but that's certainly a good way of making sure that the job is well exposed to everyone in the province.

Thirdly, subsection (1)(c) says: "The Northern Development Commissioner Hiring Committee shall review all applicants for the position of Northern Development Commissioners and shall make three recommendations to the Lieutenant Governor in Council." That is ostensibly what our member for Peace River North felt would be a good idea to put forward. That should take away any thought that the commissioner who was appointed would be a biased one -- that this would be a full and open procedure. I urge the minister to support the amendment.

Hon. D. Miller: It is a bit puzzling, because five minutes ago we listened to a diatribe -- at least, the member for Prince George-Omineca attempted to deliver a diatribe -- saying that I was somehow a failure for bringing in a piece of legislation to create a northern commissioner's office. Now they want to bring in an amendment to ensure that their MLAs are on a hiring committee to fill a position that they don't like. I'm a bit puzzled by it. On the face of it, the common feature of all legislation promulgated by government is that it's government's responsibility to carry out the actions that are required under this bill. That's the responsibility of cabinet, and that's the way it should be.

M. de Jong: People watching this are going to be a bit mystified. If this is too difficult for the minister to appreciate -- that in debating a bill. . . .

[ Page 9247 ]

M. de Jong: Look, I know the Minister of Labour is having some difficulty confronting the fact that he badly fumbled the ball earlier today, and he's here trying to make. . . . I know that the only reason he's sitting in the House is because he has been penalized by the Whip, who's also here.

The Chair: On the amendment, member.

M. de Jong: I do want to return to the point. The minister seems to take exception to a line of questioning from the opposition that says: "You are on the verge of statutorily creating a new position in the province, and we are led to believe that you're already having discussions about who's going to fill that post." Quite frankly, if the minister has difficulty understanding the relevancy of that line of questioning, then maybe he's in the wrong line of work.

It's not that difficult. The minister says that he has a shortlist of candidates. Well, he didn't use those words, and I don't want to put words in his mouth. He has already been in contact with several northerners. That's what he said: he has already been in contact with several northerners, to fill the commissioner's spot. Who are those northerners?

[T. Stevenson in the chair.]

Let me try this a different way. The minister began his discussion on this section of the bill by pointing out that it warranted the support of everyone in this House on the basis of the independence that the person filling the position would bring to his or her role as commissioner. Now, speaking specifically to the amendment that is presently before this chamber, I think there's a better way to insure that independence, and that is to remove the selection process from the hands of the cabinet exclusively and put it in the hands of representatives of the north from both sides of this House. Is this such an unprecedented thing? Is the minister saying that this is so without precedent -- that we would have an all-party committee?

Interjection.

M. de Jong: If the member from Golden wants to get up, I'm the first person to sit down and give him a chance. He knows how accommodating I will be to him, hon. Speaker. I'll even travel to Golden to give him an opportunity to speak.

This House has hired advocates before -- a family and children's advocate, House officers. We have hired advocates for various segments of our society. What I hear the minister saying is that this is the role the northern commissioner is supposed to play on behalf of people in northern British Columbia. So what is the difficulty in going that next mile and saying: let's have a truly independent person, who to all appearances is independent, including the manner in which they've been selected and brought to the position? Have a committee of this House, exclusive of the cabinet, exclusive of partisan political considerations. . . .

The people who are watching this debate are going to ask this question themselves: what's wrong with removing the politics from the appointment of a person who is not supposed to be political? The minister doesn't want to answer it, but it's a logical and entirely appropriate question. What is wrong with an amendment that says we will advertise for the best person available, give everyone an opportunity to apply for this position, and then members from both sides of this House will pick the best candidate on the basis of qualifications to represent northerners? What's wrong with that?

[4:45]

Interjections.

Hon. D. Miller: Tut, tut, tut -- just settle down. Relax.

We're bringing in a very simple bill -- in terms of its construct -- to create the northern commissioner, and I've had a variety of responses. There appear to be a variety of positions staked out by members opposite. We start with the member for Prince George-Omineca, who doesn't like the idea at all. Then we move to the member for North Vancouver-Seymour, who proposes an amendment which we're now debating -- that the Liberal caucus, or at least the northern Liberal MLAs, be included in the hiring. I can tell you that the variety. . . .

And then, when two Liberals wind up in Terrace, as they did on June 3, the member for Kamloops-North Thompson says: "Why do you need a commission? Why do you need a commission, if you've got a minister?" So he appears to be disagreeing with the establishment of a commission -- and they still want to have a hand in the hiring.

When I suggested that the member was being a tad disingenuous, I do respect the fact that politics is played from time to time by all of us in this forum. If there's politics being played, Mr. Chairman, I think there's a great deal being played on the other side. Let's try to get back to the. . . .

I think the members have tried to make a point here, and I understand the point they've tried to make -- and I think they've made it. Now, you don't have to take all day to do it. There is the old theory, of course, that work expands to fill the time available. But I think you've made your point, and I really think we could move on. This is, in the normal course of events, what governments do; it's not unique to our government. When governments create these positions in legislation, they do it in this manner; the way this bill is constructed is nothing new. So I think we should move on, Mr. Chairman -- defeat this amendment, and let's move on with the bill. Time's a'wasting and we've taken far too long as it is, with all due respect. We're only on section 3 of a very simple bill, and we've been at it now for far too long. I think we should move on. There's been all kinds of repetition, and we clearly are not going to accept this amendment. The government reserves the right to make this appointment and that's what we will do.

M. de Jong: Why? The minister comes perilously close to answering the question and then sits down. He acknowledges the obvious: that the government is reserving the right to make this appointment. The question is: why? If I give him the benefit of the doubt and say that this time the NDP has come perilously close to tabling the perfect piece of legislation -- almost perfect -- but then suggest to him, "Here is a way to make it a little bit better," he doesn't want to address that. Why does the government want to reserve unto itself the right to make an appointment that we are being told will be non-partisan? Why is that?

[ Page 9248 ]

M. de Jong: This is how inconsistent we've been. The first words out of the mouth of the first speaker to address this bill in this Legislature in this debate were: "We will support this bill and the establishment of this office." Now, if the minister has some difficulty understanding that. . . . He's a clever, crafty politician and able in avoiding what is a basic question, and that is: why, in drafting this legislation, would he abandon a process that has worked well in a whole range of different areas?

Now -- I want to be clear, because I want to be fair to the minister -- he says the reason he can't answer a question about why this position should be advertised and why this shouldn't be a cabinet appointment is because he was confused by something he heard earlier this afternoon on the opposition side. What people will remember and what the Journals will record is that this minister wouldn't answer a fundamental question about how this appointment process should work. That is what we're dealing with under section 3 and under the amendment that's on the floor.

It used to be that you could count on the NDP to make a patronage appointment. But on this side of the House, what we are increasingly inclined to believe is that this time the NDP have selected the candidate and now they're going to build a job around that candidate. The minister can dispense with those suspicions pretty quickly by acknowledging the wisdom of the processes that have been followed in at least a half-dozen cases in this House where all-party committees have been charged with the task of selecting people based on merit. Maybe that's a novel concept for this minister, but the question I will put to him is: why wouldn't he accept a process and build into this legislation a selection process that puts first and foremost the merit and ability of the candidates -- all of the candidates -- that apply for the job? Why is he so reluctant to accept that approach?

C. Hansen: Maybe I'll boil that down into a simple question for the minister: does the minister feel that it is important that the person who serves as commissioner has loyalty to the government in power?

Hon. Chair, I think maybe the minister didn't hear my question, because he. . . . Does the minister feel that it's important that this commissioner have loyalty to the government in power, the government of the day? Is that an important consideration and perhaps one of the reasons why he would vote against this?

The Chair: The minister has nothing new to add to this discussion. We have heard a fair debate on this. I call the question on the amendment.

Interjections.

The Chair: I recognize the member for Chilliwack on a point of order.

B. Penner: Hon. Chair, I'm a member of this Legislature, and I've not yet had a chance to participate in this debate. I am seeking to assert my right to participate in this debate.

The Chair: Does the member have anything new to add to this?

B. Penner: I certainly do, hon. Chair.

The Chair: Proceed, hon. member.

B. Penner: I've been listening to this debate carefully. One of the arguments that the minister has put forward to try and ignore the comments of the opposition is that people from other parts of the province shouldn't have any say as to what the government is doing with respect to this office, because it's the office of a northern commissioner. Well, let's examine that logic for a minute.

Let me just point out to you, hon. Chair, and to the minister that I may represent the constituency of Chilliwack, but I'm also responsible to taxpayers throughout the province that pay my salary to be here today, and I intend to do my job. In addition to representing Chilliwack, however, I was born in the north; I was born in Kitimat. I've got a particular interest in what happens in our northern communities.

I'm very concerned about this legislation and the way it's worded. The rest of Bill 27 gives the commissioner, whoever that may be, the power to unilaterally go ahead and hire staff without further review by the Legislative Assembly. We are put here by the taxpayers. They're paying our wages. They're paying the bills to operate this place, and they will be paying the wages of the northern commissioner, who will, in turn, have the power under this legislation to hire untold numbers of staff. There's no assurance in this legislation what that limit is going to be.

We have an obligation, on behalf of the taxpayers who have elected us, to find out what this minister plans to do when he hires a commissioner and what that commissioner is going to do in terms of hiring staff and obligating the taxpayers of British Columbia to pay for them. This minister has a job: to stand up and answer the taxpayers of British Columbia. If this minister can't get up and represent taxpayers, then he has demonstrated once and for all why we need a northern commissioner: because he's incapable of doing his job.

The Chair: I remind the member to speak through the Chair.

B. Penner: This amendment establishes a non-partisan process for screening the northern commissioner so that we can ask questions of what that person's plans are in terms of spending taxpayers' money. This bill -- Bill 27 -- gives the commissioner carte blanche to hire as many staff as he or she wishes. We have an obligation, on behalf of taxpayers, to ask that commissioner, whoever he or she may be, how many staff he or she plans to hire. Are they going to go on a hiring spree? Is that what this NDP government thinks is the answer to creating jobs in the north -- more taxpayer-supported jobs? Is that the answer, minister?

Hon. D. Miller: Hon. Chair, somebody had better cool him down. The next thing you know he'll be stamping his feet and holding his breath.

B. Penner: The breathtaking contempt that this government shows for taxpayers across British Columbia has no

[ Page 9249 ]

The bill as written does not do that. Our amendment is straightforward. It attempts to establish a non-partisan hiring committee so that everyone, representing all the people that elected us in British Columbia, can ask questions about the commissioner's intent.

We've done that with the conflict-of-interest commissioner; we've done that with the privacy commissioner; we've done that with other advocates. Why is this not a good enough process for the minister in this example? Why is the NDP so committed to having the final say about who will be able to spend untold hundreds of thousands of dollars of taxpayers' money? Why shouldn't the Legislative Assembly -- all of us who've been elected by voters across the province -- have a chance to participate in that process? What makes him so special that he gets the last say about who the northern commissioner should be?

R. Coleman: I also want to briefly speak to the amendment and see if we can get somewhere with this discussion. I had the pleasure of sitting on the special committee for the police complaints commissioner, in hearings with members of this Legislature from both sides of the House. During that process, it was pretty clear that a number of things were accomplished. First of all, we had an advertising process for the position wherein we outlined the qualifications of the position to a broad base of people and asked them to apply to the government. There was also an information kit provided in that application, which basically laid out the position's job description. The job description certainly went into a lot more detail than this piece of legislation does, as far as outlining what the job was and what the expectations were. That's important in the hiring and selecting of somebody to this position, simply because we want to get the right person for the job and have them know coming in what the job is, what they're supposed to do when they get there and what our expectations are of them.

[5:00]

I think it's important to understand what we're trying to do here. We're looking for somebody who has the ability to coordinate the development activities in the north and of other economic development organizations, including aboriginal peoples' economic development organizations. I really would like to have -- without the political rhetoric, because we can always play the political rhetoric when we ask a question. . . . It's no different from when we had some of those economic summits, and MLAs like myself were not allowed to attend because we didn't come from that particular region, even though we're all paid by the same taxpayer. I thought that that was politics; I don't want to get into politics here.

I would just like a reasonable answer as to why we can't go through a similar process of proper advertising, job description and selection by MLAs of a person on whom we're going to put a tremendous amount of economic responsibility for the north, for a lot of the taxpayers of British Columbia. I would just like to know why we can't do that, why the minister opposes an idea as simple as having a job description, an advertising program, a proper selection process, with selection by the people that are going to be affected and with the people that represent the voters in those areas being involved in that selection.

Hon. D. Miller: I've made it clear that we are not going to accept this amendment. We've been on this section for an hour and a half, I believe. We must have canvassed this 30 times over. The answer is clear; I've answered it. No matter how many times the question is repeated, it's simply a repetition and wasting the time of this House.

G. Abbott: I'd like to speak to the amendment as well. The one thing that we haven't had any repetition on in this House is an answer to the question that has been posed so many times in this House. This discussion today could have been closed off in five minutes had we had any kind of cooperation from the minister with respect to the question we're asking.

It is fundamental to the operation of this Legislature and to the operation of government that this government is responsible to the people of British Columbia through this Legislature. Now, we may ask questions which the minister doesn't like and may be uncomfortable with, but it doesn't matter. It doesn't matter whether the minister likes the question, whether he's uncomfortable with it, or whether it raises issues that he would prefer not to address. It doesn't matter. As a member of the executive council, he is responsible through this Legislature to the people of British Columbia. It's vital, if we're going to have any respect out there in the population for this institution, that the minister answer our very simple and straightforward questions.

The minister complains that we've gone on for an hour and a half. Well, we may go on for a day and a half, a week and a half, or a month and a half. It's fundamental that the minister respond to our questions, because it's fundamental that he is responsible through this Legislature to the people of British Columbia. We are here creating a very important, new position. I'm sure the minister and I agree on that, and I'm sure every member of this House agrees with that. When we are appointing a northern commissioner, we are appointing a very important office for the people of British Columbia. We would not, were it not important, be creating a statute here that embodies that objective. So this is an important thing. It's important that we are able to have confidence in the appointment of the northern commissioner, and it's vital, I think, that our simple questions be answered here. It is fundamental to the democratic process, in fact, that they be answered.

Where we started out here -- whether it was an hour and a half ago, or whatever -- was with some very simple questions from our side with respect to whether the minister could outline the process involved in the selection of the northern commissioner. We got no answer to that. You are quite correct, hon. Chair, that we have asked, in a variety of different ways and with a variety of permutations, that same question: what is the process around the selection of the commissioner? It is

[ Page 9250 ]

Well, why should this question around the process involved in selecting the commissioner be answered? I suggest to you that there are at least three simple reasons why we need an answer to the questions about the appointment of a commissioner. Firstly, this northern-commissioner position is, hopefully, going to be integral to improvements in northern economic development in the years ahead. Obviously, we hope the successful candidate enjoys enormous success in bringing in new economic development -- and, indeed, in stabilizing existing economic development in the north. Every member of this House would share that hope -- there's no dispute around that -- so it's very important we select the right candidate to do that job.

Secondly, it's not just important to the north that we select the right candidate. It's important to all British Columbians. One of the things that I have heard when I have travelled north is the view among northerners that they provide a lot of the resources to the province but don't get the kind of returns for those resources that they deserve. I'm sure that's a reasonable proposition and certainly one that's worth talking about. But it's important to all British Columbians, because the development of the north is in many ways the development of British Columbia. So it's important that all British Columbians, along with all northerners, have complete confidence that when the selection process is completed, we have selected the right candidate for this job. It's an important position. It's important to the future of northern British Columbia and, indeed, all British Columbia, and we simply want to know what the selection process is. I don't think that is an unreasonable kind of request to be making. In fact, as I said at the outset, I think it's fundamental to the responsibilities of the minister that he be able to express those things to us.

Finally, the other important element at play here is that there are public dollars involved in the hiring of the northern development commissioner. We understand from the responses of the minister that the salary would be approximately that of an associate deputy minister. That's probably entirely appropriate. I don't think there'd be any great debate around that; that's fine. There is also going to be, I'm sure, an office with some costs associated with it. But again, the fact that public dollars are being expended makes it a public issue. It makes it an issue that is appropriately addressed in this assembly.

I don't want to raise the temperature in here. What I do want to do is simply say that we have a legitimate question here. We can move beyond Bill 27, section 3, straightaway if we simply have an answer to this question. So I'll ask the minister this question in passing. . . . I was very much impressed with the arguments of my colleague from Fort Langley-Aldergrove around how the police commissioner was hired. I can appreciate that perhaps, in the case of the northern development commissioner, the minister may want to do it a different way. We would simply like to know what that different way is, and then we can have an honest, open debate around that.

Let me ask the minister this, and I hope that he can respond. I hope he can respond in a way that will put to rest the concerns that have been expressed here and allow us to move along, beyond section 3. Could the minister outline the process that is involved in the selection of the northern development commissioner? Could he advise, for example, whether the passage of this bill will be the beginning of the selection process, or will it mark the end of the selection process? What is the outline of the process of selecting the northern development commissioner?

Hon. D. Miller: With all due respect, I appreciate that the opposition has certain views. Occasionally we differ. But really, the issue is this -- and it's very, very simple: we are bringing forward a bill to appoint a northern commissioner, and in that bill we have prescribed in section 3 that the commissioner will be appointed by cabinet. Now, I understand that the opposition doesn't like that; but they've been saying they don't like it for an hour and a half. I don't truly believe that the fact that they don't like it is relevant or that you can delay a simple 12 words for an hour and a half because you don't like something.

The opposition has the opportunity to vote against the bill. But in terms of process -- respecting the process of this House and the timeliness of process and getting legislation through this House -- it is unconscionable to spend an hour and a half listening to this diatribe, particularly since they've been inconsistent and have criticized each other. With all due respect, Mr. Chairman, this issue has been canvassed and it is now time to move on.

The Chair: Just take your seat for a moment, hon. member.

The minister has obviously stated that he's responded already to these questions, and I would remind the members that this debate is getting somewhat repetitious and tedious.

G. Abbott: Again, the issue here is the responsibility of the executive council to this chamber and to the people of British Columbia. We are talking about the appointment of an officer -- not an officer of this Legislature, but a commissioner who is going to be funded by public dollars. And frankly, we're not getting any kind of a response to our very legitimate questions. I see the minister is departing, so the Premier. . . . Good, I'll have an opportunity to try to explain our concerns to the Premier.

Let me say, first of all, that when I was engaged in the Ministry of Forests estimates with the Minister of Forests and we were talking about the jobs accord advocate, I asked the minister numerous questions about the jobs accord advocate. This is a new office, just as the northern development commissioner is a new office. The Minister of Forests -- and I say this to his credit -- was entirely forthcoming in terms of the office: what it was going to be doing, how the jobs accord advocate had been selected, the involvement of the industry in the process with government and all that sort of thing. The minister was entirely candid -- transparent, as the current phrase goes -- about how the jobs accord advocate had been selected and engaged. That's all we want to do here.

We're not asking to be privy to cabinet's discussions of this. What I'm saying here is that simply because section 3 says the northern development commissioner is to be appointed by the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council does not mean that the entire process is secret. I hope the Premier can agree with that suggestion. Just because it's an order-in-council appointment does not mean that the process has to be shrouded in secrecy. Again, it doesn't have to be shrouded in

[ Page 9251 ]

[5:15]

I'm delighted with this legislation. As you know, this flows from commitments I made at the northern summit and prior to that in terms of how we would listen to people in the north. This is a government initiative; it's not a legislative initiative. The government will appoint the northern commissioner, and that's as transparent. . . .

An Hon. Member: Why?

Hon. G. Clark: Because we're the government, and that's the decision we've made.

I have been in this chamber for 12 years. I know I sound like a veteran when I say that. There are dozens, maybe hundreds, of pieces of legislation that say that somebody will be appointed by the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council -- dozens and dozens. This is a boilerplate piece of legislation in that regard, and in that regard only. I appreciate that members opposite would like to choose, but, unfortunately for them, they won't get a chance to choose. In fact, it'll be years and years before they might get a chance to choose.

Interjection.

Hon. G. Clark: I know, but it's a long time -- three more years over there while they try to have a say in it.

Now, I want to say very clearly that I do feel that our system of government does deserve more openness and transparency, and it really shouldn't be the fact that one party wins a majority of seats and therefore has all the power. We've been trying to take some steps to involve opposition members in some decision-making. Most of the time they've chosen not to exercise that and have chosen to be very traditionalist, very conservative, in that regard. In terms of the role of the opposition, they see it as one of opposing everything rather than being constructive and involved. While I offered many times to be involved and constructive and to work with the opposition in making decisions, they've clearly rejected that in every case, every day. So I don't see any reason that the government should now respond to this initiative as. . .somehow they have something to say.

Hon. Chair, you know they opposed the northern commissioner; they opposed the northern jobs summit; they opposed the initiatives that we're taking in the north. They oppose everything we do, but now they want a say in who gets appointed to be the northern commissioner. Well, I'm sorry. It's unfortunate, but the government doesn't agree.

The legislation will be exactly the way dozens of pieces of legislation are, and the government will appoint the northern commissioner. I want to make a prediction: they will criticize it. They will oppose whoever we appoint, because they oppose everything that the government does. They will oppose this as they oppose everything else we do. And, God forbid, if we ever did give them any influence over the appointment, it would be stymied in stalemate, because they're not constructive. They don't want to participate in these decisions; they just want to oppose. So unfortunately, we can't accept any amendments to the legislation in this regard. We will carry on in spite of the opposition, and we will choose the best possible candidate to pursue this government initiative in the north.

G. Abbott: I think we're making some progress here. At least the Premier is being fairly open and frank about the issue. I do want to say before the Premier leaves -- because I think he's opened the door here for the minister to be frank, open and transparent with us. . . . The Premier has just advised us of the merits of being all of those things. That's certainly much appreciated.

The point is that it doesn't matter whether the opposition just opposes or just supports or anything else. The point here is executive responsibility to this institution. We are appreciating that the northern development commissioner, as per section 3, is going to be appointed by order-in-council; we accept that. We're saying that it's not right, and we've moved an amendment otherwise. But what we want to do here is to find out a little bit more about the process. Again, having had a moment to think about it, could the minister advise whether the passage of Bill 27 will mark the beginning of the process of selection? Or will its passage really mean the end of the process and the imminent appointment of some -- hopefully -- eminent British Columbian as northern development commissioner?

P. Nettleton: Just a few comments, if I may -- not that you have a choice. But in any case, not to belabour the point, I appreciated some of the comments that were made by the Premier. I think, though, that what this amendment attempts to do is some of the things to which the Premier referred -- namely, to facilitate the involvement of a more open process involving opposition members and others who may have input in terms of the process. Ideally, I think that that's where we should be headed, and we should in fact be working together towards common objectives.

[W. Hartley in the chair.]

The minister snorts in disdain, and that's unfortunate, because I make that comment in all sincerity.

Interjection.

P. Nettleton: Oh, I don't -- okay. Well, he questions my sincerity.

This really is an attempt to suggest that, in fact, many times we do share common objectives -- that is, we do want to see a healthy, vibrant north where people are employed and where people have some measure of success, self-esteem and all of those kinds of things. The question is: how do we get there? I'll make an admission. Oftentimes we get in the way. Oftentimes I get in the way, and certainly on a personal level it is my concern that I get out of the way at times and put aside partisan notions if necessary, put aside selfish interests which may get in the way. At the end of the day what we want is what is best for those that we represent. As I said earlier, one of the things that this amendment attempts to do is to facilitate some sense of accountability.

My question to the minister, then, is this: what assurance do we as northerners have within the act, outside of this

[ Page 9252 ]

The Chair: We're dealing with the amendment that you've put forward, so if members would like to speak to that. . . .

J. Wilson: I've been listening to this debate with some interest. I would like to speak to this amendment. For a long time people in the north have been hurting, and hurting badly. This government keeps on extracting revenue from the north -- dollars -- and nothing goes back. We're in bad shape up there. Everything from our health care to our education, transportation and highways is falling apart. It's all as a result of actions of this government. People up there are looking for some hope that things will turn around.

Awhile back the Premier announced that we were having a northern summit. It was a great idea, but the only catch was that those that were invited could come and speak, and a lot of other people that had presentations to make. . . .

Hon. D. Miller: Point of order.

The Chair: The minister rises on a point of order.

Hon. D. Miller: Mr. Chairman, we are debating an amendment to section 3 that specifically deals with the way in which the commissioner will be appointed.

The Chair: Yes, I have made that caution, members. The member for Matsqui, on the point of order.

M. de Jong: The member is addressing himself to the amendment. By virtue of addressing some of the remarks that the Premier made in this House, prior to the minister responsible. . . . I know that this will become clear to the Chair momentarily, as the member concludes his remarks.

J. Wilson: I will attempt to explain where I'm going in my endeavour here.

When the Premier announced the northern summit, people thought: "Well, here's a chance to get our ideas into the government so that we can be heard." It didn't quite work that way, because they allowed certain parties to come in and make presentations, and other people were not given that opportunity. One of those, in particular, was the chamber of commerce. They represent thousands of small businesses in the interior, in the north, employing hundreds of thousands of people. They should have had a seat there; they should have been invited there so that their input could be heard. That wasn't the case. Now, that put a cloud over the whole process that was being developed, because the people up there had lost faith in this government a long time ago. They thought: "Well, maybe something is going to happen here that really will work." As soon as it became obvious what was going on, their credibility was destroyed again.

We all know that this government's idea of economic development is to create government jobs. In the minds of most people, economic development means that you have to bring in industry and business and money to create employment, not government jobs. What faith could we possibly have in this minister, who is obviously unable to do the job, so he has to hire someone to do the job for him? In this political arena that he's chosen. . .

The Chair: On the amendment, please, member.

J. Wilson: . . .the people in the north have absolutely no faith in the way that this process is evolving, because of the patronage appointee. Their background now will be economic development through government job creation, which in effect will mean more and more government jobs and no real jobs whatsoever. That is the reason we have presented this amendment, and that is the reason it should be adopted. It's an open, upfront process.

[5:30]

B. Penner: Before we get to the vote on the amendment, I'd just like to note that we still have not heard any answer from the minister as to the question that has been put by the opposition. Why should there not be a non-partisan hiring process? This amendment contains that. It's been clearly drafted. It would be to the benefit of all taxpayers in British Columbia, regardless of political affiliation. Why won't the government support this amendment? The minister says he won't, but he hasn't said why he won't.

J. Weisgerber: Recognizing that the amendment was in the process of being voted on, I want to make a couple of points.

Interjection.

J. Weisgerber: I won't be provoked by the Whip, I assure you. This event that has broken out today doesn't have a lot to do with the legislation that's in front of us. It's unfortunate that this particular piece of legislation has been caught up in something that has very little to do with the position that's in front of us. I'm concerned about that. Let me say that I very much want to see this legislation move forward. I want to see the legislation pass, and pass quickly. I guess the quick response to that might be: "Well, sit down and let it happen." To a large degree, I will try to do that.

It's important in my constituency for a couple of reasons. We do have a grain-handling issue that needs some attention; it needs attention from government. I think this is a case where the commissioner would be well positioned to start travelling and talking to the major Canadian grain companies before the final commitments are made in Alberta with respect to grain-handling. I understand that we can't do anything until this legislation passes.

We have some problems in Tumbler Ridge. It would seem to me to be appropriate for the commissioner, along with some other local economic development organizations -- the chamber, etc. -- to deal with that issue in Tumbler Ridge, a community that's truly suffering from a number of setbacks: layoffs at the mines, a decision with respect to a forest licence. All those things seem to be lining up against the community. I know they feel very much under siege and will probably look to the commissioner to provide, on a priority basis, some

[ Page 9253 ]

Finally, I think it's important to say that when the amendment was originally put on the order paper by my former colleague, I believe it was put there with good intentions. I think the debate that has carried on has a lot more to do with what goes on in this House from time to time rather than with the amendment itself. But I feel compelled to stand and say that I don't think the amendment was put forward provocatively; I think it was put forward with good intent. Indeed, I think there is some basis for the amendment.

Having said that, the prerogative clearly lies with the government. The government can either choose to accept an amendment or turn an amendment down. I've been around long enough to understand that amendments from the opposition are rarely accepted. Even more rarely are they accepted if they are more than one or two words in length. So I don't think any of us should be surprised that the government is not going to accept the amendment, well-reasoned though it may be.

With that, I'm going to take my place. I hope we can vote on the amendment. I genuinely hope that before we adjourn tonight we can get through committee stage of this bill, that we can move forward and that we can put the commissioner to work. I've got him booked for at least the first month in the northeast, and then the rest of the north can have at him. With that, thank you.

Amendment negatived.

C. Hansen: I want to move along to the next part of this section, which deals with the term of the appointment. I found it very interesting a few moments ago when the Premier spoke with regard to the amendment we were dealing with. It was probably the most enlightening part of the debate that we've had from the government side in the last hour and a half, because he said that the reason this particular commissioner should be appointed by the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council is "because we're the government." That's probably the most honest answer we've had in response to the questions this afternoon. In other words, they are the government, they are the executive council, and they do have the power to appoint positions that are prescribed to be appointed by the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council.

The interesting part was what he then went on to say, and that is that they intend to be the government for three more years. Now, we could have a very partisan debate in this House as to whether it's going to be one more year or six months, or three more years, and not much would be accomplished. But I think the point is that the maximum term of this government is going to be three more years, and yet what we're being asked to do is authorize the appointment of this position for up to five years.

I am a great proponent of terms of appointment being at the discretion of the government in power -- that there shouldn't be fixed terms for administrative positions. Now, I can understand when you've got fixed terms for quasi-judicial bodies. You don't want to have judges replaced or other kinds of quasi-judicial bodies -- let's say appointments to tribunals and others -- just because there is a change of government. Obviously they have fixed terms, because you don't want political interference with the change of government. But in this case, this is a position that is going to drive a policy agenda for the government in power. And probably more so than any position, this is a position that. . . . A new government coming into power should have the ability to put someone in as a commissioner who will basically be responsive to the policy agenda of the new government.

I would like to ask the minister why, in this case, he would put in a fixed term instead of putting in a provision that says, for example, that the commissioner would serve at the pleasure of the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council.

Hon. D. Miller: It's an interesting statement the member just made, because he's just supplied an effective argument against the amendment they proposed and for which they have stalled this House for almost two hours.

C. Hansen: I think perhaps that with the comment the minister's just made, it's clear why he voted against our amendment. He didn't understand it. I'm asking a very legitimate question, and I was surprised at the flippant answer that the minister gave me. The question I asked is: why would the minister designate a specific term for this position rather than appointing this commissioner to serve at the pleasure of Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council?

Hon. D. Miller: The wording is "up to 5 years."

C. Hansen: I can read the bloody act. I know what's in there.

The Chair: Member, watch your language please. Parliamentary language.

C. Hansen: My apologies, hon. Chair. But the fuse gets a little short sometimes when we get this kind of. . . . If the minister doesn't appreciate what the committee stage is all about in this House. . . . It's our inspection of the act, clause by clause. Our responsibility in this House is to ask questions about the clauses that the minister puts in the act. When he starts making those kinds of flip responses, it shows that he is contemptuous of what this process is all about.

I would like to ask the minister. . . . I will regain my composure. I will ask the minister once again a very serious question, and that is why they chose to put a term on this position rather than the ability that a change of government could result in a change of position in this case. Certainly there are all kinds of precedents when you come to policy positions that do not have specific terms attached to them, and I'm wondering if the minister could explain why it's important that this commissioner have a specific term of up to five years.

Hon. D. Miller: My colleague for Skeena, who is on the advisory committee, has indicated that that was one of the issues raised by northerners. They wanted somebody who is going to be there for a reasonable period of time, but the legislation is flexible. I was not trying to be flip. I mean everybody can get mad here, and I do my share of it. But to suggest, on the one hand, as the opposition has done, that the bill should be amended to give them a role in the hiring process and then, on the other hand, to argue that this is a political appointment and therefore the legislation says it should only serve while the government is in power seems to me somewhat contradictory. I took it as somewhat contradictory.

Perhaps the member didn't, but I think it's sort of like wanting to have it both ways. To get on your high horse and to get in this state of high dudgeon, and say: "Whoa, we're not

[ Page 9254 ]

The legislation is discretionary with respect to the term and the government. . . .

Interjection.

Hon. D. Miller: No, there's no sense in adjourning. Let's pass the bill and get on with it so that we can start taking some action on some of these issues.

C. Hansen: I think that what the minister just said shows where he may be misunderstanding where our amendment came from and where my question has come from now. If we had an appointment process that was not just left up to the executive council, but one that would really result in a broad consensus as to who the right person was to be the commissioner, then there might be some merit in having a term of five years attached to it, or whatever that specific term is, because you would have taken the partisanship out of it.

If you go back to the suggestion made by my colleague for Fort Langley-Aldergrove regarding the police commissioner. . . . The police commissioner is obviously a very important position that should not change when a government changes. The process was a non-partisan, or multi-partisan, approach to selecting the new police commissioner. That commissioner not only has the legitimacy of the NDP cabinet, but he has a legitimacy that extends far beyond that.

Interjection.

C. Hansen: As my colleague has reminded me, it's an appointment for a term of seven years. There could be a change of government and that person will stay in that position for a full term of seven years, and that's the way it should be. But if you're going to have a partisan appointment process -- and the minister just rejected our amendment that would have taken it out of a purely partisan nature -- then you must also allow that if the people of this province decide there should be a new government, then those that have policy positions in this province in senior capacities, like this commissioner. . . . There should be the ability for a new government to put a new person in that would reflect the policy position that that government wishes to initiate in terms of the north.

So you've got to go one of two routes: you either have to have a commissioner who has a broad base of support beyond the politics of the day, or you've got to ensure that there is no fixed term to the appointment to the office. It's got to be one or the other. Now that the minister has rejected our amendment -- and he has said no, he wants to keep it as a partisan appointment so that the NDP cabinet can choose who that person is -- then let's take the. . . . He's already rejected the non-partisan route; therefore he should not attach a term to this position, because he has to respect the wishes of the public if they wish to see a change of government in this province and a change of policy direction. So if you're going to have a partisan appointment, there should not be a fixed term attached to it. That was where I was coming from, and I will yield the floor to my colleague for North Vancouver-Seymour because I believe he has an amendment he wants to put forward.

[5:45]

Hon. D. Miller: No final decision has been made. It won't be until we get the bill.

C. Hansen: I'd mentioned an amendment that I thought my colleague was going to move, but I will move it. It's an amendment on the order paper, which is to amend section 3 by deleting subsection (2). The amendment is on the order paper, and I so move it.

[SECTION 3, line 2 by deleting subsection 2.]

On the amendment.

C. Hansen: The effect of this is to take out the provision for a term to this particular appointment. It still leaves in place the appointment by the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council, which we raised some objections to, but given that that is there and they rejected our previous amendment, we feel there should not be a specific term attached to this. That's the rationale for putting forward this amendment.

Hon. D. Miller: Again, I think that it's redundant. The absence of subsection (2) would not prohibit the government from making an appointment for five years. If it's intended to achieve something, it doesn't, so I kind of reject the amendment.

B. Penner: The minister has had an opportunity to tell us and everybody in British Columbia what the government's inclination is. The minister has been silent on whether they're inclined to make an appointment for one year, two years, three years, four years or five years. He says they'll make their announcement once the bill has passed. That's understood. But what is the minister's preference in terms of the length of appointment?

Hon. D. Miller: Really, when we say we're serious about this. . . . As the member for Peace River South indicated, there are lots of challenges in northern B.C. and lots of issues that need to be addressed. They're not ones that you're going to tackle and solve in two weeks or, in some cases, in two years. They require an ongoing effort.

One of the ones I was looking at. . . . Extensive work was done, going back, in Alberta in 1995, but it's clear, from my reading of that, that there's not been anybody on that issue and driving it relentlessly -- week after week, month after

[ Page 9255 ]

The ultimate test, in terms of the commissioner and his or her performance, is going to be how they're judged by northerners -- not by members of this chamber, but by the people in northern British Columbia, who are going to look at this office and judge whether or not it is delivering for them. That is the test that individual will have to pass, not some phony debate here. If they fail that test, then they will not be able to carry out their duties. I think it will be fairly clear. In that sense, it's not a partisan appointment. It's the appointment of someone who can work with other northerners, who can understand the issues and work with government, as well, to achieve some success over time. So it's reasonable, in describing that, to reflect the recommendations of the northern advisory committee. They wanted some security of tenure with respect to the term. We tried to listen to northerners. We tried to reflect that in this bill -- and I think that's what we ought to do.

Now, the fact that you may disagree and the fact that you weren't part of the process and weren't there is not something I can comment on. But I know the people who were there and what their recommendations were, and we've tried to reflect those in the legislation.

R. Coleman: Speaking to the amendment. . . . The reason I support the amendment is, frankly, because in the previous amendment and previous discussion, there's been no process outlined as far as advertising the job description, outcomes, directions, business plans, objectives -- how we're going to get where we want to get to and what we want this particular commissioner to deal with. Now you want to give somebody an appointment for up to five years, and you don't have a job description. You don't have an outcome. You don't have a direction you want them to go in. You don't know what they want to do. If you're going to give them a five-year appointment, one would think that you would at least go through a detailed enough process when making the selection that you're making the selection on the basis of what the plan is.

From what I've heard so far -- in the previous debate; in the debate against, in the minister's comments and the Premier's comments about the amendment -- they don't care if they don't have an evaluation process that works, because they haven't set down a job description or an outline. They haven't even set out the qualifications relative to education and background. They haven't got a process in place to do it, and they don't want to put a process in place. They just want to move ahead and appoint the commissioner.

I think the commissioner has a huge responsibility to the development activities and the economic development organizations in the north, and they should be qualified to do so. If that's the case, they should go through a process, and if and when they're hired, they should have some evaluation and the ability to be evaluated on the basis of performance. By just giving somebody a five-year term, without going through the previous processes, you're defeating the purpose of hiring a commissioner in the first place.

Amendment negatived.

Section 3 approved on division.

On section 4.

J. Weisgerber: There are some points I'd like to seek clarification on with respect to the commissioner's role. I think it's particularly important to understand what kind of ability, what kind of latitude the commissioner will have and what kind of constraints there might be on the commissioner. I believe that the commissioner is going to have to be able to travel rather broadly in order to fulfil his or her obligations. I think that the commissioner is going to have to be able to deal with people at a very senior level around the country. I look at some of the challenges that I've already identified in my own part of the world for the commissioner, and I recognize that it's going to take some considerable authority on behalf of the commissioner. So I'd like to start out by finding what kinds of constraints there might be with respect to travel for the commissioner. Is the commissioner going to be limited to travelling -- surely, not within British Columbia -- within Canada or North America? Are there going to be some constraints on a commissioner's travel outside of North America, for example?

Hon. D. Miller: No. I wouldn't say that there should be, either. One of the issues, for example, we discussed last Friday in Prince Rupert -- particularly with the government of Alberta but including the governments of the Yukon, the Northwest Territories, Saskatchewan and Manitoba -- is looking at the potential for a kind of a northern-focused trade mission -- not to suggest that we've got anything in mind. This is really an idea that came out of Alberta: could we combine forces in looking at opportunities for marketing northern B.C., northern Alberta and other northern provinces as well? So I don't think there ought to be a limitation.

My view, though, is that we've set, in a fairly arbitrary fashion, a budget for this fiscal year of $2.5 million. The bulk of that, I suspect, is in organization, office, getting the commission's staff together and travelling, initially, in northern British Columbia. I think it's very important that that be the initial task of the commissioner: to establish themselves with northern organizations, as section 4 indicates in terms of the "commissioner must," then listing some functions. So we didn't think it was necessary to put any restrictions on, but the immediate task at hand is to get that basic information from northern. . . .

J. Weisgerber: I expect that one of the controls -- and there always needs to be some controls -- that might be appropriate is the expenditures of the commission being made public in a timely fashion at the end of the fiscal year so that people could have an opportunity to examine the commissioner's travel budgets, etc. I'm not trying to fence the person in; I just don't want to see anybody turned loose with a taxpayers' credit card without some limits on it. But I sure don't want to handicap or handcuff the person in their ability to do their job.

Moving off that topic slightly, does the minister see this commissioner as a front-line person in terms of making contacts on behalf of northern communities, northern commissions, etc.? I think it's really important to understand whether this commissioner is a coordinator or whether in fact a big part of the responsibilities is being out there doing sort of front-line sales work, for want of a better term -- direct, personal contacts with business, corporate and government leaders. Does the minister foresee the commissioner out there making sales calls, for want of a better description of it? Or does the minister envision this as a sort of a coordinating, administrative job? I am very much hoping that it will be the former rather than the latter.

[ Page 9256 ]

Interjection.

Hon. D. Miller: Well, you can laugh about government, but if you took the time to understand the grain industry and the movement of grain, you'd realize that there are some serious impediments to economic development in northern B.C. that have nothing to do with the government of B.C. but have everything to do with the whole system of grain movement. Or the issues around CN Railways. . . . All you have to do is do a bit of research, and you'll understand those things. But who's done the research? Who's put it all together as part of a comprehensive strategy, understanding where the leverage is in terms of negotiation and those kinds of things? It hasn't been done. Those are the kinds of areas I'd like to see some work done on by the commission. There are a variety of other areas, not just grain, where those same conditions exist. Once that strategy is developed, then you'll really have something more to sell. So I think those are the stages in the evolution of the commission's job.

[6:00]

I thought then that it was probably logical for one to look at the national strategy, the federal government's economic strategy. Perhaps I could somehow niche into that strategy for our regional strategy. To make a long story short, what I found was that there were only two free economies in the world that had economic strategies in the broadest and truest sense of the word: Japan and Germany. Beyond that, all of the other entities in the western economic world operated and continue to operate without an economic strategy. I don't think that should particularly deter us, although perhaps it suggests the enormity of the job.

Again, while I think it's important for the commissioner to have a mind to that, it would be very easy for a commissioner to simply become absorbed and engrossed in trying to develop a strategy. It may well be that he or she will be obliged to spend a lot more time with the specifics, with the opportunities that we know exist, and allow, along with other agencies, for the development of a longer-term strategy for the north. I guess what I'm saying is that I see issues like the ones I've mentioned with respect to grain-handling and the problems that are there in Tumbler Ridge. . . . I'd really hate for those issues to kind of be put on the back burner while somebody went about trying to develop a broad northern economic strategy. I think it's going to be important to address those things like grain-handling across the north, etc.

I'm not sure what the agenda is tonight. I'm not sure whether there's a desire to break. I've got a number of points that I'd like to deal with under this section; however, I'll take my seat. If there's a desire to break for dinner, I'll let the minister take that activity. If not, we can just continue with this debate.

Hon. D. Miller: I was going to echo the member's statement: I'm not sure what the agenda is either. I thought we would have passed this about two hours ago.

I move the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

[The Speaker in the chair.]

The committee, having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.

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

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

Motion approved.

The House recessed from 6:06 p.m. to 7:06 p.m.

[W. Hartley in the chair.]

Hon. J. MacPhail: In committee A, I call Committee of Supply. For the information of members, we will be debating the estimates of the Ministry of Environment. In this House, I call Committee of the Whole on Bill 27.

NORTHERN DEVELOPMENT ACT
(continued)

On section 4 (continued).

J. Weisgerber: I thought I ended on a question, but perhaps not. Perhaps, for the benefit of the minister, I will just try to get a better sense on the issue of the activities of the commissioner. We're talking about developing an economic strategy but also balancing the more immediate needs. Perhaps, on reflection, it was more a statement and less a question. Let me move on to something that is a more direct question.

With respect to section 4(c) and coordinating the activities of northern development commissioners, I assume those are

[ Page 9257 ]

My first question for the minister is: do you foresee the commissioner having any direct role in the level of provincial funding for these economic development organizations, municipal and regional? Government has, through various mechanisms, provided financial support for local economic development commissions and economic development officers. I'm wondering whether the commissioner is to have a direct role in financing the commissions and the commissioners or whether he's to play a broader and more general coordinating role with them.

Hon. D. Miller: Yes, the member's right; there are economic development officers, some of long standing, in municipalities, etc. The regional economic development system that was in place and provincially supported is largely gone.

The purpose of the section is really to require the commissioner to consult with. . . . I mentioned the Northwest Communities Coalition as one example of an organization that's come together to, in the main, promote economic development in the northwest region. There are others around the north, some that are established and have been there for a while and some that, perhaps, are fairly new. The intent here is for the commissioner to meet and interact with those groups. I suspect you may see change over time. I think, as the intent in terms of trying to connect northerners progresses, there may be some desire on the part of northerners to have an integrated network. But I think we'd like to see that flow out of those discussions, as opposed to superimposing it.

J. Weisgerber: If, hypothetically, the commissioner were pursuing an initiative, an opportunity, and wanted to take one of the local economic development officers along -- perhaps someone who had better knowledge of Dawson Creek, for example -- is there anything in the legislation that would prohibit the commissioner from saying: "Look, I can look after your expenses. I can't pay you, but we would very much like to have you come along on this mission to Calgary to talk to the grain companies. We know that your budgets are very limited, but we have the capacity to cover some of your out-of-pocket expenses in order to make a more effective presentation on an issue"? I don't know if the minister has thought about that. I don't know if this is being too finite in terms of what the role and the limits of the commissioner might be, but it would be nice to see the commissioner given some flexibility in that area.

Hon. D. Miller: I can take those comments and refer them to the commissioner when we've established one. Again, I suggest there will be issues that will evolve. I know that there are economic development officers, as you've indicated. I spoke to Dale McMann in Prince George, for example, not long ago -- who, by the way, was very enthusiastic about what we're doing. They do have some resources. Some very small communities are probably limited in their resources, but some of the larger communities do have the resources to participate fully and to support their people if they're part of a broader initiative.

P. Nettleton: Through the chair to the minister, could you, perhaps, for my benefit, give me one or two examples of aboriginal organizations which deal with economic development?

Hon. D. Miller: I know that, at least in my constituency, the Tsimshian tribal council, particularly the Lax-Kw'alaams band, do have an economic development corporation. They've been engaged in forestry and other activities. They're looking for other opportunities. The longstanding involvement of the Carrier-Sekani in the forestry industry. . . . I don't have a list with me, but there have been literally dozens of groups -- such as the Tahltan Nation Development Corp. -- that I've had relationships with over the years. My view, and it's supported broadly by aboriginal communities in northern B.C., is that they're looking for opportunities for economic development.

Sections 4 to 7 inclusive passed.

On section 8.

M. de Jong: With respect to the section which is a further enumeration of some of the issues that the commissioner needs to take account of, insofar as the work he or she undertakes. . . . They are general by their nature, but I'd like to ask the minister about section 8, subsection (d), where the legislation charges the commissioner to "have regard for. . .other governments," and what that means to the minister, at least.

Hon. D. Miller: Well, there are only a few other governments. One's federal and, I guess, municipal and regional are levels of government. Really, it's broad and -- you're right -- very general in terms of trying to outline in a broad way issues that the commissioner must take into account in terms of fulfilling his or her duties.

M. de Jong: Is there a more formal liaison process contemplated between, for example, regional district governments or local governments?

[6:45]

M. de Jong: I have a similar type of question as it relates to section 8(e) and, I guess, more particularly to the case of aboriginal peoples. There are, of course, ongoing discussions around the issue of self-government for aboriginal peoples. My sense of this document is that it matters not what form the self-government takes or whether that is enshrined in a treaty

[ Page 9258 ]

Hon. D. Miller: Yes. One could argue that even now, if you accept the definition of municipal government as being a government, then why would you not say: "Well, a band council is a governing body with respect to aboriginal communities or at least reserve communities"? The commissioner and the commission are going to be very important. When they established my title as Minister of Energy and Mines and Minister Responsible for Northern Development. . . . There is no ministry staff particularly allocated to Northern Development. It's not a line ministry. While I'm engaged as the Minister of Energy and Mines in trying to reach agreement with aboriginal communities. . . . Treaty 8 is one that members are aware of, because that's been discussed in this House, and that's being directed right from my ministry.

There is no line function within the Ministry of Energy and Mines to be out there on the ground, except when it comes to a specific mining project or oil and gas. So the commission is, in a real way, an entity on the ground in northern B.C. that can, in a slightly different way, almost independently -- not as an agency or an arm of government, but independent in the terms of this bill -- carry out those kinds of functions. There are serious problems, as the member is probably well aware, in terms of employment levels in aboriginal communities. It's very difficult sometimes to try to develop economic opportunities. It's challenging. It requires working with the private sector and others to see if you can put those kinds of things together. Having a commission on the ground with some responsibility to play a role will be helpful.

M. de Jong: That's helpful. Does the minister see a role for the commissioner that would revolve around the consultative obligations that have become very much an issue since the Delgamuukw decision? We have seen some litigation in the last several weeks that has established the relevance of that issue and the obligation that the courts have placed on the provincial government to engage in that consultation. Does the minister see that as being a function of what this commissioner does, in so far as partly discharging that obligation that the state now has?

Hon. D. Miller: No, not at all. That's not the role of the commission. The commission is to work with, generally speaking -- and we've talked about that in these two sections -- aboriginal and non-aboriginal organizations in the north who are pursuing economic development objectives. The Oil and Gas Commission -- and I don't want to deviate too much; we haven't really got into that debate -- will have more of a mandate in terms of the consultation that's required as a result of that court decision, but not the northern commissioner.

Section 8 approved.

On section 9.

D. Jarvis: I wonder if the minister would give us a further explanation or clarify the intent of: "The commissioner must consult with northern residents as needed." Would he give us the intent of "consult. . .as needed"?

Hon. D. Miller: You'll find throughout the bill. . . . I think you could argue that the last two sections contain some generalizations, but they're important because they define some obligations of the commissioner, and I think it's important to put them in there. It's very difficult to actually specify in detailed form the method of consultation and those kinds of things; but we're really putting in here as an imperative that the commissioner has an obligation to consult with northerners as needed.

D. Jarvis: I'm just wondering if the minister could say. . . . You know, are we talking about a yearly report to the northern residents, or one on a specific project that may come up or something along that line? Is he going to them to get recommendations on some things. . .or on what northern residents feel is an acceptable deal that may come forth or on a change in the policy up there?

Hon. D. Miller: No, but let me give a hypothetical. Let's say the Northwest Communities Coalition was having a meeting and said to the commissioner: "We would like you to come and talk to us about your role, and we'd like to talk to you about our role and see where the two might come together." This clearly puts an obligation on the commissioner to do that.

D. Jarvis: Therefore he's ostensibly on call. If a citizens' group or a group of companies get together and have an idea, then he is at their beck and call to attend.

Hon. D. Miller: Very much so. The office is being created to serve northerners. They are generally, I think, supportive of it. And I did say earlier that the commissioner has to establish himself or herself on the ground. They've got to get the confidence of people in northern B.C., and I've no hesitation in saying that I'm sure that will happen. But in general terms, these issues are outlined in this piece of legislation.

J. Wilson: On this consultation process, I'm not quite clear as to where the minister is going here. A consultation process should already be in place, or designed, that would be acted on. What I would like to know is: is there a plan in place for the commissioner to get out, perhaps travel around, hold meetings, ask people to come in -- and advertise these things -- in an effort to find out what the problems are? Or will he simply sit in his office and when the phone rings and someone says, "We have a problem; we need some help here," then it'll be reactive. In the past there's been a lot of frustration created by the way that certain ministries do their consultation in the north. It leaves a lot to be desired in some cases.

Hon. D. Miller: Yeah. I've generally said that my expectation of the commissioner. . . . Once it is established, by the way, the commission has to provide a budget and a business plan. But they better not be sitting on their backsides in Prince George; I want to see them out on the road, living out of a suitcase.

P. Nettleton: One of the concerns that I have with reference to the consultation process, which is referred to in section 9 of Bill 27, is: given that the minister seems to be taking the position that, in fact, the appointment will indeed be a partisan appointment. . . . I have some very real concerns that flow from that, with reference to the ability of a partisan appointee to work with and consult with others who may not meet his particular ideological bent. So perhaps the minister could respond to those concerns.

Hon. D. Miller: Well, I don't foresee any difficulty. I regularly consult with northerners, with people of opposite --

[ Page 9259 ]

P. Nettleton: I guess one of the concerns that we've had from the outset with a partisan appointee is that there are some obstacles there in terms of his ability to consult with, work with and coordinate things with various groups. It seems to me that it would be a much simpler job for all of us -- it'd be much more effective -- if in fact one were able to get around this whole notion of partisanship. I'm just wondering if perhaps the minister, with reference to partisanship, might have some suggestions as to how it is he could work with, for instance, myself as an MLA -- with obviously a very partisan position on a number of issues. How is it that you anticipate this appointee will work with me?

Hon. D. Miller: I really can't speak for the member, Mr. Chairman, but I have no difficulty working with the member for Peace River South or the member for Peace River North. So I can't anticipate any problem.

Section 9 approved.

On section 10.

D. Jarvis: I wonder if the minister could explain when he says: "The commissioner may invite other governments. . . ." What I wanted to know was: what authority would that commissioner have with these other governments? If he invites them to join in an activity or some kind of a project, would he have to then -- before he agrees with those other governments; he is not of the same status as them -- report back to the minister?

Hon. D. Miller: Well, again, I'll give you one example of something that I think should occur, and that is an interaction with the Northern Alberta Development Council, because many of the issues that are germane to northern B.C. are the same issues in northern Alberta. The fact that Walter Paszkowski , the Minister of Transportation and Highways, and Pat Nelson, the Minister of Economic Development, from Alberta and I are working very closely together suggests that our commissioner should become acquainted with the Northern Alberta Development Council and their staff to see how they could perhaps even combine forces in terms of some of these initiatives.

D. Jarvis: But this commissioner still wouldn't have any authority to sign any agreements to commit the British Columbia government to anything.

[7:00]

M. de Jong: Does the commissioner. . . ? And now I'm speaking of intraprovincial governments -- regional districts and municipal governments. The commissioner is a creature of statute, as are those two other levels of government. The section allows for the invitation to be made by the commissioner. I guess the question those levels of government would have is: Does this bestow upon the commissioner the ability to compel either of those statutory governments -- regional districts or municipal governments -- to involve themselves in a project that the commissioner deems worthy?

Hon. D. Miller: No.

C. Hansen: The questions that have been asked of the minister on this section so far have basically been about whether or not this section confers any special powers on the commissioner. I think the minister's answer consistently has been no. I would like to ask the minister why this section is even in here. If this section were totally removed, would it in any way limit the powers of the commissioner?

Hon. D. Miller: No. In fact, you see that -- and I think I've said this twice now -- there are provisions in the bill that are quite general in nature in terms of describing both the role of the commission and various things that the commissioner is required to do. I guess you could argue -- I wouldn't, but you could argue -- that government could create a northern commissioner without a piece of legislation. But what's important for northerners -- it's really important, coming out of the summit; and this is their recommendation -- is that we follow this course of action. They wanted a bill; they wanted the commissioner defined. So in laying that out, there is a fair amount of generality in this bill. It's general, but I think it's also important -- if you read it -- in terms of the obligation to consult and those kinds of things.

C. Hansen: I gather what the minister's saying is that the language in these sections is largely symbolic -- that it's not required; it's somewhat redundant in terms of the effective operations of the commissioner. This is language that, I guess, doesn't confer on the commissioner any special legal powers that would not be there otherwise. That's my question.

Hon. D. Miller: Yeah, I think that's generally true. Following the line of questioning in terms of the position of the commissioner vis-à-vis other levels of government and those kinds of things, it generally describes, and tries to be fairly all-encompassing in terms of, the kind of range of duties the commissioner ought to undertake. I repeat that what's important here is that this is what northerners wanted. They wanted it enshrined in legislation. They didn't want it to be subject to the whim of government -- whether there was a commissioner in place or not. I think that's important in terms of respecting the results of the previous summit.

Section 10 approved.

On section 11.

C. Hansen: Earlier in the discussion, the minister indicated that this commissioner would be remunerated at the level of associate deputy minister, I believe. I just wonder if the minister could outline for us, in addition, what that salary range would be and what other benefits might come with a position of this nature. For example, would that package include a car? Associate deputy ministers in Victoria, perhaps, may not require vehicles. I'm just wondering if the minister could explain the full package, not just the remuneration but the other benefits that may come along with it.

Hon. D. Miller: Well, associate deputy offers some advantages versus deputy, I believe. The salary is in the $100,000 range -- I don't know exactly what it is. Yes, they would have a vehicle. In fact, I'd insist, even if it weren't something an associate would normally have. I would insist

[ Page 9260 ]

Interjection.

Hon. D. Miller: SkyTrain, yeah.

I think there's less of an obligation than would normally go with a deputy's position. I think, looking at the range of both salary and benefits that would accrue to a deputy under the normal provisions, this is somewhat less. I don't think, for example. . . . I'm not fully conversant on this. But I don't think, for example, that this individual could be part of a deputy's pension arrangements. So that's why we chose associate deputy as opposed to deputy -- because of those reasons.

Section 11 approved.

On section 12.

C. Hansen: This section, I think, is probably the blank-cheque section that gives a lot of people concern. I'm wondering if the minister can allay fears for those of us who see it as a blank cheque in terms of what kind of. . . . The way I read this is that this is statutory power for the commissioner to basically build as big an empire as he wants. There are probably many public servants that would love to have this kind of power. I'm wondering if the minister could explain to us what the limitations are on the kinds of powers that are being conferred on the commissioner in this section.

Hon. D. Miller: I indicated earlier that we would require a business plan. This is not going to be a huge bureaucracy. I'm not certain at the end of the day how many staff, but it would be in the half-a-dozen-plus range, I suspect. I've looked at and have mentioned the Northern Alberta Development Council. It's clear that they're not a big bureaucracy. What they do is: if they think that a particular area needs, for example, a consultant's report, then they'll hire that expertise to do that report. This will be a somewhat similar model. The ultimate responsibility in fact rests with myself as the minister. I'm the one who is accountable in this Legislature for the expenditures of the commission. The normal kind of vetting processes exist, so I'm not concerned that anything untoward will happen.

C. Hansen: The minister may not be concerned, but certainly the language that's in this bill does not give that kind of comfort. The language in the bill really does give the commissioner carte blanche to hire whatever staff he or she feels is appropriate. The minister talked about a business plan, but that's not what it says. The fact that there is no language in here that says: "Pursuant to the approval of a business plan by the minister, the commissioner may hire staff. . . ." Could the minister explain why there wasn't at least that kind of provision put in to give the minister some power and some control in order to fulfil the. . . ? I recognize the minister has the accountability, but after-the-fact accountability is not necessarily what would serve the interests of frugal spending.

Hon. D. Miller: I don't know that it is normally a thing that you spell out in legislation. The normal procedures that apply to government in terms of expenditure control and those kinds of things apply here. So I repeat: I just don't have any concern about it.

C. Hansen: I'm wondering if the minister could explain why the power to select staff is given solely to the commissioner and the hiring is not through the Public Service Commission.

Hon. D. Miller: I did say earlier that it's not an arm of government; it's not a branch of my ministry. There was a real demand by northerners that this be seen as a northern agency, that in fact northerners be hired to fill these spots. We've agreed with that. So they're outside of the normal channels of government; they're not a branch of my ministry.

C. Hansen: My reading of this section is that the commissioner basically has the power to hire as many staff as he wants and has the power to hire whomever he wants, that there is no other accountability. You talk about the accountability of the minister, but that accountability is basically if the commissioner does something that the government doesn't like, whoever is in opposition at the time is going to make a scene -- hold the minister accountable for actions that he or she may not have any control over. The commissioner has the control. The commissioner gets to hire the people. The commissioner gets to decide on their salaries and decide how many. . . . Let me just give the minister a scenario. In the next election, we have a commissioner in place who is hired through this partisan route, and for a term of five years. There is a change of government; there is a new minister. How does that minister deliver on the accountability? What's the vehicle by which government can rein in the actions of this commissioner, if government considers those actions to be an abuse of this position?

Hon. D. Miller: Well, section 13 -- moving past section 12 -- deals with the commission with respect to hiring employees. I'm tempted to say that I've heard some hypothetical situations put forward, but that's really an extreme one that the member has just suggested. I can't, for the life of me, even imagine that that might happen.

M. de Jong: Can the minister explain how funds make their way to the commissioner? For example, when we stand here again next year and engage in the minister's estimates, will we see an allocation for the commissioner's budget in his vote? Where will that appear?

Hon. D. Miller: Yes, that's correct.

M. de Jong: Recognizing that the estimates have been completed for this year, do they -- the ones that have been considered this year, that the minister has debated and for which the vote has passed. . . ? Does that vote contemplate an allocation to this office?

Hon. D. Miller: Yes, it does. Earlier, I mentioned the figure $2.5 million. But all of that is subject to a business plan being presented to me before any moneys would flow.

J. Wilson: The wording here kind of intrigues me. It says the commissioner "may engage or retain specialists or consultants." On a retainer basis, the commissioner could appoint an awful lot of friends to be on call, should he need them. But every retainer has a fee to it. So could the minister clarify this? Will there be specialists and consultants retained on a retainer fee, even though they're not doing any work?

Hon. D. Miller: No.

[ Page 9261 ]

On section 14.

D. Jarvis: "Each year the commissioner must give to the minister a report concerning the commissioner's activities. . . ." Could you explain. . . ? Is that an annual report? Is that a financial report? Or is it just a report of the comings and goings of the commissioner and the pending or completed deals that he might have made over the term of that year?

Hon. D. Miller: I think it's important that this kind of entity have a requirement of reporting to the Legislature -- in this case, through me as the minister. That's normal. Crown corporations, for example, are required to submit reports, and they are tabled in this House through the minister.

D. Jarvis: I assumed that's what it was, but I wanted a little clarification anyway.

I want to put forward an amendment to section 14, as on the order paper.

[SECTION 14, by adding the text highlighted in bold:

Yearly report to the Legislative Assembly

14 (1) Each year the commissioner must give to the minister a report concerning the commissioner's activities under this Act since the last report was made under this section.

(2) The minister must promptly lay the report before the Legislative Assembly if it is in session and, if the Legislative Assembly is not in session the report shall be submitted to the Speaker, whereupon it will be deemed public.]

On the amendment.

D. Jarvis: Again, I think the minister should be aware that in this section, where he has stated. . . . The amended section 14(2) states: "The minister must promptly lay the report before the Legislative Assembly if it is in session and, if the Legislative Assembly is not in session the report shall be submitted to the Speaker. . . ." The thing we're questioning is the fact that it could be a long time -- over a year or so even, between sessions. We have seen that happen when they first got elected. So the report could be. . . . Even if the Legislature is not in session, why couldn't we consider that? Ostensibly it's sort of an annual report; we'll get a report from them every year and on the year, whether we're in session or not. The key to that is they're submitted to the Speaker, and then it will become a public document at that point.

[7:15]

Interjections.

Hon. D. Miller: If I were mean and vindictive, I would say: "Because it took two and a half hours or three hours to do nothing." That could be a reason.

But there's only one caution to have, and perhaps the members opposite might wish to speak to this. Again, I believe that in the normal course of events, reports that are forwarded to the minister with an obligation to be tabled in the Legislature have some. . . . There may be some issues with respect to the rights of the members and others to see that first -- to be tabled here before it's made public. I don't know if that's too fine a point or if people aren't concerned about that, but perhaps you might want to put on the record that that's not a concern. With that, I don't see any particular reason why we couldn't accept the amendment.

I've just taken some advice. If the members would give us just a second, the Clerk is suggesting that a more appropriate wording might be to "table with the Clerk of the House" as opposed to "the Speaker." Give us a minute, and we'll. . . .

The Chair: We'll just stand down this section, while we do that, and look at section 15.

On section 15.

D. Jarvis: Is it really necessary that the commissioner's head office be in Prince George? Why not some other location? Has the minister looked into the aspect of other places?

Interjection.

D. Jarvis: I have nothing against Prince George, except that Prince George is in the southern half of British Columbia. It's on the top of the southern half, but it's not in the physical north. The so-called Mason-Dixon line is north of Prince George, and I wonder if the ministry ever considered putting the head office in the actual north.

Hon. D. Miller: The member should be aware that I'm going to mail his remarks to the people in Prince George. And I guess if I suggested that we put it in Prince Rupert, we might have a really stormy debate in this Legislature. The fact is. . . .

An Hon. Member: Put it in Prince Rupert.

Hon. D. Miller: Well, that's not a bad idea; you know, I could be persuaded. But I think most people recognize that Prince George, in terms of our definition, is in northern British Columbia. It's the home of the main campus -- not the only campus -- of the University of Northern British Columbia. I don't know what the member for Prince George-Omineca thinks about those statements that you just made, but I guess he could correct the record if he wants to. From a transportation logistics point of view and not from any kind of favouritism point of view, Prince George is the logical place to headquarter the commission.

P. Nettleton: For the record, I am fully supportive of section 15(1): "The head office of the commissioner must be in Prince George." Prince George is in fact the hub of the north, and it's a wonderful location. Beyond that, however, I see that provision is made in subsection (2) to establish and maintain offices outside of Prince George for those who have concerns about Prince George having the head office. Perhaps, while I'm on my feet, I might put the question to the minister: has the minister given any thought -- and I'm sure he has -- to where he may locate offices outside of Prince George?

Hon. D. Miller: Well, I don't want any offices located outside of Prince George right now. If I see that the commission has a tendency to start opening up offices all over the place, I'll be on their back really quickly. This isn't about offices; this is about a small corps of people actually doing some work. I accept your strong support of the office being located in Prince George with the greatest respect, even

[ Page 9262 ]

P. Nettleton: Well, to respond to the minister's comments. . . .

Interjection.

P. Nettleton: I don't have to? Well, I think that I should just briefly, if I may.

The comment I made was that this document is an indication of failure. It's an admission of failure. Were it not for the fact that we have various government representatives in northern British Columbia who are ineffective, ineffectual, and who are not doing their jobs, we wouldn't need a northern commissioner. I mean, that's my position; it's always been my position. Nothing has changed. The fact that we now need a northern commissioner suggests that the government members need help; this minister needs help.

I think we have somewhat reluctantly agreed to the creation of the office of commissioner. We have some very real concerns with the partisan approach of the minister in terms of his appointment to the office of commissioner. But having said that, at the end of the day, we hope that something good comes out of this. I don't think there's anything inconsistent about having taken those positions. The minister may want to comment on that.

Hon. D. Miller: Well, I would suggest to the member that if he wants to be consistent he should vote against the legislation, because it's awfully hard to have a foot on both sides of the road -- and sometimes painful.

Section 15 approved.

On the amendment to section 14.

Hon. D. Miller: The wording that now is in the proposed amendment is: "The minister must promptly lay the report before the Legislative Assembly if it is in session and, if the Legislative Assembly is not in session, the report must be filed with the Clerk of the Legislative Assembly."

Amendment approved.

Section 14 as amended approved.

On section 16.

C. Hansen: I just want to ask the minister where the budget for the freedom-of-information. . . . Most agencies and commissions have a freedom-of-information officer assigned to them, and there's a budget that usually provides for that. I'm wondering if it is the minister's freedom-of-information officer that would be processing the requests that may come under this section.

Hon. D. Miller: On the assumption that I have one, yes.

Sections 16 and 17 approved.

Title approved.

The House resumed; W. Hartley in the chair.

Bill 27, Northern Development Act, reported complete with amendment to be considered at the next sitting of the House after today.

Hon. D. Miller: I call second reading of Bill 22.

MENTAL HEALTH AMENDMENT ACT, 1998
(second reading)

As we announced in January of this year, our mental health plan will help to improve the quality of care for people with serious and persistent mental illnesses. The plan has been developed through extensive consultation with the mental health community and incorporates the latest North American guidelines for best practices in mental health care. These guidelines were researched by the Clarke Institute of Psychiatry in Toronto for the Federal-Provincial-Territorial Advisory Network on Mental Health and were compiled in a document called "Best Practices in Mental Health Reform," to assist the provinces in developing the most effective mental health services. A number of mental health services models from British Columbia are actually featured in this report. This legislation establishes the legal supports that are necessary for successful implementation of the seven-year mental health plan.

This bill provides for amendments to the Mental Health Act that will help to keep people healthy within the community, prevent repeat hospitalizations and provide new protections for patients' rights. All too often, people with mental illness have experienced revolving-door care, repeated hospitalizations and poor linkages to community mental health care. It is part of the nature of mental illness that often those most in need of care and treatment are unable to recognize this. A small minority of people with serious mental illnesses, especially during the acute phase, do not understand that following a treatment program will enable them to live successfully in the community.

[7:30]

Extended leave has been possible under the Mental Health Act for many years, but in the past it hasn't been used consistently. Bill 22 clarifies the use of extended leave and will help ensure that in the future extended leave is used more effectively and balances the safety and rights of patients and the community.

To protect patients on extended leave, the following changes are being made to the legislation: if a patient has been

[ Page 9263 ]

To improve access to treatment, the criteria for obtaining a court order for involuntary admissions and treatment will also be amended. The requirement that a person's mental condition must deteriorate to the point of being "dangerous to be at large" -- which is the wording that is used in the act -- before the court may act will be eliminated. The courts will now use the criteria used by physicians, which are more consistent with other provinces and will lead to better outcomes for patients.

The amendments also address initial admissions. Initial involuntary admissions of mentally disordered persons for examination or treatment for up to 72 hours will now require only one medical certificate to be completed by a physician, instead of two. Further detention for involuntary treatment will require that a second medical certificate from a different physician be completed within the initial 72-hour period. This change brings B.C. in line with legislation in almost every other province and will help to ensure that more thorough examinations will occur before a patient is certified for more than 72 hours.

Physicians, review panels and the courts will now be required, before discharging an involuntary patient, to consider the patient's history of mental disorder and whether the patient is, if discharged, likely to fail to comply with treatment necessary to prevent the repeated hospitalization. If so, again, involuntary treatment may be continued.

These amendments are designed to facilitate early intervention, and for those people whose mental illness causes them to refuse necessary treatment, to facilitate mandatory treatment in a community setting rather than through detention in a hospital or an institution.

British Columbians with severe mental illness are vulnerable members of our society. Amendments to the act will help to safeguard patients' rights while ensuring that they receive access to effective care. Involuntary patients will have the right to obtain a second medical opinion on the appropriateness of the treatment plan. Family members will also have a greater opportunity to be involved in the planning and management of their relatives' care, where this is consistent with quality care for the patient.

An amendment will require the patient's family to be notified when a review panel hearing for the patient is requested and when the patient is discharged. A number of minor amendments will also make it easier for clinicians, consumers and families to understand and use the act. These changes clarify and simplify the terminology contained in the act, making it clear, for example, that the term "treatment" refers specifically to psychiatric treatment and that when the act must refer to all three types of facilities for involuntary treatment -- that is, provincial mental health facilities, psychiatric units and observation units -- there is a simple term, "designated units" used to encompass the more cumbersome description.

This government is committed to working in partnership with consumers, families, communities and health authorities to improve mental health services in British Columbia. These amendments will improve access to treatment for people with serious mental illness, reduce the need for repeat hospitalizations, safeguard patients' rights, and make the act more consistent and easier to use for consumers and families.

I'm pleased to present these amendments to the House, and I move second reading of the bill.

S. Hawkins: I'm pleased to rise to speak to Bill 22. We've had a chance to look at this bill, and there are changes to the Mental Health Act that leave a lot of room for concern, to tell you the truth. I believe these changes arise because of the very serious gaps, the neglect and the lack of planning in the mental health system over the past six years. Frankly, a lot of these changes come as a result of coroners' juries that have made recommendations because of the serious nature of the gaps and neglect in mental health in the past few years.

The Ministry of Health has the responsibility for providing services for the mentally ill. We know that at any given time, a significant portion of the population suffers from mental illness -- up to 20 percent of the population. About 3 to 5 percent suffer from serious mental illnesses such as schizophrenia, bipolar disorder and/or some kind of paranoid disorder. We know that the Ministry of Health has fallen down on its responsibility to the mentally ill and their families in the past six or seven years.

We've witnessed horror stories about the plight of the mentally ill. They were crying for help, and the government refused to listen. A lot of these changes come out of recommendations of coroners' juries -- that is, after the poor afflicted people died and their deaths were reviewed. Many of these changes arise out of tragic, tragic stories. We can look at examples like the Riverview downsizing, and we know that it was a failure because of lack of planning -- in part because government resources that were supposed to be transferred to the communities were never transferred.

The headlines in the past few years have not been flattering, either, and speak to the neglect of some of the most sick and vulnerable people in our society. I point to headlines like one on November 26, 1995, in the Province: "Cutbacks Are a Guessing Game: Nobody Keeps Track of Fate of Former Patients." In this article, it says:

"Downsizing plans for Riverview Hospital are based on best wishes and soft guesses. A three-month Province investigation found that thousands of mentally ill are filling skid row welfare hotels, emergency psychiatric wards and jails. Nobody keeps track of the untold numbers who have died accidentally or committed suicide as a result of their mental illness."

[ Page 9264 ]

In the same article, psychiatrist Dr. Phillip Long, who apparently has won national recognition for his work with schizophrenics, says: " 'It's the criminalization of the insane. . . . Those numbers are what you would expect if the hospital system is breaking down.' " We have certainly witnessed that in the last five to six years in this province.

Hon. Speaker, the government knew that people were ending up in jail, but they did nothing about it. The consequences of not listening are tragic. Here's another one, again from the Province: "Murder and Madness: A Risky Game," says the headline. "The innocent pay with their lives when the system fails the mentally ill." This article says:

"A Province investigation has turned up eight murders and two attempted murders by mentally ill individuals since 1990 -- all of them the result of failures in our mental health system. One man with a history of mental problems is awaiting trial for murder. Another is awaiting trial for attempted murder. Two patients in psychotic states were killed by police. Countless numbers of mentally ill have killed themselves. They remain countless because the B.C. coroner's service has buried figures on their deaths by refusing to report them separately from other suicides."

This is what a family member of a young lady that committed suicide felt the mental health system was doing for his daughter. Mr. Barrass lost his faith in this government and in the NDP's management of the mental health care system. He lost more, though: he lost a daughter. Hopefully, this government had learned and the lessons that they learned from the recommendations arising out of the coroner's inquiry will serve some good purpose. I notice some of them in the act.

We know that for the past six years, this government did not have a strategy or plan for the mentally ill. In fact, it's often been said -- I've read it in the paper and it's kind of hard to believe, but I think it's a very real fact -- that the Criminal Code became the Mental Health Act of the 1990s. By closing hospital beds and downsizing Riverview Hospital, contrary to advice from mental health advocates, patients and a lot of people. . . . This government went ahead and downsized Riverview Hospital, and the savings, the money from the downsizing, didn't flow to community services. As a result of this, the new address for the mentally ill became jails, hostels for the homeless and the street.

[7:45]

I recall that the Ministry of Health, in February of this year, admitted that as many as 25 percent of inmates in provincial jails are mentally ill. That's some confession to make. This paints a very, very sorry and sad picture of this government's treatment of the mentally ill. We have a ministry that says: "Yes, we recognize that about 25 percent of the inmates in jail are mentally ill."

The mentally ill weren't falling into the forensic system. They were pushed into it; they were driven into it by this government. This government had no plan. For the last five, six or seven years, advocates have been crying out for a plan. They recognize what the government was doing in downsizing Riverview -- in cutting resources, because when they downsized Riverview, as I said before, that money didn't flow to community resources. There was nothing for patients when they were discharged, and there were no new resources going into services for the mentally ill. I understand that the police are used to picking up mentally ill patients and taking them to the hospital. Here we have a system where the police are acting as gatekeepers.

With deinstitutionalization and closure of hospital beds -- and, I might add, closure of a major downtown Vancouver hospital that probably saw a lot of the mentally ill in Vancouver alone -- hospitals are caught between a rock and a hard place. I took the opportunity before Christmas to spend an evening on a shift in a busy downtown Vancouver hospital -- St. Paul's Hospital. I wanted to observe for myself. It just happened to be the day after Welfare Wednesday, because I was told either Welfare Wednesday or the day after would be a good time to come in and observe the emergency room to see how incredibly busy and run off their feet they are.

For eight hours I watched as doctors, nurses, police, ambulance personnel, social workers and many others struggled to care for patients admitted, sometimes after very long waits. At least one-quarter of the patients that were admitted to that emergency department that night were mentally ill. In fact, I understand that that hospital has hired a permanent person on evenings and nights on those shifts to handle patients that come through with mental illnesses, because the doctors and the nurses and the police and the ambulance personnel just don't have time. That person was run ragged that night.

We saw quite a few people -- I mean, it's an inner-city, downtown hospital. . . . We saw a lot of people come through that evening with different degrees of mental illness, with one social worker or counsellor on shift to attend to those people. You know, it's a sad statement about the kind of resources that are out there in our community that these people, these mentally patients, feel they have to either come to the hospital, go out on the street, have their families call the police or be dragged off to jail to get the attention and the treatment they need.

In the community today there is such a gross shortage of appropriate supports and housing for the isolated and deinstitutionalized that this is where we're finding a lot of the mentally ill. We are finding them in hospital emergency rooms, in jails, out on the street -- nowhere to go.

[ Page 9265 ]

The cumulative result of the deinstitutionalization policy that this government implemented in the early nineties in downsizing Riverview Hospital -- and the lack of or, I should say, inadequate resources; or maybe I should even say nonexistent community services and supports -- has led to an unprecedented increase in the numbers of unsupported mentally ill patients who find themselves untreated, in the corrections system or caught up in the never-ending saga of short-term hospital treatment that can only be accessed by entering the criminal justice system. So again, that's the vicious cycle that I've been talking about.

I haven't even started talking about housing. Housing is a huge problem for the mentally ill, an absolutely huge problem. I'm sure all of us in our ridings that we represent get letters from families, from patients, from advocates concerned with housing for mentally ill patients. I get tons of letters, and I know. . . . We know -- because my colleagues share the letters; we discuss the problems -- that good housing is hard to find. It's been said that safe, supportive housing can make the difference between a healthy existence and a cycle of sickness for people with mental illness. With poor housing and initially little continuity of support systems, and people often having nowhere to turn, these patients slip through the gaps, and they face a horrible existence as they struggle with their illness.

There is a great need for supported housing. The legislative changes in this bill will not stand if there are not housing initiatives that follow these changes. We will be watching closely, very closely. . . .

Deputy Speaker: Excuse me, member. It would appear that we have a division in the other House. We'll take a recess for as long as it takes to complete the vote in Committee A.

The House recessed from 7:54 p.m. to 8:02 p.m.

[W. Hartley in the chair.]

S. Hawkins: I was talking about housing being a huge problem for the mentally ill. Certainly, since the downsizing of Riverview Hospital, we have found that to be quite a significant problem that the advocates and families and patients themselves have raised in the past several years of the NDP's mismanagement of the system. I think I made the point before we broke, hon. Speaker, that safe, supportive housing can really make the difference between a healthy existence and a cycle of sickness for people with mental illness.

We know that unless housing initiatives are followed by changes in this bill, the changes will not be successful. We will be watching very closely for housing initiatives to actually be put in place for the mentally ill -- not just the press releases and the announcements that come from the minister but the actual commitment and actual housing put into place for the mentally ill.

Just before Christmas last year, I went to skid row on the downtown east side of Vancouver. I visited a rooming house, typical of rooming houses in that area that many people live in. I went out with the aboriginal street nurse who visits these patients on a regular basis. If I had to choose one word to describe the rooming house and several rooms in rooming houses that I had seen, I would use the word disgusting. What did I see? Well, I don't want to offend any of the members here, but I witnessed urine-scented, filthy rooms infested with cockroaches and mice. That is the option for many of the mentally ill, the chronically ill and the homeless. It was sad and heartbreaking, and I really, truly hope that this government is honest about its commitment to housing for the mentally ill, because right now I can tell you that I've been to some of the places where they live and it's no life. It's no wonder that they fall into this cycle of hopelessness when they cannot even have their basic needs of shelter and food met.

What about the mental health plan that this government has put forward? It took six years to create the mess, and now the government has announced that it's going to take seven years for them to fix it. They've announced a $125 million, seven-year mental health plan. We've heard all kinds of time lines in the past few years. This government said they had a five-year plan; they said they had a ten-year plan. At one point, we heard they had a 20-year plan, and now we have a seven-year plan for the mental health system. What it really shows is that they had no plan; they absolutely had no plan. The victims in the system and the horror stories in the system attest to that.

The fact that the government didn't have a plan for mental health was confirmed by the 1993-94 auditor general's report. It's a value-for-audit report done on the Ministry of Health. There were two sections to this report: transfer of patients from Riverview Hospital to the community and psychiatrist services. The auditor general's value-for-money audit looked at how. . . . Generally, the audits look at how organizations have given attention to value for money -- namely, the economy, efficiency and effectiveness of the money that was spent. It says in the report that value-for-money auditing is based on two principles: "[Number 1,] public business should be conducted in a way that makes the best possible use of public funds. . . [and number 2,] that people who conduct public business should be held accountable for the prudent and effective management of the resources entrusted to them."

In short, the value-for-money audits are all about accountability. This audit on the ministry's transfer of patients from Riverview Hospital to the community looked at the downsizing and the provision for psychiatric services in the province. Guess what they found. They found that the Health ministry's long-term planning must be improved. Well, no kidding. This was reported in May of 1994. That was four years ago, and they finally came up with what they say is their plan. They came up with that in February. They announced it, and it's a seven-year plan.

The report also found that the Riverview Hospital downsizing planning process was not well documented. The report says:

"There is no comprehensive plan covering the full scope and time frame of the undertaking. The ministry has not yet determined how much of which services will be required; when, where and how these services will be created; what resources will be required and how they will be obtained; and how and by whom progress will be monitored and reported.

[ Page 9266 ]

"To date, the ministry's planning for the development of community resources and downsizing of Riverview Hospital has focused on the short term -- the current year and the next year. It has approached downsizing as a year-to-year iterative process until planning for replacement facilities has been finalized."

The report found further that an objective method of funding the shift in services from hospital to community had not been finalized:

"The mental health consultation report recommended the transfer of money from Riverview Hospital to community-based facilities and programs. It anticipated that more than half of the hospital's funding would be transferred to the community and that management and funding structures would be set up to facilitate development of community resources.

"We found that the ministry had not established an objective method of determining the amount of money that will be shifted from the hospital to the community each year. This has created uncertainty for both the hospital and the community."

Further, the report goes on to state that a human resources plan that encompasses the full scope of the replacement of Riverview Hospital has not been finalized:

"Improvement of the mental health care system by moving to community-based programs requires qualified people to provide services in the community. The ministry must ensure that these resources are available when and where they are needed. Because Riverview Hospital will not require the same level of staffing it has at present, there must also be a plan for reducing hospital staffing at current levels."

When I was in Public Accounts this morning, I asked the ministry officials, and they did not foresee any of those reports being tabled in this Legislature this session. By the time they finally. . . . How is one to scrutinize what the government's doing, to see if the government has actually been responsible, or to hold the government accountable for what they say they are going to do, if we don't see a report that outlines what their plan is, how they plan to implement it and whether they've actually achieved any of those goals or targets that they set for themselves? We haven't seen anything from that side of the House, from that Ministry of Health, since 1994-95. I think that's shameful.

That's why I think that not much has changed four years after this report was tabled in the House. The government has still not unveiled the implementation framework of their so-called seven-year mental health plan. We have a nice press release. We get these announcements; we get these backdrops with curtains and everything. I'm sure there's fanfare and music playing, cameras and lightbulbs going -- wonderful. Well, that was February. Let's see: March, April, May, June. . . . This minister and this ministry said they were going to spend $10 million this year on mental health out of their $125 million, seven-year mental health plan. We've seen nothing.

It's distressing to families. We're hearing from a lot of organizations that have serious concerns about the ambitiousness, might I say, of some of the initiatives in this bill. They feel that if the government is admitting that there's $125 million worth of resources that need to go into mental health over the next seven years, and the government is going to go on with these changes, and we still don't know whether they're going to spend the $10 million this year. . . . There are lots of groups concerned that these changes are going to require resources in the community, and they're not there.

Just for your information, hon. Speaker, I'm the designated speaker on the bill.

Deputy Speaker: Thank you, member.

S. Hawkins: All of the organizations, the families, the patients themselves and the members on this side who get the letters are waiting with bated breath to find out when and where that framework is going to be released and when and where that money is going to be spent for those patients. We still don't know that. We keep getting press releases and announcements, but we see very little action.

This government fails to realize that they must carry through with the commitments that they make. Otherwise, don't make them, because what you do is hold out hope to these poor patients. I remember that last year we had a debate in this House about two front-line drugs that were used for schizophrenia. There was such an outpouring of letters, because the drugs were not covered on Pharmacare. These were drugs that psychiatrists said were taking schizophrenics into a whole new realm of freedom. If they were actually put on either of these two new drugs, they could be well-controlled and they could actually have some functional life in the community. This government refused to cover them, and there was a huge outcry. Finally, we found that the government committed to covering them under Pharmacare.

[8:15]

Here's another example. How many times -- and I think I can count myself -- have we seen that psychiatric facility in Kamloops announced? I know that the member for Kamloops from the government side was bragging earlier this year about how this psychiatric centre was going to be built in Kamloops

[ Page 9267 ]

That psychiatric centre, the one that's supposed to go to Kamloops, was supposed to be. . . . Riverview Hospital was downsizing. What this government was planning on doing, I understand, was regionalizing psychiatric hospital beds, so they announced that Kamloops would get a psychiatric centre. I remember that it was supposed to be one psychiatric centre -- one facility attached to the hospital, I should say, because it was going to have acute-care beds, and they needed to be beside an acute-care facility. It's interesting -- now I remember that the initial committee set up to look at that facility decided with certainty that that facility needed to be attached to a hospital. Well, the government allocated it to Kamloops. You know what we found out? The topography around the Kamloops hospital didn't support one complete psychiatric facility attached to the hospital. Well, that's a big problem. So guess what: we went back into redesigning, back into committee work, and what they did was split it into two facilities, one attached to the hospital and one further away.

Well, you won't believe the phone calls I got from psychiatrists and advocates who couldn't believe it. I mean, one of them actually sat on the initial committee, and he's absolutely furious, because that is not in the best interests of the patients there. What was in the best interests of the patients was what the committee had initially decided to do, but this government hadn't thought of all the factors, like the topography around the hospital and whether one facility could be attached to it or not. It knew that it still had to go to Kamloops, because unfortunately they play political football with health care. This was the payoff, I understand, for Kelowna getting the cancer centre: Kamloops has to get the psych centre. Now we've got. . .an announcement, anyway, because I certainly haven't seen the shovel in the ground there. I've seen the shovel in a lot of other places on that side, but I haven't seen the shovel in the ground in Kamloops. What we've got is a less than favourable facility for psych patients in the region -- if it ever gets built.

That's my point. You downsized Riverview. Resources were supposed to go in the community. Additional beds were supposed to be completed or facilities were supposed to be built in the regions. They never got there. We are now three years into waiting for a shovel to hit the ground at the psych centre in Kamloops.

[The Speaker in the chair.]

I think it's absolutely ludicrous to make announcements and then not follow through. As I said before, you give false hope to these patients. That's the last thing they need. These patients are suffering already. You sort of put the paddle in the water, and they're grasping for it, and then you drag it away. To take the paddle back while they're drowning and just watch them suffer and drown and end up on the street, in jails, or having nowhere to go -- which has been where these patients find themselves. . . . I think it's a very sad situation in the province.

With the downsizing of Riverview in the lower mainland, we're all waiting to see where the additional beds go. You know what? I understand hospitals around the province have downsized, too, because there hasn't been funding at levels to sustain beds in hospitals. What we found is that a lot of the hospitals around the province close beds because of funding crunches. We know that a lot of the mentally ill find themselves in emergency rooms because they have nowhere else to go besides jail or the street. So in desperation they seek help, or an ambulance picks them up, or the police pick them up -- or perhaps it's suicide attempts. They end up in emergency rooms. They're admitted to hospitals, to acute-care beds, so then we have the whole backup problem in hospitals. We have patients who actually need psychiatric care, who need care for their mental illness, who are in inappropriate beds and inappropriate facilities.

The auditor general's value-for-money audit, which I referred to earlier, assessed psychiatric services in the province. I'll quote from the report. He says:

"To manage the provision of services according to need and the ability to pay, the ministry first requires a good understanding of the nature and extent of mental illness in the province. It must then establish its long-term accessibility objectives and define them in terms of service standards that can be used on a daily basis by providers."

"Overall. . .the ministry does not have a system to collect relevant information about the state of the entire mental health system, including all of the hospital psychiatric unit programs, community mental health centres and private-practice psychiatrists in the province. As a result, it does not have complete and reliable information about the extent of mental illness and the availability of psychiatry services in each region of the province. It also lacks information to assess whether scarce psychiatrist resources are being applied to the highest-priority cases and whether they are provided cost-effectively."

"The ministry is not able to report on its performance. Because the ministry lacks defined accessibility objectives and complete information about mental health services around the province, performance information is not well developed. As a result, the ministry is unable to report meaningfully to the Legislative Assembly about its performance in providing mental health services. It has gathered information about psychiatrist accessibility issues and its efforts to deal with these matters, but it has not included this information in its public reporting."

In fact, in a few places in the auditor general's report, it very clearly says that the information to the Legislature is lacking. Part of the problem in trying to find out if the ministry is actually keeping up with its plan, if it had one. . . . But it appears from these reports that the ministry didn't really have a plan. It's difficult to assess whether the Ministry of Health was actually on target with anything to do with mental illness. We know that in the last five or six years, with the downsizing of Riverview and with patients. . . . Honest to goodness, just take a walk in downtown Vancouver. I moved here seven years ago, in 1991, and I remember walking downtown on

[ Page 9268 ]

I sat on a plane with a lady from Australia who was visiting. I was flying back to Kelowna and she was flying from Vancouver, where she had spent about three weeks. She asked me if we had a social services system here. She asked: "Do you guys have a social services system?" She didn't know I was a member of the Legislature. She said: "I have never seen so many poor people and sick people on the streets." She said that it was absolutely heartbreaking for her. She said: "They're begging, and they don't seem well. I think some of them are mentally ill." You know what? She's absolutely right.

I went out with my street nurses in Kelowna. I worked an evening shift with one of the nurses. I call them angels; honestly, I don't know where they find the courage to do their jobs. We estimate that about 25 percent of the people on the street are mentally ill, but I bet that about 50 percent of the people we saw that night were affected with mental illness. It is very sad. We found them in parks; we found them on benches; we found them. . . . Oh, gosh, there's a mission home -- I'm trying to think of the name of it -- in downtown Kelowna where we made a visit and set up a little clinic. They came in the room and just burst out crying. They've got nothing. They've got nowhere to go.

It is a very sad statement. In fact, it's very hard to talk about. In fact, when I was reading this report -- this value-for-money audit -- and looking at what it says about psychiatrist services in the province, I thought of all the travels I've made in the last two years as the Health critic. I have travelled around the province. I have toured northern B.C., the Kootenays, Vancouver Island and the lower mainland. You know what? The northern and rural isolated areas are very deficient in psychiatric services and psychiatrist services. Frankly, I get calls for help from a lot of these places, because if they do recruit a psychiatrist, that person is worked to death. Usually they can only recruit one or two. I mean, it is a very stressful lifestyle. It's a very stressful lifestyle on call. If they do recruit one, they work that person to the bone. If they recruit two, it's barely enough. The workload is heavy, and a lot of them end up leaving.

This audit of access to psychiatric services for British Columbia, in the report by the auditor general, found several significant deficiencies in the way the ministry manages the provision of psychiatric services. The auditor general found that the ministry needed to ensure that both its program and personnel are equitably and efficiently distributed throughout the province. In meeting this responsibility, the Ministry of Health must ensure that those with serious mental illness have appropriate access to psychiatric services when needed. The audit reports that the ministry has been aware of psychiatrist accessibility problems for many years. To be honest, I think the ministry knows that too. The auditor general's report found that the ministry collects a lot of information and then doesn't know what to do with it. So it was interesting to note that this report found that the ministry knew about the problem, and the auditor general expected the ministry's annual report of 1991-92 to provide sufficient information to the Legislature and the public about this matter.

[8:30]

An Hon. Member: It's terrible.

S. Hawkins: It is terrible. The member says it's terrible. Well, I can't underline enough how terrible it is.

The same concerns that the auditor general outlines in the value-for-money audit are as valid today as they were four years ago when the report was written. I know, patients know, other members in this House know and certainly families know that we have significant deficiencies in many regions of our province, which desperately need psychiatrist services. I know it's no surprise to the ministry that most of those areas are in rural B.C. Certainly I went to Quesnel, and I know the member from there knows that there are deficient services there. In a lot of areas where there is a high aboriginal population, there are deficiencies. In a lot of the rural areas, there are problems with high rates of suicide, with depression and with mental illness. Those patients and their families have very, very little in the way of mental health resources to help them deal with those problems.

Is that a division? I'll take direction from the Chair, because I am a designated voter in the other room.

The Speaker: I'm sorry -- did members hear three bells?

Interjections.

The Speaker: We're just making contact now, so just hold tight, member, for a few seconds, and we'll find out.

Hon. members, the information is that it was a quorum call, so I think the debate in this House can continue.

Interjections.

The Speaker: We'll take a break for three or four minutes.

The House recessed from 8:35 p.m. to 8:37 p.m.

[The Speaker in the chair.]

S. Hawkins: All these breaks! I think I was talking about the lack of reporting that we see from the ministry with respect to information on mental health services in this province. And I think, before that short break, I was talking about psychiatry services and how the auditor general had. . . .

Interjection.

S. Hawkins: I think someone wants leave for an introduction. I will accede.

The Speaker: I recognize the member for Victoria-Hillside -- who rises on what matter?

[ Page 9269 ]

Leave granted.

S. Orcherton: Joining us in the gallery today is Mr. Murray Galbraith. Mr. Galbraith is the local president of the B.C. Friends of Schizophrenics and the past national president of the Schizophrenia Society of Canada. He is here today to listen to the debate on Bill 22. I ask that the House make him welcome.

S. Hawkins: I'll try one more time to kick-start this again. I was talking about reporting and about reports that are tabled in the Legislature and about how we haven't really seen a Ministry of Health report since 1994-95. When the auditor general went back to look at accessibility of psychiatry services in the province, he expected to see some information in the '91-92 Ministry of Health report and was quite surprised that the information wasn't there. I think I was also saying that the concerns that the auditor general raised in the value-for-money audit that he tabled in this House in 1994 are as valid today as they were a few years ago when the report was written. We've seen, as I mentioned before, that many regions in the province -- when I look at the regional clippings that we get in the Legislature -- desperately need psychiatry services and certainly resources for mental health.

Certainly, when I look back at the reports from 1992 to 1995 -- and those are the years that this government's been power. . . . Those were the only reports that the Ministry of Health has filed since they've been in power. They do little to inform the public of what the ministry has done to improve the situation of psychiatrist services for the mentally ill, especially in underserviced areas. The problems continue today. I know, as I said before, because I have travelled -- I have taken the opportunity to travel -- to many northern, isolated and rural regions around the province. Many of those communities are concerned that mental health is still a low priority for this ministry and for this government.

I mentioned it before, and I think it's worth mentioning again, that we've had conflicting reports from this government in the past. They had a five-year mental health plan, a ten-year plan, a 20-year plan. Most recently, with big fanfare in February, we saw the announcement of a seven-year mental health plan and $125 million in funding, for which, as I said, we still haven't seen the implementation framework. As soon as it was announced, I got a lot of calls wondering if there was a document in the Legislature: had the MLAs received something to say how this money was going to be spent, where it was going, or if it included capital funding? At the same time as this plan was announced, we saw the announcement that the psychiatric facility in Kamloops was going to go ahead. Well, we've heard very little since.

We now see this bill before the House, and there are a lot of concerns. This bill enjoys support with some groups out there; but just as many groups write and tell me that they're not happy with this bill. One of the major concerns that I get on this bill is that there are no resources to follow the initiatives in this bill -- that if the government is going to implement the provisions in this bill, they had better follow it with some housing initiatives, with counselling, with staff, with other resources in the community. What's interesting is that the government says that it will spend $10 million this year out of the $125 million that it's allocating for its seven-year plan for mental health. But you know what? It's already June of the budget year, and we haven't found out where one dollar of that $10 million is going. Nobody has seen the implementation plan.

A lot of the groups that work with the mentally ill in this province don't trust the government. A lot of the recommendations in the bill come from coroner's juries and recommendations made thereby, and are supported in a very tentative way. But a lot of groups write and tell me that they are not going to support those changes if the resources don't follow. We have not heard a commitment from the government that they are actually going to put the resources into the initiatives proposed in this bill. So that is a huge concern.

Many places around the province find that when they do apply for mental health resources -- which could be anything from treatment centres to housing to hospital beds for acute mental illness -- the government doesn't come through. I have visited different facilities and have seen proposals that actually go to government, and some of them don't even get a letter back. So many communities feel that it is a very low priority for this government, and that is so sad because these are some of the most vulnerable in our society. These are the people who can't speak for themselves. These are the people that we must speak for. We have a duty, in serving the public, to speak for them. Unfortunately, the government has failed that duty on many counts in the past six years.

[8:45]

I think that in the last few years we've seen more and more of the mentally ill on the street. We've seen the horror stories in the paper; they are tragic. I think that finally, because of the publicity in the Brenda Barrass case, because of the publicity about the young fellow who murdered his mother on the Island here and because of the outrage of the families and some of the mental health advocates, the government felt the public pressure to act. Isn't that a sad statement? The only way that this government recognizes an issue is if it's splashed on the front page of a paper. That is what it took for this government to move on this very serious issue.

I know that the minister and the ministry get the letters, the cries for help, because I get the copies. We get the copies from people in communities around the province who write and say: "We are desperate. Funding for our hospitals has been cut. We already don't have the resources we need to meet the needs of the residents in our community." And certainly factors like a poor economy. . . . The north has been suffering and suffering. Obviously there's going to be depression; there's more suicide. All these kinds of things impact on a community. The issue was there, the cries for help were there, but the resources didn't follow.

What has the government's response been when the cries for help come out? Well, we see press releases saying: "Don't worry. We're going to build a psychiatric facility in Kamloops." When was that? Three years ago was the first announcement, and do you know what? I've driven to Kam-

[ Page 9270 ]

And it's easy to forget them. You see the headline one day, the horror story on the front page. The next day you have the government announcing: "We're going to act. This is what we're going to do to help the mentally ill." And you know what? The first story is reported; the announcement is reported, and nothing happens for a few years -- until somebody realizes: "Just a minute. I don't think anything really happened." If you go back and do some research, nothing happened, because those mentally ill patients couldn't speak for themselves. They don't go out and say: "The government said they were going to do this for us, and they didn't do it." They're some of the most vulnerable in our society. They just don't do that.

Hon. Speaker, I'd like to call for a quorum. I don't think there are enough people in the House.

The Speaker: Thank you, member. I think that is the case.

The bells were ordered to be rung.

The Speaker: There being a quorum, debate may continue.

S. Hawkins: As I was saying, press releases and announcements, without the proper resources and implementation framework to go along with the announcements, are not going to cut it. Certainly the government has done nothing short of treating the mentally ill in a very shoddy, shoddy fashion in this province.

The Ministry of Health needs to significantly improve its record of reporting to this Legislature on the state of mental health in this province and in its various regions. We hope that this government will take the concerns and recommendations of the auditor general seriously. We hope that the government takes its accountability role seriously, because we know that in the past it hasn't. Certainly if they did take their accountability responsibility seriously, we wouldn't have to worry about where those reports since 1995 are. It's taken four years since the auditor general's report was tabled in this house, and as I said before, that report said that planning for mental health was not up to par, that information wasn't shared with the Legislature, that the ministry didn't report to the Legislature on mental health services. Frankly, that is something that needs to be improved, and we hope that this government is listening.

We know that in the past, reports haven't been filed. It's really hard for the Legislature to scrutinize whether the plans and the resources that this government has put into mental health are adequate. I know that I have written to the Ministry of Health and asked for the implementation framework for the government's mental health plan, and I've received nothing. I've done that on behalf of groups that have been asking me for that, and I've received nothing. I know that as an MLA in this House, I've asked for other information on spending and spending priorities of the Ministry of Health and the programs they have. When we come into committee stage of this bill and into estimates, we hope to get some of the answers we've been trying to get for the last year with respect to mental health in this province. But to date, the information is very thin and is hardly flowing this way -- and certainly, not to people that write. I know, because a lot of groups write to the minister and the ministry and ask for information, and they either don't get an answer or they don't get an answer that tells them anything. So then they write to me, and they ask me to find stuff for them. Well, I know what resources, or I think I know some of the resources, we have available. And when I go to the library and try and research some of the reports from the Ministry of Health that, by the rules of this House, should be tabled in this House, they're not there. We can't find them. So we hope that those are forthcoming.

I was talking before about housing, about the Kamloops facility, and I notice here that I was out of date by one year on when this was announced. I have found in my notes a chronology of the interior psychiatric facility, and it's interesting that there was a press release on May 2, 1995, which announced that the location of 100 psychiatric beds for the interior was expected to be announced within weeks.

This affects my constituents. I'm from the interior, and I represent people from the interior. Frankly, a lot of patients from the interior and other regions around the province had to travel down to the lower mainland when they needed acute psychiatric services. So when they started downsizing Riverview Hospital, it was promised -- and I read it in this press release as of 1995 -- that Kamloops would get the psychiatric centre: 100 psychiatric beds for the interior which would service constituents of mine.

Well, in July of '95 Kamloops was announced as the site by then Premier Mike Harcourt. On March 8, 1996, there was a press release, and it was another minister -- the then Health Minister, who is now, I believe, the Advanced Education minister -- who at that time reaffirmed the psychiatric facility to be built in Kamloops. So that's three announcements in. . . . Gosh, it looks like less than a year. And he said at that time: "I am determined to do what it takes to ensure this project remains on track." The 100 beds mentioned in 1995, though, interestingly enough, turned into 85 beds in 1996. So in 1995 we have the Ministry of Health announcing 100 beds for a psychiatric facility in Kamloops or in the interior and, miraculously, in 1996 -- less than a year later -- it is downsized by 15 beds to 85 beds.

On April 26, 1996, there is another press release, and it says: "Interior Psychiatric Facility a Step Closer to Construction." The land's identified, and the planning committee is identified as well. So you know, all these press releases show all these little, little steps, but there's still no facility. Then November 13, 1997, there is another press release. It says two facilities. . . . Hey, imagine that. We had one facility at 100 beds, and then we had one facility at 85 beds. It was downsized by 15 beds. Is that a broken promise? I don't know; you decide. And now we've got two sites -- one facility, two sites -- to be built for Kamloops psych beds. The minister at that time, who is now the Minister of Finance, said: "I will be releasing this comprehensive mental health plan in a few weeks." Well, those few weeks turned into a few months, because we didn't see the mental health plan released until 1998 -- February of 1998. So it wasn't a few weeks as the government said it would be; it was a few months.

On December 6, 1997, the Kamloops Daily News reports that the Ministry of Health has warned a committee planning the psych unit in Kamloops that costs must come down.

[ Page 9271 ]

[9:00]

In closing, I want to say that it's been my observation that it takes a crisis before the NDP does anything. It's only after the media has brought attention to the plight of the mentally ill, those living and dying on the street, and only after five years of concerns raised by mental health advocates, families and certainly opposition members, that this government has finally started moving in a direction that recognizes the significant difficulties and lack of support and resources that the mentally ill face today.

This government has a track record of making promises and keeping very few. We know from the past that they often say one thing and do another. Certainly that has been the experience of the mentally ill. The situation for the mentally ill today is very, very tragic. Prisons and courts are jammed with people suffering with mental illness, as are the streets, hospital emergencies and jails, where too often these patients find themselves. Patients have died before this government finally took notice. This sad situation requires more action and fewer empty promises from this government, and I look forward to committee stage on this bill.

A. Sanders: I rise to speak to Bill 22, and I speak to this bill not from reading the newspaper and certainly not from reading the dissertations in Hansard. I speak to the bill from personal experience. As a practising physician who has worked most of my career with mentally ill patients. . . . There are a number of things in this bill that are good for those individuals, and there are a number of things that I feel are not good for them. In fact, I certainly intend to bring in amendments to reflect the differential in those two statements.

I'd also like to personally welcome the people from the B.C. Schizophrenia Society. They are a very important organization in our network of community health, specifically mental health, and I'm very pleased to see them here tonight.

For those people who are not aware of them, I want to outline some of the things that have changed in Bill 22, the amendments to the Mental Health Act. A number of the sections in the Mental Health Act reflect some very different circumstances. First of all, the number of physicians in section 22 of the bill goes from two physicians required to commit a patient to now one physician to commit a patient. I'm not sure that members of the government, who don't involve themselves in the actual practice of medicine, recognize that I personally could commit people on the other side should I feel that they were a danger to themselves or to society. I think that's a lot of power for one person to have, even though on many days of the week that might be very appealing. But it is something that will in fact be part of the law in the new Mental Health Amendment Act, and I have some concerns about that way of certification.

The admission criteria are changed in section 22. Being able to go before the court to get a warrant in emergency situations has changed in this bill. The court does not now substitute its decision for the decision of a practising physician. I see that, from the individual patients that I have worked with, as being a good thing. When you work in the north, you don't have the opportunity or the luxury to have two people to give a decision. Quite often with the old Mental Health Act, we had quite considerable problems with giving people proper treatment through committal because of the way the Mental Health Act read, and this section will change that.

Sections 23, 24 and 25 involve the review process. In the amendment act there is the insertion of the express requirement that people who are undergoing committal now have their past history reviewed. This has not been done before, and it's a very valuable part of this act. Once that history is reviewed, it does include the significant risk of whether or not that patient will comply with treatment. Again, I see that as a positive thing.

There are also changes that involve the requirement that involuntary patients have the right to seek a second medical opinion on a treatment plan. In section 34, this ties the rights to request on a renewal period for detention. There are some good things about that, but there are some things that I don't think are quite right in terms of the constitutional circumstances that we have for individual patients. I feel that those need to be explored, and again I would suggest amendments to that part of the act.

Section 25 has changed, and inserted is a new requirement for patients on leave greater than 12 months to be reviewed. If a patient doesn't request the right to leave, they won't languish; there will actually be a mandatory file review. Again, I see that as something that is good.

Section 16 involves extended leave. Previously, physicians and psychiatrists were exposed to liability with respect to the provisions of extended leave. Changes to the bill now look at this and encourage the use of extended leave by strengthening the instructions and decreasing the liability. Again, this is important and has come out of the coroners' inquiries for a number of psychiatric patients.

What I'd like to do is look at a number of psychiatric patients that have been in the news recently and really see if Bill 22, the Mental Health Amendment Act, will in fact help these individuals. My colleague from Okanagan West mentioned Brenda Barrass, so I won't mention Brenda to a large extent, although she is a very important individual in terms of ascertaining what the laws in the Mental Health Act should be. Brenda was a 32-year-old manic-depressive patient and was in and out of hospitals since the age of 17. She was sexually assaulted on April 28, 1997, by a janitor at Riverview. She had had 50 admissions to Kelowna and eight to Riverview. After this sexual assault, she ran into some very severe problems with dysphemia and psychosis. She made four attempts on her life between November 20 and December 7 -- wrist slashing, overdose, ingestion of kerosene and, finally, cutting her own throat with a bread knife. On her fourth admission, she was discharged three hours later and subsequently, two days later -- December 9 -- killed herself at her apartment with the fatal blow from a bread knife.

As the member for Okanagan West said, her father characterized the treatment of Brenda as running a car wash

[ Page 9272 ]

The B.C. Schizophrenia Society has stated that if Brenda had been on extended leave, it may have assisted her with respect to compliance with medication and also compliance with contact with the mental health system. The bill, although it provides an improved procedural protection for extended leave through sections 25 and 34, does not in fact deal with a lot of the other issues with respect to the funding. If the funding is not there for the mentally ill in the community, we are going to have some serious, serious problems -- in fact, worse problems -- in the mental health system as a result of this amendment act.

One of the cases that I point out is that an individual wrote to me and said that now pretrial jails in Vancouver are being designated as mental health facilities or hospitals. In other words, if you are in a pretrial jail, where many of our schizophrenic patients or psychotic patients end up as a result of their illness -- they commit a crime, they end up in jail. . . . We could now warehouse the mentally ill within the communities by putting them in pretrial jail. In fact, my house could be designated as a mental health facility. Those individuals, without any support staff, without anyone who has an understanding or a cognizance for their problems, could be administering services to the mentally ill, which, to me, is a warehousing effect.

Now, we have to look at the constitutionality of how we're treating the mentally ill, and we are no longer treating them as people. I have serious concerns about that aspect of mental illness and extended leave. If we're going to have extended leave, fine. But this government and all the members of this side of the House have got to supply the finances to put the community support in place. That has not happened up to now, and doing things like designating pretrial jails to now be mental health facilities is absolutely unconscionable. I'm afraid that we are going to see a whole lot more of that and so are the advocates for the mentally ill.

Another recommendation from Brenda's case was for the Ministry of Health's psychiatric committee to explore community committal as another option for supporting people with mental illness. Bill 22 does go into that, but many of the families and mentally ill have personally witnessed the tragedy that occurs without the appropriate legislation in place to assist those who are too ill to help themselves. This bill does not go far enough to help those people who are mentally ill. Also, the coroner's inquest recommended an information system to provide prompt information necessary to provide care and ongoing treatment -- an interhospital Internet -- to give that treatment for patients, and that is another recommendation that's not been followed through on.

We had a gentleman by the name of Grant Faulkes who was 51 and a paranoid schizophrenic. He also was an insulin- or non-insulin-dependent diabetic. I'm not sure which of the two it was. From 1989 to 1994, he lived at the Mission Hills home, where he was regularly checked by employees. In 1994 he made the decision, as an individual, to live in his home, and because he had the right to do so, even though the family demonstrated concern, he was allowed to do that. After less than a year of doing so, he ended up in the Mission hospital in a diabetic coma. The family was not notified, which is now taken care of in Bill 22, and if they. . . . Really, the reason he ended up in a coma was because of the subsequent medical condition of diabetes.

One of the things that this bill does not clarify is, if you have a secondary medical condition, whether the family will be notified. It does say you'll be notified if you have a psychiatric problem, but it doesn't say, if you have a medical problem, whether the family will be notified. There may be the necessity of an amendment there to ensure that people are looked after, regardless of whether they have other problems such as rheumatoid arthritis or diabetes or heart disease, and that, again, the family is notified.

This gentleman was transferred to Riverview in '95, and then in '96, after again spending less than a year, he was transferred to a group home in Abbotsford. He had an altercation at that time, and because he was not certified, he was sent home after discharge from the remand centre. There was no appearance by the Abbotsford mental health team before the judge, and because the judge was unsure of this man's case, he was placed on probation. His sister begged the mental health team from Abbotsford for help, and the gentleman was put in a Fraser Valley hotel. This is a gentleman who has never lived on his own since he was in his teens.

On August 1, he was at the Fraser Valley Inn, and September 4 was the last request for after-hours psychiatric care. One of the big problems we have in this area is that psychiatric care in this province cannot be provided from nine to five -- that's the union model. What happens is that a lot of the psychiatric patients are looked after between nine and five, but they're not looked after on weekends or during after-hours -- and this is always when they get into trouble. When I'm in the emergency on a Saturday, that is when I see the mentally ill patients. It's not at 3 o'clock on a Monday afternoon.

[9:15]

This gentleman, whose sister is not a medical person and not trained in health care but who could ascertain that he was going to die, did in fact die. These are the kinds of people we have to look at when we look at this mental health bill. We have to look at whether or not we have the resources in the community to allow for extended community leave. If it's a good idea, you have to provide the other side -- and the

[ Page 9273 ]

In the area where Mr. Faulkes lived, we have 194 residential beds and 40 subsidized apartments. There are 3,730 clients in the Fraser Valley who need care. There is a waiting list as long as my arm for those kinds of subsidized housing. We have to look at whether the mentally ill are in a circumstance where we can control their medication and have them live on their own. And what do we do when those medications are not even covered by Pharmacare? This government does not cover all of the medications that we have -- the new medications that would possibly make extended leave really work. Those medicines are not covered by Pharmacare; they are covered on special warrant. They should be covered and they should be covered today; they should have been covered six months ago. There should be medicine in this province for every person who needs risperidone, olanzapine and Seroquel. There's no excuse for this government not having those medications available, especially in light of bringing in Bill 22.

Those are some of the things that we will go into in great detail in committee stage. We are not doing them and that is wrong for people, especially when you are now bringing in a bill that says we can designate anyone in the community. If I don't happen to like the way they take their pill -- if they don't take it with water -- as a physician, I can designate those people. Not only that, I can be the only spokesman to do that; I don't need a second opinion. There are some very serious problems in this bill, and I'm going to take quite a considerable amount of time to make sure that this government guarantees that the resources are in the community to make this bill work.

If you're going to bring in this new stuff that can warehouse the mentally ill, not provide the medication for them through Pharmacare and expect community services to be there that aren't there -- because people work from nine to five and they don't work on nights and weekends -- then you've got another think coming. I'm going to be here every day to stand up for the mentally ill and make sure that your commitments are on the record.

J. Cashore: I don't think there's any topic that we could possibly debate that's more difficult and more challenging for all members of the Legislature. If there was ever a topic that calls for thoughtful reflection and a genuine attempt to provide a critique that is useful and helpful -- not for the purpose of gaining any of us political points but for the purpose of addressing an issue which has eluded society in terms of solutions for many, many years -- it's this one. I want to congratulate the minister, because I believe that bringing in this act has helped to facilitate a commitment in the mental health plan that will address the issue of mental health in a way that. . . . There has never been such a commitment before in the history of British Columbia, and perhaps that comparison could encompass all of North America.

When I first came to the Legislature in 1986, there was a mental health plan then. It's not correct to say that the issue of downsizing has arisen since the NDP became government in 1991. That is simply not correct. As members should know, downsizing has taken place since the advent of psychotropic drugs. They have made it possible to plan the maintenance of patients in the community, which previously was not possible. We do know that in recent years the population at Riverview Hospital has declined from well over 6,000 to around 1,000 because of the availability of psychtropic drugs.

I just want to mention a little bit about my background on this issue. I'm the MLA for Coquitlam-Maillardville, which includes Riverview Hospital. In 1974 I was appointed the first chair of the British Columbia Mental Health Review Panel, and I was in that position for 11 years. During that time, I've calculated that I've conducted about 1,500 hearings with regard to patients who are appealing their involuntary detention. During that time, I have read countless hospital records and points that have been made about the pain and suffering that is experienced by patients, by their families, by communities and by people who work within hospital institutions seeking to do their best in difficult circumstances. It is a difficulty that I think we all need to recognize.

With regard to the mental health plan, the plan bodes well for the future of mental health in the province. I don't think any plan can ever be a panacea or that suddenly we're going to have a situation that is just going to make everybody so happy that there are no more problems. That simply won't happen. But the commitment to recognize the need to manage mental health care in the community in a way that upholds the integrity of the services that should be available to people is there within this plan. The point has been made several times tonight: will the dollars be available to provide the services that will allow that to work? It's my view that, for the first time, those two issues have been put together within this plan. Indeed, the dollars are committed. It's my understanding that while there's very strong support both for the act and for the plan from those parts of the community that work with mental health, there is some criticism of some elements of the act by some parts of that community. But there is very broad support, as far as I can see, for the essence of the mental health plan. I think that needs to be recognized. The spirit that we need to address that in is that we will end up with a product that is really going to facilitate what has to be our intent if we are going to be able to provide those supports in the community that are so desperately needed.

I am very, very pleased to support the mental health plan and to recognize the need for enabling legislation. I want to acknowledge that there are really very few advocates for the mentally ill and for the families of the mentally ill. And yet, I know that in my family, and in most families that I know, mental illness is part and parcel of what we experience in our families in society. I think that needs to be recognized.

This plan, which will make $125 million available for its implementation, puts an emphasis on adults with the most disabling functional impairments due to mental illness. It provides for early identification and treatment. It provides for the implementation of the best practices in mental health care, to enable consumers to benefit from the most current knowledge about program and service design that produces positive health outcomes. It provides for more responsive services for individuals with multiple problems. And it provides for a shift in service delivery to better respond to individuals' complex needs through outreach, case management and appropriate medical care.

Further, it provides for up to 2,600 units of supported housing, case management services for up to 8,200 clients, 57 additional full-time psychiatric employees, small-scale region-

[ Page 9274 ]

While I am a strong supporter and advocate of the mental health plan, I do want to raise one issue that is difficult for me to raise. I don't expect it to make me popular. I don't think that many people in society really support the concern that I want to talk about. It has to do with the provision in the act that would, when considering the detention or the continued detention of a patient, take into consideration an assessment of whether there is a significant risk that the patient, if discharged, will as a result of mental disorder fail to follow the treatment plan, and the director or physician considers it necessary to minimize the possibility that the patient will again be detained under section 22. From a human rights perspective, I think it's important for me to stand up here and say that I have some difficulty with that. The reason is that I think that it brings in an element of prediction at the time of assessment, as to whether or not a person at a particular time suffers from a disorder of the mind that requires care, supervision and control based on the terms in the previous act. I've talked to the minister about this; she knows I'm raising this. I have informed the minister that I'm going to support this bill, because I think it's important to support the thrust of the mental health plan. But I think that we are entering interesting new territory when we take the position that a prediction of the future course of a person's illness is the basis for a declaration of detention or continued detention.

I fully understand that there are stories about what has happened when people have gone out into the community and some of the very difficult things that have happened. But I think that we have to recognize, from a human rights perspective, that there is an issue here that we can't simply assent to without realizing that it is entering into what I think is very concerning new territory. I wanted to make that point.

In conclusion, I want to say that this is a good mental health plan. It's being enabled by necessary legislation, and I think it's very important that we all maintain our commitment to providing the resources, not only in dollars but also in people and in a commitment on the part of all of society to make sure that the intent of this plan is fully realized, and that it provides benefits based on consultation with the very broadly based part of the community that knows so much about this issue.

[9:30]

I, like the member for Coquitlam-Maillardville, have struggled with the civil liberties aspect of this bill; but I want to say that with the extreme cases that have been discussed tonight, one can clearly understand how this bill will assist. There are also less extreme cases where I truly believe that the changes this bill brings about will really assist the families of loved ones who have mental illness, remembering that many of these people have gone through a very long journey. They have gone through a time when we in this province locked them in places like Riverview, chained them to their beds, gave them drugs and shock treatment. Then, every once in a while, we would let them back out into the community and expect them to be able to live productive lives with some self-confidence and rebuild their lives. That trauma is what many of these people still live with.

When the downsizing happened, and when it was announced at Riverview, we know there was a promise -- I remember; I was on Burnaby council at the time -- that services would be in the community. I think all of us recognize, any partisanship aside, that those services were not in the community. They still are not in the community. But I am confident, as my colleague has just said, that with the announcement of the $125 million over seven years and the mental health plan, we will finally ensure that the support services that will help people deal with their lives when things aren't going so well will be in the community.

I just want to address, because I received a letter in the mail from someone who urged me to stand in this House and speak in favour of this bill. . . . His name is Herschel Hardin. He addressed in an article that he had written, in answer to the issue about civil liberties. . . . I have to say, in reading his article, more than anything it sort of tipped the balance for me that said, yes, there need to be checks and balances here, but on balance we need this legislation because it will do more assistance and more benefit than it can do harm. I want to read you just a couple of sentences of that. He says: "Far from respecting civil liberties, legal obstacles to treatments limit or destroy the liberty of a person because victims of mental illnesses are prisoners of their own illness. They cannot think for themselves and cannot exercise any meaningful liberty."

I can assure you that when things are going well, many people with mental illnesses are self-reliant. They can live in their own home and take care of themselves. But when they go off their medication, they can get to the point where they don't know what to eat, they cannot dress themselves, they cannot feed themselves. They lose all control over their lives. Nobody can convince me that at that time, regardless of the fact that they may not wish you to do so, you should not step in and help that person to ensure that they can get back on their medication and restabilize their lives.

That's basically all I wanted to say. I wanted to say that this is a difficult bill for many of us because it is never easy to make the decision to step in and take control of a person's life, even if they don't want you to. . . . I just want to end by reminding the hon. members again that people with mental illnesses fight a very hard battle. Sometimes they win and sometimes they lose. I believe, on balance, that in the times when they're losing, people who really care for them need to know that they can step in and make sure they get back on track.

Hon. P. Priddy: I think all of the comments that have been made tonight are useful ones and certainly indicate the variety of perspectives that we will see, I think, in all of the debate around this piece of legislation. This government has listened. We've listened to families, to consumers, to psychiatrists, to communities and to coroners in their reports. We've listened to all of those voices, all of which have been strong. As a result of that, earlier this year, the previous Minister of Health presented a seven-year, $125 million mental health plan. That is the plan that this government is committed to and that is the plan that this government will make real and will deliver on.

[ Page 9275 ]

We've been warehousing people with mental illnesses in this province for a hundred years, as they have in every other province across this country. When people talk about warehousing, this is something we have always done with people with mental illnesses, because we've been afraid, because they've been devalued and because they have not been respected. Certainly, their illnesses have not been understood. When the deinstitutionalization began. . . . I've spent all of my paid and unpaid adult life working in the area of deinstitutionalization, albeit with people with an intellectual disability. While there are many differences, there are also many things in common. The things in common are about the need for community support to make that kind of initiative successful. Without it. . . . People have said it, and that's why this government is committed to it -- there will be resources to support people in the community. Otherwise, we will set people up for failure, and I will not have that happen.

I think we see treatment changing very quickly in this province. I worked a number of years ago at the Clarke Institute in Toronto. Previously, actually, it was the Toronto Psychiatric Hospital, when most of the treatment was shock therapy, insulin therapy and cold water baths. So while we have progressed with treatment, we still have a lot of research to do. The kinds of pharmaceuticals and drugs that members talked about tonight are all part of that advance in research -- research both in terms of the illness and research in terms of the treatment.

This bill is supported by many people. I want, as my colleagues have done, to acknowledge the presence of Mr. Galbraith tonight and to thank him for being here for what may have turned out to be a somewhat longer debate than he might have expected -- but maybe hoped for, because it means people are interested in talking about it. It's also supported by other people. It is supported by the chair of the consumers' council on the advisory committee to the Minister of Health, the Mood Disorders Association, the B.C. Schizophrenia Association and the B.C. Psychiatric Association. There will be people who will not support it and who will have concerns, but there are people who are very strongly supporting it as well.

One of the things I want to talk about is promises versus progress. One of the things that the member for Okanagan West talked about was the issue of people with mental illness ending up in jails. And that is correct. We have probably seen that more in the last 15 or 20 years than we ever saw it before. One of the things we do to counteract that is provide more forensic support in the community for people who have a mental illness but may also be involved in disputes with the justice system that have to do with forensic issues. While there have been, for some time now, only five forensic psychiatric clinics supporting the entire province, a brand-new clinic opened last month in the South Fraser region. It is an adult forensic psychiatric service. They've hired three community psychiatric nurses, a social worker, a psychologist, a psychiatrist, two administrative support staff, and there are more social workers and psychologists on the way.

I say that only to indicate that it's not only about promises and plans; it is about promises fulfilled and progress. That is significant progress to have this sixth centre in the province. One of the clear goals of this centre will also be to provide assessment and treatment services to, for instance, offenders on probation who have a mental disorder, so that they can be supported in their community and not end up back in either a psychiatric hospital or jail. It's a critical service, opened last month, in the community. That's about fulfilling the promise.

The member also raised the issue of housing, and she's absolutely correct: it is critically important. That's the place where we all go to be safe -- or at least we want to be able to go to be safe. We know that some people in this province either don't have housing or don't have housing that is safe. We know that it's one of the most vital pieces in terms of people with persistent mental illnesses being able to be involved in their community. Over the last three months, there have been 400 supported mental health beds announced -- 200 in the lower mainland and 200 outside the lower mainland -- for people with mental illnesses. They're supported beds, which means there is support there for the individual that, again, will help them stay in their communities and be successful at that. That's about progress. Those are promises filled, not just plans.

I agree with the member -- and I'm not sure, but I think it was the member for Okanagan West -- who talked about certainty. I think this bill does provide a far greater degree of certainty for families, for consumers and for communities. For families, around the review and discharge procedures, because they know they can be involved; for consumers, around being able to have a second opinion, being able to have other rights in terms of having their treatment re-evaluated and more access to extended leave; and for communities, to know that services will be community-based, that people will be able to receive services closer to home. I think there is actually greater certainty.

I would just pause here for a minute to say that the voices of people who have made this change happen are, in many ways, the courage of parents and family members and consumers to tell their stories. We weren't in this place 30 or 40 years ago, and nobody talked about mental illness. Nobody talked about it. But because consumers and families have had the courage to come forward and tell their stories -- and have often had to tell and re-tell their stories -- it has made people move. It's changed the public attitude. It's changed access to services. We want to continue that change and work in partnership with people to make this a much better system for people who need it.

I'll just take another minute or two. Often we talk about poor patients. Often when we see them, they are "poor patients." But when they're not, when they are supported in their community and have access to treatment and are using that, they are also artists and mechanics and singers and plumbers and Cub or Scout leaders and moms and dads and all those people who are part of our communities. So I think it's always important, when we talk about people with mental illness, that we don't always see them only as poor patients, but that we see their tremendous potential, with the good support they have, to be a really active and contributing part of their community.

In terms of the rural areas -- and I think this will be almost my last comment -- the member is correct. We have all kinds of issues in rural areas. Certainly psychiatric or mental health services is one of them, although we have provided additional sessional psychiatrists in the Kitimat-Terrace area

[ Page 9276 ]

[9:45]

"I wish to applaud you and the B.C. government for the proposed changes to the Mental Health Act. I am the father of a 25-year-old son who developed schizophrenia three years ago. He still has very little insight into his illness and goes off his medication when he is released from hospital, which has happened seven times. My wife and I have been under tremendous worry and stress with his illness, as we are concerned for his safety and unwellness when he becomes psychotic, and the difficulty in getting him the help he needs but that he refuses. We like the concept of extended leave rather than outright discharge, easier admittance -- needing only one psychiatrist to certify him for [the first] 72 hours -- and the input of families to review panel decisions. I know that there is opposition to these changes, but I urge you to stay the course. These changes are needed."

I move second reading of the bill.

Motion approved.

Bill 22, Mental Health Amendment Act, 1998, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

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

Hon. J. MacPhail moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 9:47 p.m.

PROCEEDINGS IN THE DOUGLAS FIR ROOM

The House in Committee of Supply A; E. Walsh in the chair.

The committee met at 2:46 p.m.

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF FINANCE AND CORPORATE RELATIONS
(continued)

R. Thorpe: The Whistler Land Corporation -- how many FTEs operate in that business unit?

Hon. J. MacPhail: It gives me great pleasure to announce. . . . We did announce this -- that there has been a name change. It's the B.C. Assets and Land Corporation now.

R. Thorpe: Yes, it is -- June 1.

Hon. J. MacPhail: That actually is the legal name of it. There is not an accounting of FTEs, in the sense that government accounts for it. But if you want to know how many employees there are, there are about 20 employees and then contractors as well.

R. Thorpe: As I understand, it's a Crown corporation, and I thought most Crown corporations calculated FTEs like the government does.

What are the total operating costs of the B.C. Assets and Land Corporation?

Hon. J. MacPhail: They are $2 million.

R. Thorpe: I believe that was about the operating costs for last year, if I'm not mistaken. On June 1 you announced the transferring in of some additional costs. Have the costs stayed the same? Have you cut down your costs in other areas? Or did we forget to add that on?

Hon. J. MacPhail: I'm sorry -- I thought you said the operating costs for last year, and what you want is the budget for this year, I gather.

R. Thorpe: Yes.

Hon. J. MacPhail: It will be about $4.5 million this year.

R. Thorpe: Are those costs recorded in the consolidated accounts, or are they off the balance sheet, with respect to government?

Hon. J. MacPhail: They'll be consolidated.

R. Thorpe: Those costs will show up in the consolidated estimates at the end of the fiscal year and would be part of the government's stated $95 million deficit. Or would they be part of the $949 million deficit?

Hon. J. MacPhail: They'll be part of the summary financial statements.

R. Thorpe: For the fiscal year that just ended, could you advise what your target was for land sales and what you actually achieved?

Hon. J. MacPhail: The target for sales for last year was about $50 million, and we sold $24 million.

R. Thorpe: What is the sales target for this fiscal year that we're now in?

Hon. J. MacPhail: We have a revenue target of $50 million this year.

R. Thorpe: Is that your revenue based on your commission, or is that the total value of the sales?

Hon. J. MacPhail: It's revenue. The value of the sales will be about $73 million to $75 million. That's our target.

R. Thorpe: Are the sales from last year, 1997, of $50 million comparable to the $75 million? Are those comparable figures?

[ Page 9277 ]

R. Thorpe: What is the targeted net income for fiscal year '98-99?

Hon. J. MacPhail: It's $50 million.

R. Thorpe: So we're looking at an increase in profitability of around $48 million to $49 million, based on the results of the statements I have for March 31, 1998. Is that correct?

Hon. J. MacPhail: Let me just ask a question -- or let me understand your question. You want to know if the $24 million that I reported in sales for this year is equivalent to the $75 million that we're targeting for this year. Well, one was actual and one is a target. But it's the same package, yes. We targeted $50 million and sold $24 million, and revenue to government was about $20 million. This year we're targeting $75 million, for a net revenue of $50 million.

R. Thorpe: The question was: what is the comparable profit target of the $1.3 million that you made last year -- March 31, '98? What is your target for March '99?

Hon. J. MacPhail: I'm sorry if I didn't make that clear. We made $20 million this year, and we're targeting $50 million this coming year.

R. Thorpe: Has there been a restatement of the profitability from last year?

Hon. J. MacPhail: Yes, and we'd be more than happy to. . . . What you have before you, I think, is probably the statement for the year ending March 31, '98, which is for the old WLC. There is a restatement, so we will provide that to you. But I've given it to you verbally.

R. Thorpe: I'd appreciate a copy of that. Last year you fell substantially short of your sales target. You said, though, in 1997 that quite an extensive marketing strategy would be developed. What happened? Why did we not produce the results that we said we were going to last year when we were going to develop a marketing strategy?

Hon. J. MacPhail: In fact, there's one overriding reason. That is that the Delgamuukw decision came down. Certainly there have been legal arguments made about land sales, etc. We have chosen not to provoke any disruption in that area. Our government will shortly be announcing a response to Delgamuukw, but indeed that was the major slowdown.

R. Thorpe: Have those same conditions been factored into your targets for this year, as things have been slowed down and have virtually come to a stop? Or do you think you have the magic solution, and would you like to share it with this House?

Hon. J. MacPhail: I look forward to the debate occurring between perhaps the hon. member or the critic and the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs around the whole aspect of the Delgamuukw decision. But let me reassure you that the issues of land claims, treaty settlements and court decisions have been factored into our estimates for this year.

R. Thorpe: So the minister feels very, very confident that the expectations that have been stated here today will in fact be met in this coming year. What are the major issues -- besides the one you've just mentioned -- facing the B.C. Assets and Land Corporation in achieving its financial goals this year?

Hon. J. MacPhail: The major issue facing BCAL, as we're calling it, is the issue around future land use, particularly in the area of aboriginal issues. We're equipped to deal with that. But there are minor issues around zoning and municipal issues, etc. Other than that, the organization has been reorganized and made much more inclusive for government operations. I'm very confident of its viable future.

R. Thorpe: On the lands that are anticipated to be sold, do we have -- or does BCAL have -- a targeted list, a priority of lists, of the lands it is trying to sell?

Hon. J. MacPhail: We actually have listed on the Crown land registry the land that we've released for public sale. It's actually on the web site, but we'd be happy to give you a copy of that. Our other targets have not been announced. There would be a commercial vulnerability, of course, if we revealed that information to the hon. member now.

R. Thorpe: I don't need a list. I can get it off the web site, thank you very much.

With respect to the commercial downside, has BCAL identified internally the key lands it is going to target for sale? Are they in any particular geographic part of the province?

[3:00]

[R. Kasper in the chair.]

R. Thorpe: Could the minister just expand on her comment "working from strength"? Could you expand a little bit on that point, please?

Hon. J. MacPhail: Yes. It's actually an economic principle called profit-making, and it's where you get your greatest value.

R. Thorpe: Well, that's very interesting. So sometimes this government does endorse the concept of profit -- sometimes.

A Voice: It's the neo-socialist way of looking at things.

R. Thorpe: Actually, hon. Chair, I call them Cadillac socialists. I know; I've seen her vehicle.

With respect to the lands that are put out to sale, do they carry a book value, an appraised market value or some other value?

Hon. J. MacPhail: I assume the hon. member is asking the question from the point of view of selling. A lot of Crown land does not have a book value. Where there is a book value, we do take that into account. Where we're selling a piece of land that has no book value, we do our own appraisal.

R. Thorpe: I guess, then, that this part of government. . . . These are not assets that have been taken up to fair market value.

[ Page 9278 ]

Hon. J. MacPhail: My apologies -- I meant that we arrange for the market value to be determined. We go out and get independent professional appraisers to do it.

R. Thorpe: With respect to the sale of taxpayers' assets, what is the policy with respect to appraisals? Do we do one? Do we do two? What kind of appraisals do we do to ensure that we are maximizing the return to the taxpayers of British Columbia?

Hon. J. MacPhail: We usually get one independent appraisal done. These are professional appraisers of the highest integrity, and they are given the set of criteria based on market to appraise -- to give the market value appraisal. After that, though -- because I think what the member is. . . . I don't know. I may be presupposing, but the member wants to get the best value for the taxpayers' dollars in a sale. We don't leave it at that. We then list it on MLS and sell it for the highest value achievable through the competitive market process.

R. Thorpe: So we only get one appraisal, and then we embark upon selling it through MLS. How much is budgeted to be paid in appraisers' fees in the fiscal year 1998-99?

Hon. J. MacPhail: It might be up to $100,000, over the course of a full year.

R. Thorpe: Perhaps staff could provide that information to me outside of estimates.

What I'd also like to know is: how do we select the appraisers? What process do we go through -- the minister did use the word "integrity," etc. -- to select the appraisers?

Hon. J. MacPhail: We actually have a professional appraiser who coordinates all appraisals. He submits it to bid, and he usually gets about three bids from appraisers for each one.

R. Thorpe: Perhaps, in the interest of moving these estimates along, we could get a copy of the procedural guidelines that you must have in place for the selection of those.

With respect to selling lands, does the corporation now earn a fee, or. . . ? How do you earn your revenue?

Hon. J. MacPhail: The corporation receives a fee on land sales that covers its costs.

R. Thorpe: Just to cover operating costs, or is it a set percentage?

Hon. J. MacPhail: It's 10 percent.

R. Thorpe: We list on the MLS. Just as a matter of interest, do we pay the going tariff to those private business people, or does the government grind them into the ground on their rate?

Hon. J. MacPhail: Well, it's the going tariff. We're working with the industry on this, and if the industry offers to negotiate, so be it. But it's what the industry agrees to do.

R. Thorpe: So it is the tariff rate.

With respect to the $183 million that's shown in the estimates book for asset dispositions, how much pertains to BCAL?

Hon. J. MacPhail: None.

R. Thorpe: That concludes my questions with respect to BCAL. I wish them success in achieving their goals this year.

I. Chong: I would like to continue with the subject matter we started on earlier in regards to unclaimed property. I just have a few questions, and then we'll probably move on to another area. First of all, we spoke about the auditor general's report that had been prepared to address this issue, and that at present the forthcoming legislation hasn't been dealt with. For the record -- we spoke about it earlier today -- until such time as legislation is actually introduced or the Unclaimed Money Act is amended, I wonder if there are any initiatives being acted upon in the ministry during this interim time while we figure out what we would like to do in this area.

Hon. J. MacPhail: There's activity along the lines of consultation and input about what, if any, legislation should be done and changed, and how. We've also instituted a database to try to reunite people with their unclaimed money. This is the first time ever that that's been done. We're also working with the holders of the unclaimed money, I think, to make sure that they remit.

I. Chong: It's good to hear that the consultation is still being done in regards to the legislation. But in terms of the database and contacting holders of money, I understand that currently that database is not made public. As I understand it, one of the recommendations by the auditor general was to publish an unclaimed money deposits report. Is that, then, a confidential document in the ministry, or is it available in any other form? How do people know that there is a database being prepared?

Hon. J. MacPhail: The database will go from the very beginning of the program to now. Then we will make it known that the database is available. There may be some legislative changes required to make that fully public. In the meantime, though, I'm sure the member is well aware -- and if not, I'm pleased to bring it to the attention of the members, because this is new to me as well -- that we table in the Legislature a report of all unclaimed moneys.

Interjection.

I. Chong: As my hon. colleague says, we should probably all check our names to see if any of us are listed.

I appreciate what the minister is saying. I do recognize that for privacy reasons it may be difficult to actually publish this on the Internet, but I presume that something along that line will happen in the very near future. I was aware that a report was tabled, although I have to admit that I have not looked at it. Maybe I should; I might be on there as well.

[3:15]

[ Page 9279 ]

Hon. J. MacPhail: The point is well taken, particularly in the area of small businesses and informing them of their obligation. The legislation. . . . Let's be frank: we need legislation to clarify the legal obligation of companies -- small businesses, for instance. That's part of the exercise that we're going though in looking at revamping the legislation. We currently do work with the larger corporate bodies that are a good source for unclaimed money -- the financial institutions and the public trustee, for instance. We work under the Company Act with companies in that area as well. Much more needs to be done. That's part of the consultation and the legislative changes that are being contemplated.

I. Chong: Just a few other questions. I do understand that in the office of the comptroller general there are staff or FTEs -- however you want to count them up -- that are allocated to deal with this issue. I don't know if they're 100 percent dedicated to that area. Can the minister advise how many staff people we have and whether there is any intention to increase the numbers?

Hon. J. MacPhail: There's one person whose full-time occupation is to deal with this. There's another part-time person. But if there is legislative change, as is currently contemplated, then more staff would be required -- but not a great deal more.

I. Chong: Until the legislation is proposed, it's difficult to know what may be established in terms of what the requirement would be. And as the minister is chairing a new small business task force to deal with regulation and red tape, I would hope the she would be. . .that the last thing we would want to do is increase the regulatory burden on small businesses. In the effort to advise those holders of unclaimed moneys I would hope that whatever is suggested is the least disruptive to their business -- I would hate to have to see them send things in and send forms back and those kinds of things -- and that whatever is established is workable between government and small business. I just offer that as a comment.

The last question I have really is one of curiosity, I suppose, with what's been going on with unclaimed moneys and with the report that is available. Does the ministry have an idea of its success rate in reuniting people with unclaimed moneys -- in terms of dollars and also in terms of the number of people? I mean, if you have one person at $50,000, that's wonderful. But if you have 50 people at $1,000, then, you know, we can get an idea of the amount of work that is required to deal with reuniting people with their money.

Hon. J. MacPhail: There's two ways that people get reunited with their money. One is through us making the payments, and so we have that data. But part of our program is also to refer people to the institution which would reunite them with their money -- for instance, an insurance company. The claims do vary from year to year; the member is quite right that they can be as high as $500,000 in one year, and then we can have a particularly low year another time. And no, we don't have the individuals -- just the total claim amount.

I. Chong: I thought that was my last question, but a comment the minister made indicated that they only can track those payments made through the ministry. Can the minister advise us if she is saying then that there are moneys the ministry currently holds as unclaimed moneys, that when people are approached, the ministry is able to make those pay-outs? Is that what she is saying? If that's the case, can the minister advise us of the size of that pot of money and where it is?

Hon. J. MacPhail: Yes, there are moneys, and I'll have to get you the total amount that is in there.

I. Chong: When the ministry is able to provide that, could they also provide what is policy around that in terms of accruing interest on that amount so long as it sits, so that when someone does make a claim and is reunited with their money, they are aware what the principal amount was from the time the ministry received the money to the time they are actually reunited with it? What kind of interest are they getting on that? If the minister is able to provide that, I would be most grateful. That's really all I need to ask in this area.

I think it would be very exciting to see what comes out and is proposed in legislation. It could be a very valuable piece of legislation for residents of British Columbia. I do look forward to that, and I appreciate the minister and the office of the comptroller general for being so helpful today. Thank you.

Hon. J. MacPhail: I actually might request you -- with your expertise in this area -- to meet with me sometime to explore. . . . I wouldn't mind sharing with you what we have considered up to now in terms of the legislation and getting your comments.

G. Farrell-Collins: I want to pursue the line of questioning which I abandoned this morning and the member for Oak Bay-Gordon Head picked up on. I just want to pursue it a little further. The question was on support services and the various contracts that were set out and work that was done. Although I haven't read the Blues, my understanding from the member for Oak Bay-Gordon Head is that from 1995 up to and including 1998, there were a particular five companies, as far as I recall, that were used: KPMG, Arthur Anderson -- I've got KPMG twice -- Doane Raymond, and Ernst and Young. Can the minister tell me the amount of the contracts -- let's say, perhaps, for last year -- that were let for those various firms that I just itemized?

Hon. J. MacPhail: Just to clarify for the member, I reported that those are the opinions that we've received from 1995 to 1998. For instance, a couple of them were done by Crown corporations. I don't have that information at hand. If it is crucially important -- given valuable staff time -- I can seek to get it.

G. Farrell-Collins: I may call upon that yet, but I'd like to pursue this a little further.

[ Page 9280 ]

Hon. J. MacPhail: One of the points that we clarified this morning was that support services does not ask for outside opinions. That's not contained in their jurisdiction. It's the comptroller general himself that does it, or other agencies can ask the comptroller general for his advice on an outside opinion, and he can advise on it. So it's not part of support services.

I would say to you that this is the list of outside opinions which the OCG itself has either asked for or has been asked for its advice on doing. It's pretty inclusive, but I'm not going to say here that it's all-inclusive. I can't say that.

G. Farrell-Collins: Well, I'll ask my last question first. Is this the only role that support services has? Is that what support services does -- manage these outside. . . .? Are there other things that they do also? I assume there would be other things. Perhaps the minister can inform me.

Hon. J. MacPhail: Support services doesn't have anything to do with the outside audits. Support services is the administration for the comptroller general and would be the administration support for the OCG's auditing work.

G. Farrell-Collins: Thank you. Maybe I'm misinformed or I misunderstood. Let me ask it in a broader sense. What other outside accounting advice is sought by the Ministry of Finance? Perhaps I asked too narrow a question. Let me ask the broader question. What other work would these firms have done for the government, through the Ministry of Finance? Is this the only work that they would have done through the entire Ministry of Finance?

Hon. J. MacPhail: We were asked a question about outside accounting, so that's what we've answered. There's internal auditing; I want to make sure I get the words right for you. There is some contracting of internal auditing. I'm trying to help the members in what information they need, whether it be that, you know, we're not using enough or we're using too few or we're using too many. But there is a source of information for this by supplier, and that's reported in Public Accounts -- dollars spent by supplier in this area.

G. Farrell-Collins: I'm aware of that. What I'm trying to ascertain is this: I'm trying to determine not necessarily a dollar figure just yet but how much work the outside accounting firms do for government. I thought it would all have been coordinated through the Ministry of Finance. I'm getting the sense that it's often done directly with ministries, so I guess that's a broader question that would have to be asked in all of the estimates. But I'm looking to find out how much work they do for the Ministry of Finance in a broad sense and how that work is apportioned to the various firms.

[3:30]

I'm sorry; I've forgotten the other question from you.

G. Farrell-Collins: I think we were on the right track there. The same tender provisions apply, the minister is telling me. What I'd like to know, within the. . . . Now, you said there were three areas in which the ministry contracts these people to help, or which government in general contracted for. Let me ask this question -- and I'll just do it step by step: does the Ministry of Finance contract these firms to do systems work and management consulting work in addition to the internal auditing work that they do?

Hon. J. MacPhail: Yes.

G. Farrell-Collins: Can the minister tell me: in each of those other two categories, about how much was spent last year? The $300,000 was spent in internal audits. Can she give me an idea of how much was spent on the other two categories last year within the Ministry of Finance?

Hon. J. MacPhail: Oh, sorry. Do we spend on other areas? Yes. Do we spend more than on accounting? Yes. Is it spread across all accounting firms? I would say yes because of the tendering process, but I don't have the actual dollar figure right here.

G. Farrell-Collins: I know that the total amount that the various firms have received from the government of British Columbia is in Public Accounts. What I would like to get is a breakout of that. I would like to know how much each of those companies is getting from the Ministry of Finance, the services they are doing, generally, and a breakout of those services. I've been told about three things that they tend to do. If I could get a breakout of those three things, and then how much the various firms are getting, how much work they're doing. . . . Let's take last year as an example. That would be helpful. That's where I'm going. The other one would be to ask for this year, but of course, I don't think you know all of that yet. So if that information could come to us, that would be helpful.

Hon. J. MacPhail: We'll have to talk. . . . It's a significant request. In terms of. . . . I'm not suggesting that you go to FOI, but if it were FOI'd, there would be a dollar value attached to it. I want to try to accommodate you in finding what you are looking for, so we'll have to work together on how we can achieve that in the most cost-effective way.

G. Farrell-Collins: What I am looking for, essentially, is a more detailed breakout than what I am going to get in Public Accounts. I don't want all of the contracts, all of the details of the stuff. I'm trying to get a breakout of the amounts, what they are doing and an approximation of the amounts that are going to the various firms. I wouldn't think that that's a huge undertaking. It would certainly -- or probably -- take less time than it would take for an FOI person to write me back and tell me how much it would cost me to do it that way. If we can do it this way, it's certainly easier. If not, perhaps the minister can let me know and we'll have to follow another route, which may end up costing them and us -- which means the taxpayers -- more money. There may be an easier way to do it.

I want to ask a question. . . . I don't want to spend a lot of time on it, because I know it's being dealt with in some form by Public Accounts. How much has the ministry allotted this year for year 2000 problems and outside people helping us to deal with that issue?

[ Page 9281 ]

G. Farrell-Collins: I have two other areas in particular that I would like to deal with. The larger one that I will be dealing with is the cabinet policy and communications secretariat. I don't know if your people for that are here. If not, then we can wait a minute.

For the last item -- for which I apologize to the minister, because it wasn't on the list of items that I presented her with, so I want to give her some time. . . . The member for Okanagan-Vernon has some questions regarding PSERC that she would like to ask. It's not an extensive list; it deals with a particular issue in her community.

Hon. J. MacPhail: PSERC?

G. Farrell-Collins: PSERC, I believe it is. I'll have to ask her. I don't have it here. I will have to check with her and see which one it is. Let me find that out, and I'll let the minister's staff know. In the meantime, perhaps we can pursue some questions on the cabinet policy and communications secretariat -- "cupcakes."

Hon. J. MacPhail: This is Mark Stefanson, who is an assistant deputy minister in CPCS.

G. Farrell-Collins: My understanding of the budget for this department is that it has gone up significantly in this past year. Can the minister tell me what changes are taking place at CPCS that require the changes that I see in the budget item?

Hon. J. MacPhail: There's been a reduction in the budget for CPCS. The '97-98 restated estimate was $7,077,000. The budget this year is $6,667,000.

G. Farrell-Collins: Can the minister tell me the reason for the reduction?

Hon. J. MacPhail: I don't think the member will like the answer: there's been a reduction in advertising.

G. Farrell-Collins: I guess we could look through each ministry and hazard whether in fact there has been a reduction in advertising. When you include the Crown corporations and the $5 million expenditure of B.C. Hydro this year, there certainly hasn't been a reduction in the advertising.

Can the minister tell me the number of FTEs in the department?

Hon. J. MacPhail: There are 55.5.

G. Farrell-Collins: Can she tell me what portion of that is salaries and benefits?

Hon. J. MacPhail: Salaries are $3,675,000. Benefits are $821,000.

G. Farrell-Collins: Can she tell me how those have changed since last year -- the FTEs, the salaries and the benefits?

Hon. J. MacPhail: The salaries for 1997-98 were $3,332,000, and the benefits were $730,000. FTEs were the same.

G. Farrell-Collins: So there's been a good 10 or 11 percent increase in the amount allotted for salaries and benefits and no increase in the number of FTEs. Can she explain to me how that happened?

[3:45]

G. Farrell-Collins: The reality is, though, that you had 55.5 FTEs, and you had a budget; and you have 55.5 FTEs this year, and you have a budget. Regardless of vacancies, the budgeted amounts differ by some 11 or 12 percent. Can the minister explain that difference?

Hon. J. MacPhail: There is less reliance on contractors and more reliance on public service appointments -- not OIC appointments but public service appointments.

G. Farrell-Collins: Is the minister telling me, then, that in this year's budget, the salaries and benefits include the outside contractors? Is that what she's telling me? The answer doesn't make sense relative to the question. Maybe the minister didn't hear it, or maybe it wasn't conveyed accurately.

My understanding is this: you have the exact same number of FTEs in last year's restated and this year's budget. Your salary and benefits, however, have increased significantly. I'm trying to understand why that's the case.

Hon. J. MacPhail: There is not a direct relationship between the base salaries and the FTEs. The FTEs is a cap. Sometimes budgets are underallocated in terms of salary for the exact FTEs that you've got. For instance, if there were ever the horror of the day that perhaps salaries were reduced, one has the ability, because there is a legislative requirement on FTEs as well, to go up to that cap of FTEs. But there is not a direct link to FTEs. For instance, the FTE level has stayed the same for the year, but the budget for salaries in CPCS has gone up. So there is an ability perhaps to recruit up to the 55.5 now.

G. Farrell-Collins: Then let me ask a different question. How many full-time and part-time employees were there last year, and how many full-time and part-time employees are there this year?

Hon. J. MacPhail: So you want to know how the FTEs are broken down between full-time and part-time. If that's the case, we can get that information for you. The way we keep track of employees is by FTEs.

G. Farrell-Collins: What the minister told me was that the FTEs were 55.5. Then she said those were a cap. However she wants to term it, what I'd like to find out is: what are the actuals? Whether she calls them FTEs or not. . . .

Interjection.

G. Farrell-Collins: Yes. How many FTEs did you actually have -- full-time, part-time -- last year? And how many

[ Page 9282 ]

Hon. J. MacPhail: There's a technical term that's inappropriate. It's called: "How many FTEs do you burn?" We'll get that for you for last year.

Interjection.

Hon. J. MacPhail: I know.

G. Farrell-Collins: Well, at the end of some years, I feel like I've been burned as an FTE too. I can understand that. I know that in this business, you tend to burn people out pretty quickly, so maybe that's where it came from.

Anyway, can the minister tell me when I'm going to get that? I'd like to see it today, if we can do that.

Interjection.

G. Farrell-Collins: Okay, I'll wait for that, then, until it comes through.

Let's start with the top five salaried, or the five top-earning employees. . . . Let me put it this way: the five top earners in CPCS. Can the minister tell me what their salaries were last year and what their salaries are this year? Let me be clearer. What salary did they start at last fiscal year, and what salary are they starting at this fiscal year?

Hon. J. MacPhail: The top position is the deputy minister, and we'll get the salary range. I mean, they're within. . . . All these salary ranges are imposed by government. ADM is the next level, and the next level is director, of which there are seven. So I don't know. . . . What's the top salary for deputy?

A Voice: It was in the public accounts. It's available, I think. A hundred and. . . .

Hon. J. MacPhail: I don't know; it's more than I make -- $120,000-odd. And what's the top salary for ADM -- around $92,000? The director is, I think, around $80,000. They're all available in the public record.

G. Farrell-Collins: That's not exactly what I asked. What I want to know is the top five employees. I'm starting there.

Interjection.

G. Farrell-Collins: Okay. Well, we should be able to find it. The question is: what salary did they start at in the last fiscal year, and what salary are they starting at in this fiscal year -- the actual dollar figure? I'm not asking what range. I'm asking what dollar figure they were making at the beginning of the last fiscal year, and what dollar figure they were earning at the beginning of this fiscal year.

Hon. J. MacPhail: The difference is 1 percent.

G. Farrell-Collins: Let me restate it. I'll try a different approach. For the five top-paid individuals -- not the top five positions but the top five individuals -- I would like to know, regardless of what their titles are and what their positions are. . . . How much did the five top-earning individuals earn at the beginning of last fiscal year, and how much are the top five earning this year, divided up among the five?

Hon. J. MacPhail: I'll give you the information we have available now. The deputy minister has had no change; in fact, I misspoke myself by saying that they got a 1 percent increase. There's been no change from beginning to end. I think the ADM got a 1 percent increase. It's hard to tell. Those are the top two. The next level is the directors, and there are more than three of them. You asked for the top five?

Interjection.

Hon. J. MacPhail: So you're asking for the next level that incorporates more than five -- right? That's the director level. There was a classification review done, and they were reclassified as of March 2 from ML7 to ML8. If there's a dollar value that you wish to get, we can get that information for you.

G. Farrell-Collins: The minister is telling me -- and I just want to be clear on my facts here -- that in the last year, the amount of income that the deputy and the ADM receive has not changed. They weren't reclassified, and they weren't moved up. Nothing has changed in titles, and there's been no position change. Everything's exactly the same as it was last year. Is that what the minister is telling me?

Hon. J. MacPhail: Actually, the ADM was classified downward. Sorry, that is a change. The deputy is unchanged.

G. Farrell-Collins: I'll wait for the other information that the minister was going to get. What I would like to ask the minister now. . . . She made a comment earlier about less reliance on outside contractors, I think. Can she tell me what is happening there? Is there some policy change? Have you started to fill those FTEs more? What's taking place there that would require that change?

Hon. J. MacPhail: After a communications review, we're relying much more on communications being done in-house, amongst public servants, rather than using outside contractors.

G. Farrell-Collins: Can the minister tell me, of the 55 FTEs -- or whatever number you actually had or burned in the last year -- how many of those were OICs and how many of those were selected through the normal process for the civil service?

Hon. J. MacPhail: If the member will give us a complete list of the information, I'll certainly ask. There's been a reduction in OICs. Is there some other area. . . ? We're going to get it. Maybe you could provide the series of questions in this area, and then we'll get that for you.

[4:00]

[B. Goodacre in the chair.]

[ Page 9283 ]

G. Farrell-Collins: The minister tells me there's been a reduction in the number of OICs relative to those selected otherwise. Can she give me a. . . ?. Let me ask what it is right now. What's the current status right now of the number of people out of those 55.5 FTEs or so that are OIC appointments and those that were selected otherwise?

Hon. J. MacPhail: There are 12, doing it from looking at our org chart. If there is some error to that, I will correct it in writing.

G. Farrell-Collins: How many are there that were not hired through OIC?

Hon. J. MacPhail: Sorry, but that's related to. . . . You're asking for last year?

G. Farrell-Collins: Well, no. Actually, I asked for this year.

The Chair: Hon. member, working through the Chair.

Hon. J. MacPhail: Oh, okay, we'll count the remainder.

G. Farrell-Collins: I'm a little perturbed, because there were sort of the really basic questions. How many people work for you? How much do they get paid? How many did you have last year? How many do you have this year? These are really basic questions. The minister is shaking her head. Maybe it's a lot more complicated than I see. But I don't know how we're going to get anywhere until we can get through the basic questions. If I don't get any information back, there's no further questions to answer. Maybe that's part of the plan, but I'm just trying to get some basic framework within which to operate. It's pretty hard to explore this area without any sort of basic information.

Hon. J. MacPhail: We're not trying to obfuscate, but I have to say that this is the first time in five years of doing estimates I've been asked an individual salary level. We've given you the salary range, the classification and the OIC information. We've given the number of FTEs. There's no attempt here to withhold information. Other than not being able to provide the exact FTE burn to date, which we're getting, I don't know what information we're withholding.

G. Farrell-Collins: If I was presumptuous in inferring that there was some attempt to not be forthcoming with the information -- and I did that erroneously -- then I retract it. I've been asking a series of questions here that are pretty simple for almost half an hour now and haven't received an awful lot of information. I'm just trying to get the basic numbers. How many people work there; how many people are supposed to work there; how much are they being paid; what's happening with salary levels? It's hard to see that coming forward. I'm just trying to understand what the difficulty is, because either you know how many people you've got working for you or you don't. I'll just keep moving, and we'll see what actually happens.

Hon. J. MacPhail: I assumed the member had an organizational chart. If he doesn't, I'll give it to him right now. It outlines all of the workers and their levels.

G. Farrell-Collins: No, actually, I don't. I didn't know that was a public document.

Hon. J. MacPhail: And then there would be the one point that I have already put into the record of reclassification on this as of March.

The Chair: Excuse me. Which one of you has the floor?

G. Farrell-Collins: I still have the floor. Okay, I will take a quick look at this.

Can the minister describe for us what the two major projects are that cupcakes has dealt with in this last fiscal year -- not the sort of day-to-day stuff but the major projects that it has been dealing with?

Hon. J. MacPhail: CPCS provides a coordination role across government. They provide policy and strategic advice on the issues of our legislative agenda, the economic agenda. There are no projects initiated by CPCS, but they provide a coordinating role. Just from an organizational point of view, there's been a reorganization of communications across government. That review, I think, was done by CPCS.

G. Farrell-Collins: I'm just looking at the organizational chart. I'm looking at the Premier's Youth Office. Can the minister tell me what type of work those individuals have been working at this last year and what they plan on working at this year?

Hon. J. MacPhail: The Premier's Youth Office coordinates and advises on all government programs that are youth-oriented, whether they be employment or education programs, and provides strategic advice and coordination in that area.

G. Farrell-Collins: I'm curious about what sort of work this group has been doing and what sort of advice they've been offering to the Premier and to the government, because the youth unemployment in this province has skyrocketed in the last couple of years. We now have a youth unemployment rate in the low twenties amongst males, which I think is shocking. I think it's a disaster waiting to happen. So I'm wondering what sort of advice and analyses these people are doing that is trying to turn that around.

Hon. J. MacPhail: The mandate of the Premier's Youth Office is that. . . . We will have the opportunity, I'm sure -- and I'm sure you wouldn't want to take it away from your critic for youth -- but you will have the opportunity to discuss this with the Premier again, and certainly I'd be pleased to address it as well. The Youth Office designs, delivers and communicates programs and initiatives for young British Columbians.

Some of the accomplishments have been the Guarantee for Youth, which created more than 11,500 job and training positions. In 1996 more than 21,000 young people received jobs, experience or training; 10,000 new spaces were added to colleges, universities and institutes; and 150,000 B.C. students have been protected from tuition increases. The Youth Office coordinated local youth forums on jobs and education in Kamloops and Campbell River, and held forums on racism and violence in Vancouver. There is a web site; there is a toll-free line on information on youth employment. They have been performing an active role on getting youth onto boards, agencies and commissions.

The initiatives for this year are Youth Options B.C. . . . I'd be happy to go into that, although I'm sure the Premier will

[ Page 9284 ]

G. Farrell-Collins: The minister talked about the 5,000 jobs in Student Summer Works. Can the minister tell me how many of those jobs have been filled?

Hon. J. MacPhail: It's actually a program that's managed by the Ministry of Advanced Education. If that information hasn't been received, I'll be happy to get it for you from that ministry.

G. Farrell-Collins: I'm just curious, as we go through here. I understand that these people and this agency, according to the minister, coordinate the coordination role of all these programs. When I asked her about the youth group, the minister told me that they coordinate -- or something -- and deliver upon programs for youth. So I'm wondering what the delivery part is that they do, if it's all being run through the ministries.

Hon. J. MacPhail: They help design the policy framework for the delivery of programs. For instance, the program that's called -- sorry, I just read it out here; it's one which is throughout the government service -- the Crown mentorship program is not run through the Premier's Youth Office; it's run from the employers in that area.

G. Farrell-Collins: Is it the intent of the work that these people do and the intent of the programs to provide -- particularly the one the minister mentions, the Crown mentorship program, and other youth employment programs that are coordinated through this agency. . . ? Is it the intent when this policy is developed that all those jobs will go to youth?

Hon. J. MacPhail: Yes. There's different eligibility requirements by program -- and we can get those for you -- but yes, they go to youth.

[4:15]

Hon. J. MacPhail: The standards and policies that are applied to these programs are developed. . . . Advice of various sorts is received, from various areas, including the Premier's Youth Office and the ministries themselves. Then cabinet approves those.

G. Farrell-Collins: Once they're approved, though, is there any role for these people in this group to ensure that those agreed-upon provisions are being complied with?

Hon. J. MacPhail: Yes; I'm sorry, I forgot to answer that part of your question. They provide a monitoring role.

G. Farrell-Collins: In the event that the provisions aren't being followed exactly or that ministries or Crowns are deviating from those provisions, how would that be monitored? How would that be corrected?

Hon. J. MacPhail: If the ministry itself doesn't catch it through their own monitoring function, then the Premier's Youth Office, catches it through their monitoring function. Then the two meet and decide on what remedial action is to be imposed.

G. Farrell-Collins: What exactly is that monitoring function? How is it done?

Hon. J. MacPhail: The ministry's report. The Youth Office receives those reports, and monitors and evaluates them. There is an annual report released, and there's also direct contact between the ministries and the Youth Office as well. There are a couple of other ways in which the programs are monitored as well. For instance, PSEC and PSERC -- who are both here, I think -- have their own initiatives that they are funded for. There's a youth initiative in both sectors, and they monitor as well.

G. Farrell-Collins: I guess I gathered that. Before I go on, it's actually PSEC that we are going to need to speak to. I told you I'd advise you of that. I see the gentleman from PSERC is already dashing to the door; he gets to go out and enjoy the nice weather. We don't need that just yet. The member from Vernon will be asking a few question toward the end, but I just wanted to let you know that.

The monitoring itself that takes place. . . . A report. I guess I'm looking for more particulars as to what that is. Is it just numbers of how well they're doing towards their goal, or is there some other process to determine whether not just the numbers but the guidelines, the parameters and the expectations are being followed? What is the nature of that monitoring? What's the nature of that report? What sort of information flows back and forth?

Hon. J. MacPhail: I can give you a verbal description, then I'd be happy to provide you with the actual performance report that was done for last year; it's the same this year. The reporting is done on the eligibility requirements met, the characteristics of the job, the job itself and the nature of the employment in terms of duration and compensation. I'd be happy to provide the complete performance report.

G. Farrell-Collins: That would be helpful. Maybe the minister can let me know, in responding to my next question, when I can anticipate receiving that.

The economic and resource policy division is one of the larger ones; I guess it's larger by one. There are seven people, including some assistants, but essentially there are four senior policy advisers and a director. What kind of work has that branch of the department been working on in the last year?

Hon. J. MacPhail: They perform two functions, and I can give you some examples of what they're working on. There's a regular function; they monitor and comment upon cabinet submissions in the areas that are with the resource and economic ministries. The comment would be both from the legis-

[ Page 9285 ]

G. Farrell-Collins: The minister said that there were performance reports done on the B.C. Youth Advisory Council and the youth jobs program. Is that something that is done throughout this department to try and measure that? Is that part of the controlling function, the reports that come out every year that say: "Here's what our goals were; here's how we've done" -- sort of along the lines of the accountability structure that's in place in other parts of the ministry? Are there reports from each of these departments every year on that performance?

Hon. J. MacPhail: As a general rule, no, because the work and the responsibility for the work in terms of budget, etc. is incorporated into the ministry. So the reporting would be through the ministry. The whole of CPCS performs a coordinating and assisting function.

G. Farrell-Collins: The minister said that there is a performance report done on the Premier's Youth Office. Is that one done on an annual basis? She mentioned that CPCS does monitoring and delivery, and that is how the discussion about monitoring came in. That report is done within CPCS itself, or it's received from the ministry and sent to CPCS. Is there a similar process of reports done on these divisions, either within CPCS or by the ministries and then submitted to CPCS for them to receive those reports?

Hon. J. MacPhail: The Premier's Youth Office performance report is done annually, and it's actually a public document. I have committed to getting that for the member. It is very specific in requiring performance reports because of the attention and focus on youth. So no, a similar report is not done in other areas. If there is reporting, it is done through the ministry that is ultimately responsible for the particular project from a money-flow point of view.

G. Farrell-Collins: Are those reports that are done submitted to CPCS for evaluation or for information purposes? The minister said that the monitoring takes place, and I assume that it takes place in most of these departments. If that monitoring takes place, what form does it take if it doesn't happen with the same types of reports that were in the Premier's Youth Office?

Hon. J. MacPhail: I'll try this again. The issue of the actual evaluation of the program arises out of the ministry, so we would have to go to the individual ministries to see what, if any, evaluation is done. I think the member is aware of the initiative on program evaluation generally across government, working both with the OCG and the auditor general. Each deputy in each ministry is working on that as well.

G. Farrell-Collins: I am aware of that. I guess I was looking more at the role outside of the broader accountability framework, the more specific role that these departments would be playing in actually monitoring and measuring the policy directions and structures that are put in place as a result of this coordinating and advisory role that CPCS plays. It would seem to me that if you are advising and coordinating, there's also got to be some feedback to you as to how well it's doing. If you don't know how well it's actually performing, it's pretty hard to tell what else you need to do, how much more coordination you need to do. I was just trying to find out if there is a flow of information back and forth on that.

[4:30]

Hon. J. MacPhail: The same parameters of work apply that I enunciated for last year. The specific projects for this year are aluminum smelters, the copper smelter, advice on LRT and advice on a convention centre. There are some private-public partnerships that are in the works.

G. Farrell-Collins: This group of people, this smaller department within the secretariat, would seem to me to have a fairly large, important and significant role to play right now, given the softening -- as the minister put it -- of the economy. Aside from these specific big projects, what role are they playing in the overall long-term economic strategy and policy direction for the province of British Columbia?

Hon. J. MacPhail: I don't think anybody was intending to shunt aside overall work. The projects are the culmination of economic policy, so they're important. Some of the strategic initiatives government has been working on, in terms of our economic objectives, that have been assisted by the advice of CPCS. . . . There's been, for instance, the film initiative; the oil and gas initiative; the forestry initiative -- working in the forestry sector; the mining initiative; the high-tech initiative; and the sectoral strategies and sectoral tables that have been developed under the economic plan.

G. Farrell-Collins: Can the minister tell me if there is an overall role for this group as far as taxation levels go? We talked about that yesterday. The minister talked about sectoral programs. Is there an overall analysis or any sort of policy being done to look at how taxation levels will affect the investment climate in British Columbia?

Hon. J. MacPhail: No. Most of that advice comes from the Ministry of Finance -- in fact, I would say all of it. We are talking about just seven individuals here. There has been a team approach to these sectoral strategies that involves the ministry -- Finance; where it's appropriate, CPCS; and, of course, the industry sector itself as well. As I'm sure the member is aware, some of the sectoral strategies announced include tax incentives in them.

G. Farrell-Collins: Can the minister tell me -- I don't need to know their names -- what the backgrounds of the four senior policy advisers and the director are, as far as economic skills go?

[ Page 9286 ]

G. Farrell-Collins: Are there any tax specialists in there at all -- or accounting? They're economists and resource people.

Hon. J. MacPhail: Yes. Their experience. . . . The academic background is also bolstered by extensive experience in ministries as well.

G. Farrell-Collins: Can the minister tell me, with regard to the strategic management and legislation division, what role it is that those people play?

Hon. J. MacPhail: This group is responsible for advice, coordination and assistance around the legislative agenda.

G. Farrell-Collins: What is the background -- again, in general terms -- of the individuals that work in this division?

Hon. J. MacPhail: Lawyers.

G. Farrell-Collins: Are they all lawyers, or is that sort of. . . ? There are two senior policy advisers, a senior legislative adviser, a legislative officer and an administrative assistant. Are those individuals all lawyers, or do they have some other experience in government?

Hon. J. MacPhail: They all sound like lawyers, but. . . . Most of them are lawyers. I actually work very closely with this group. They're wonderful people as well. A few have policy backgrounds, but they do legislation.

G. Farrell-Collins: Perhaps the minister can tell me a little bit about the issues management unit -- who's there, what their backgrounds are, the type of work that they do.

Hon. J. MacPhail: Their backgrounds are in policy, but they do shorter-term issue management. For instance, I would say that more of the work is done on the social policy ministry side -- shorter-term initiatives.

G. Farrell-Collins: Can the minister tell me: of the people in the issues management division, how many of those are OICs, and how many of those are people who've been hired through the normal process in the civil service?

Hon. J. MacPhail: They're all OICs.

G. Farrell-Collins: Could she tell me about the strategic management and legislation division regarding OICs?

Hon. J. MacPhail: No OICs.

G. Farrell-Collins: I want to move into another area of this. The minister talked about the advertising budget being down, which CPCS manages. How much of the entire advertising budget does CPCS have in its budget? Is there a significant amount of advertising done within the ministries themselves that they're responsible for and that appears in their budgets?

Hon. J. MacPhail: For advertising and publications, it's $1,042,000. I would just note for the record that overall advertising across all government -- not Crown corps, but over all government -- is down 10 percent.

G. Farrell-Collins: The minister told me how much of her budget in this division is for advertising -- I think advertising and publications is what the minister said. Can she tell me how many. . . ? I guess the original question I asked is: how much of the overall government advertising is included in CPCS's budget? Let me ask that question first.

Hon. J. MacPhail: Overall government advertising this year is $8 million, down a million from last year. So CPCS's portion is $1 million of the $8 million. But included in the $1 million is publications as well. Was the question just on advertising?

Interjection.

Hon. J. MacPhail: Yeah, so it's less than $1 million out of $8 million.

G. Farrell-Collins: What role does CPCS have in designing, developing and contracting for the design development strategy around the advertising that happens in the other ministries across government?

Hon. J. MacPhail: Ministries are required to submit an annual communications plan that's reviewed by the communications division of CPCS and approved. Then there's an advisory function, a strategic advice function, performed by CPCS, but the ministries themselves are responsible for the delivery of their communications and advertising programs.

G. Farrell-Collins: It's a fairly broad role that the minister is describing, and I'm just trying to narrow it down a little bit. To say that the ministries are responsible for delivering and developing -- delivering, I think, is the word she used -- their own advertising plan or program. I would expect that CPCS plays a significant role in the advice that's given, in the coordination that takes place in those provisions. I'm just wondering to what extent that is the case. Is each individual advertising program something that comes to CPCS for discussion, for evaluation as to where it hits in the agenda, timing, format, and for making sure it dovetails with what other ministries are doing regarding branding -- items like that?

[4:45]

G. Farrell-Collins: As far as the accounting and budgeting for that, is that work charged to the ministry? You're using their services -- or rather they're using CPCS's services in a coordinating fashion. Is there any charge back and forth for that administration and that service?

Hon. J. MacPhail: No.

[ Page 9287 ]

Hon. J. MacPhail: Individual ministries have their agencies of record, and they're tendered. There is an agency of record for CPCS, which was just recently tendered and changed.

G. Farrell-Collins: The question I asked, though, was: what role does CPCS play in helping the various ministries go through that process?

Hon. J. MacPhail: CPCS serves on a selection panel as one of its members.

G. Farrell-Collins: Can the minister tell me who is the agency of record now for CPCS?

Hon. J. MacPhail: Shepansky, out of Vancouver.

G. Farrell-Collins: I want to talk a little bit now about some of the projects the minister mentioned. One of them was the smelter project. How much time and energy is CPCS playing in moving that project forward? Is it one of many projects, or is it sort of a dominating project -- that's the Power for Jobs version -- that CPCS is working on?

Hon. J. MacPhail: It's the Ministry of Employment and Investment's project, but we probably have the equivalent of one person working full time on it.

G. Farrell-Collins: Is the advertising around Power for Jobs one of the projects that CPCS was doing, or is that a project that's being run out of E&I?

Hon. J. MacPhail: It's the responsibility of E&I.

G. Farrell-Collins: Are all of the other job development projects that the minister listed being run out of E&I, or are any of those projects being taken on, in whole or in part, by cupcakes itself?

Hon. J. MacPhail: No, all projects are based in the ministry.

G. Farrell-Collins: Earlier on in the discussions, the minister offered to give me some unemployment numbers. I'm wondering if we've received those yet.

Hon. J. MacPhail: FTE utilization in 1997-98 was 53.89.

G. Farrell-Collins: I was also asking the minister if she recalls the numbers that she offered to get for me at that time. I was looking for a breakout of full-time and part-time. Are those all full-time people, or are there part-time people employed there also?

Hon. J. MacPhail: I would actually hope that there's some part-time in there, because I don't know how we'd get the 0.89. It's a composite. Actually, there is a mix of full-time and part-time, and the purpose of FTEs is to make the equivalent.

G. Farrell-Collins: The minister said that the department has moved away from outside sourcing and has decided to do that internally. What was the total expenditure last year on outside support, and what's the budgeted amount for this year?

Hon. J. MacPhail: STOB 20, which is professional services, was reduced. In 1997-98 it was $277,000. This year it's $207,000. And under STOB 40, informational advertising and publications, much of the reduction comes about by a reduction in contract services. The reduction there is from $1.8 million to $1.042 million, from 1997-98 to 1998-99. Those are the two main STOBs.

G. Farrell-Collins: The minister said a certain number of the FTEs are obtained through order-in-council. Can the minister tell me what process is followed to secure those hires?

Hon. J. MacPhail: There's a combination of job postings and secondments.

G. Farrell-Collins: Are those postings done in the normal posting process? How are they posted? Are they internal or external? And how are the secondments arranged?

Hon. J. MacPhail: Yes, they're done in the way that all competitions are done.

G. Farrell-Collins: Oftentimes within government we've seen individuals who have been brought in as auxiliaries. Are there ever any auxiliary employees brought into CPCS?

Hon. J. MacPhail: Yes, there is a use of auxiliaries, mainly in the area of support staff, but it could be in other areas too.

G. Farrell-Collins: How many of those auxiliaries in the last year were converted to full-time or permanent employees?

Hon. J. MacPhail: None.

G. Farrell-Collins: The minister said that some of the positions are filled by secondments. What search process is used to find those people before they're seconded to CPCS?

Hon. J. MacPhail: Secondments are done in the same fashion that they're done throughout government. There is a posting of a secondment opportunity, which is done through the human resources branches across government service.

G. Farrell-Collins: The member for Okanagan-Vernon has some questions that she'd like to ask regarding PSEC. Perhaps we can do that now.

A. Sanders: I'd like to specifically address issues relating to a wage increase of 13 percent to BCGEU members serving individuals with mental and physical handicaps. These are the individuals in the community living sector. This settlement was negotiated by CSSEA, which I believe reports to or is part of PSEC.

The government formed this labour relations body with a membership of non-profit organizations under CSSEA in order that the government would not find that the employers were at a disadvantage in expertise at the table, with large unions overpowering settlements with less experienced employers at the time. So the advent of the provincial bargain-

[ Page 9288 ]

One of the things that was anticipated and expected with the formation of CSSEA was that established policy would be put in place that no wage benefit increase would create an incentive or a disincentive to unionize, and this lift for one section of the group clearly violates those principles. Because CSSEA has more non-union agencies in its membership, this is of very large concern to those groups. They are now at a wage disparity of quite a considerable amount. CSSEA was based on the principle that this discrepancy would not occur, yet the bulk of the members will receive no wage increase while the other members will. I want to know from the minister: what is CSSEA's policy regarding wage differentials between union and non-union agencies?

[5:00]

A. Sanders: It is clearly not my intention to violate in any way something that is before the court. In fact, I wasn't aware that it was before the court. What I would like to look at generally is the policy with regard to CSSEA alone, not looking at the Vernon and district mentally handicapped specifically. So looking at the policy regarding the differential between union and non-union agencies, what is the maximum allowable differential?

Hon. J. MacPhail: Thank you, and I appreciate those comments. The policy is that after a settlement has been reached between employers and unions in this sector. . . . We have a policy of neutrality toward union or non-union that after a settlement has been reached, funds will be distributed within a range of 5 to 10 percent -- it can be either over or under. That distribution from the last settlement still has to take place.

A. Sanders: If the differential is between 5 and 10 percent -- and that's the maximum allowable differential -- how can CSSEA negotiate a 12.5 percent wage increase for the smaller part -- the unionized agencies -- and leave the other ones at such an imbalance?

Hon. J. MacPhail: Let me tell you how the policy will apply. The timing of this is probably unusual, because they've just completed the round of bargaining and are in bargaining immediately. Much of the bargaining was for a retroactive period, so they're literally in bargaining again. When that bargaining is complete, the funding is available for union and non-union agencies, and we take that into account. So the process is not complete yet for the non-union agencies. But the level of funding, the 5 to 10 percent, is on the value of the overall wages.

A. Sanders: If CSSEA were set up with a mandate to not create an instability between the unionized and the non-unionized, and that is actually part of their policy, why did negotiations occur that would in fact violate that policy?

Hon. J. MacPhail: They haven't.

A. Sanders: The minister said that the bargaining has not finished for the non-union agencies and that there will be additional funds for that group in the community living sector. But my understanding is that those individuals were told that there was no remuneration available for that part of the sector. Could the minister explain the difference between what she said and what members of the community living sector have said?

Hon. J. MacPhail: Again, I would hope. . . . I only use this caution because of the relationship between the constituency of the member and the writ being served, but there has been no such advice given by government.

A. Sanders: To reassure the minister that this has nothing to do with the writ -- which, incidentally, does come from Vernon -- I would refer to a letter from Sue Fritz, director of B.C. Pricare, the B.C. Association of Private Care. This service provides for mentally challenged adults in the electoral area. Her concern is with the 13 percent increase for unionized care homes and the inability of fixed-rate contractors to negotiate. The disparity in funding between local negotiated and non-negotiated contracts is also referenced. If the minister can see that I am referring to the B.C. Pricare letter, as opposed to anything from the Vernon and District Association for the Mentally Handicapped, then that may free her up to look more clearly at the issue of unionized versus non-unionized in another area that is not before the courts.

Hon. J. MacPhail: I hope I will be able to take this opportunity to reassure the member and, through her, the sector. This the reassurance: we are at a stage now where the bargaining has just taken place. There have been seven tables structured involving six unions. They were dealing with bargaining that went back several years and is just being renegotiated now. We offer this reassurance: when the bargaining is complete, the funding will be delivered for the entire sector as per CSSEA's policy and government's policy. But we are at a time now where it really is in a state of transition through bargaining and then the settlement out of the non-union's sector's application for funding.

A. Sanders: With respect to the disparity in the increase, in CSSEA's bargaining with the Ministry of Finance, were equal submissions made from the union and the non-union sectors?

Hon. J. MacPhail: That actually would come through the employer.

A. Sanders: Did CSSEA recommend similar wage settlements for both the union and the non-union agencies in their deliberations?

[ Page 9289 ]

A. Sanders: I'll just return to that in the Ministry for Children and Families and thank the minister for that advice. Would it also be appropriate to ask there who made the decision that the unionized agencies would receive more funding than the non-unionized agencies, or would that be through the Minister of Finance?

Hon. J. MacPhail: Again, the allocation of funds is made at the CSSEA table, through the employers and CSSEA. I'm trying to offer this in a reassuring way: the mandate has not been fulfilled yet, because the application to the non-union sector, flowing out of bargaining, hasn't been done yet. Bargaining hasn't been completed yet. If the member is suggesting that we should do an interim step from the last table to this table, I suggest that that would be an appropriate issue to discuss through the mandate of CSSEA and mainly the Ministry for Children and Families.

A. Sanders: Does the Minister of Finance have any idea how many agencies will be affected by CSSEA wage settlements in this fiscal year?

Hon. J. MacPhail: Sorry -- are we dealing with how many employers are under CSSEA? Is that the question?

Interjection.

Hon. J. MacPhail: Okay. There are 640 members of CSSEA. GEU has 122 certifications; CUPE has 44; HEU has 21; HSA has 13.

A. Sanders: How many of the agencies that are affected by the wage settlements this year will be unionized agencies, and how many will be non-unionized agencies?

Hon. J. MacPhail: There are 3,300 agencies; 640 are members of CSSEA. I don't have the information on the number of employees affected in each sector.

G. Farrell-Collins: There is a series of votes I believe the minister needs to move. There are a couple of items that she is about to move which still require debate. In the Ministry of Environment, which is coming up next, they'll be able to do one in that topic area. But we still need to hold on to vote 41, the Transit vote, for Monday, when that will be debated.

Vote 36 approved.

Vote 37: ministry operations, $91,126,000 -- approved.

Vote 38: registries, $8,842,000 -- approved.

Vote 39: pensions administration, $1,000 -- approved.

Vote 40: product sales and services, $1,000 -- approved.

Vote 64: management of public funds and debt, $880,000,000 -- approved.

Vote 65: contingencies (all ministries) $75,000,000 -- approved.

Vote 66: B.C. Benefits, $244,351,000 -- approved.

Vote 67: commissions on collection of public funds and allowance for doubtful accounts, $1,000 -- approved.

Vote 68: corporate accounting system, $10,606,000 -- approved.

Vote 72: police complaints commissioner $837,000 -- approved.

[5:15]

Vote 74: Public Service Employee Relations Commission, $11,082,000 -- approved.

Hon. J. MacPhail: I move that the committee rise, report resolutions and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 5:18 p.m.

The House in Committee of Supply A; E. Walsh in the chair.

The committee met at 6:38 p.m.

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF ENVIRONMENT, LANDS AND PARKS

Hon. C. McGregor: I am very pleased to have the opportunity to make a few introductory comments, before we begin our estimates. I certainly look forward to the next several hours over which I plan to have the estimates resolved, but the opposition critic may have a different plan in mind. I thought it would be. . . . It's customary to take a moment to recap the highlights of the past year, and I want to take time to do that. But, before I begin, I also want to make two significant statements about issues related to this ministry.

I think the first thing that needs to be recognized is how progressive and environmentally concerned this government has been since the election in 1991. In fact, we have been recognized worldwide for the leadership we take on matters related to environmental protection. We have set the pace not just for North America but, in fact, internationally on things like land use planning. We have governments from around the world visit us and really take a page from our book to use the kind of processes we have developed here in British Columbia to resolve what are often the most difficult decisions in communities to reach consensus around, and those are the issues related to land use. Recently the World Wildlife Fund put out a report that talked about the percentage of protected areas across Canada and acknowledged that in just the last year alone British Columbia created more than 50 percent of the parks in Canada. So we're a world leader and in fact are well on the way to doubling our park system by the year 2000, which was the goal announced by the Harcourt government some years ago.

In the area of waste reduction, we have achieved momentous progress along the way in reducing the amount of solid

[ Page 9290 ]

It's not just about sustainability for the sake of the environment, but equally important, it's about our success on our economic agenda. It will come as no surprise to the members opposite that our government has made it a top priority to work with industry and communities to build our economy, to encourage investment and to ensure decent-paying jobs. But we're not making choices between jobs and the environment; we're saying there's a balance to be achieved with putting together the goals of protecting the environment and job creation. We have to work together on both of those goals at the same time. If we want certainty for our resource industries, stability for resource communities and confident customers in our foreign export markets, then it's vital that we ensure that our industrial practices are environmentally sound. So sustainability is the key objective of the government to ensuring that that happens, because we want to sustain our fisheries, our wildlife, our land and our water. We want to continue with the kind of dramatic growth we've had in both tourism and ecotourism which is well linked to our natural environment. If we want to have that kind of diversified twenty-first century economy, then we have to make environmental stewardship a cornerstone of our public policy and a fundamental goal of business too.

Now, it's not just me or our government who believes that environmental protection is good business. I've been doing quite a bit of reading about the relationship between business and the environment. This book is called In Earth's Company, and it's really a history of environmental management in business over the course of the last 40 years. It talks about how environmental management has changed in the business sector. So when I say it's important that we consider environmental issues in the business strategy, it's not just government who thinks that's the right thing to do, but clearly there are businesses in industry worldwide who feel the same way.

Just as a couple of examples, a company called Baxter International, in its 1993 environmental report as quoted in this book, talked about and declared right in its business plan: "The total savings generated from Baxter's environmental program were $48 million in 1993. This added 8 cents per share to Baxter's profitability". So there was a clear link between environmental protection and profitability. "Eco-efficiency," they declare, "is worthwhile because it has shareholder value." They go on to describe another example of a different company that developed a business case for a consumer goods company called Church and Dwight. In their 1993 investment portfolio, they put $1.9 million into environmental public affairs and did an economic analysis, where they produced incremental sales of $25 million, a 13-to-1 ratio. So investment in the environment is obviously good for business too.

Having made those two points about the importance of our natural environment and sustainability and how it links to the economy, I'd like to talk for a few minutes about the past year. I took on the responsibility for this portfolio in January of 1997. Since that time we've taken some fairly significant initiatives, particularly in the last year, and I'd like to summarize a few of them. During the past year we brought in our contaminated sites regulation, which really puts front and centre the polluter-pay principle. Instead of innocent parties having to clean up environmental damage, this act and regulation makes it clear that those parties who cause the damage to the environment pay. We've also taken the leadership on industrial stewardship. I know the critic is going to spend some time on questions related to that, but I think it's a very important, new direction that this ministry has taken. We've said that the industrial producer and the user of those products have the prime responsibility for managing that system and for paying for it. We currently have fully 95 percent of hazardous waste, all the way from leftover paint to pharmaceuticals, actually covered off by our waste management recycling programs. That's a big achievement.

[6:45]

In the area of emissions, and particularly greenhouse gas emissions, we have to acknowledge that it's a high priority of British Columbians to take action on greenhouse gas emissions. After negotiating an international protocol in Kyoto and agreeing that as Canadians we have a responsibility to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions, we're going to live up to those Kyoto commitments by working together with the federal government. This will be a key strategy for us over the next year, as we take the initiatives we've already laid out through the greenhouse gas action plan as well as the emissions trading pilot that we worked with business to create, and model the kinds of ways in which we will be able to manage greenhouse gas emissions. In the case of the trading pilot, we're using what is very much a business model.

We've also set the pace on fish habitat protection. We brought in the Fish Protection Act last year. This year we'll be working very hard, in consultation with local governments and communities, on how to implement the Fish Protection Act and, in particular, the streamside directive that local governments will be charged with delivering.

We will continue to work, of course, on our protected-areas strategy. In particular, I think it's important to note that this year we created the Northern Rockies special management area. We recently tabled legislation in the House through which that will be created. It can arguably be described as the most significant land use decision in North America. In fact, it

[ Page 9291 ]

As well, we acquired the Empire Valley Ranch, which is significant by the fact that it is a very rare grassland ecosystem. We were very underrepresented as a province in the area of grasslands, so it was very significant from that point of view. It's an extremely fragile environment. It's an important area to save and to be able to demonstrate how to effectively manage a grassland ecosystem through multiple users and traditional uses, either by first nations or by ranchers.

These kinds of initiatives in land use planning and the protection of these very significant areas of the province have certainly earned us kudos from the international community. More importantly, I think, are the kudos that come from average, ordinary, individual citizens and communities who have participated in the processes through which these areas have been set aside. I think that's the great strength of the land use planning process: it allows for the very grassroots involvement of multiple stakeholders in communities making decisions about how to best use land in their area.

You may recall that last summer I announced the B.C. Park Legacy project, and we will be continuing to work on that in the upcoming year. The Park Legacy panel has just submitted to me their draft report, and that will be out very soon. All British Columbians will have the opportunity to look at some of the planning priorities we may wish to consider in parks management in the future.

I think it's also very important to speak on the kinds of initiatives we've taken around youth and the environment, because the work that we do in this ministry related to environmental protection is important not only from the preservation side but also because it creates a future for our youth and for young people, who hold high values related to environmental protection. So we've tried to link the issues of environmental protection as well as job creation through the creation of Youth Options B.C., but through this ministry we have the environmental youth team program. That takes us to a point where young people can have a first opportunity at job creation that is linked to important environmental projects in their own communities. It's a good start in not only linking what young people already value but also in providing them with opportunities to gain skills and use them to produce employment for themselves at a future date. So it's a good first start.

It's not just been about involving youth in job creation programs; we've really tried to involve youth in decision-making around the ministry. We did have a youth representative on the Park Legacy panel, which I spoke of recently. There was a huge youth involvement in the development of that report with many recommendations about how we should manage our parks on behalf of their future needs.

What are our priorities in the coming year? I think I touched on some of them. We're really trying to work to achieve the priorities of British Columbians. We are going to continue the efforts I've mentioned in land use planning, solid waste management and so on, but we will also take some new initiatives related to clean water. We're going to work with the Ministry of Health in the upcoming year to talk about issues related to clean drinking water and sustainable water use. That fits nicely with some of our initial work around water-use planning and of community stewardship models that we've developed to be able to work with communities on the management of water -- projects related to non-point source pollution. In fact, we hope to launch a new ecoeducation program involving both youth and water quality issues and piloting that in communities to work on water management issues. We're going to continue, as I said earlier, developing the streamside protection regulation under the Fish Protection Act, as well as working on the designation of sensitive streams, which were also a part of the Fish Protection Act.

Another priority area is clean air. I spoke at some length about greenhouse gas emissions, and clearly we'll have to continue working with a pilot and working with other governments across Canada. One of the major initiatives just recently announced is the new investment in public transit. That will also assist, as well as the initiatives we've taken in converting buses to natural gas and the potential for Ballard to provide some new opportunities in the transportation market with zero-emission technology. We're going to continue to work on waste-reduction management. I spoke earlier about our industrial stewardship programs, but some new opportunities include the recycling of off-road tires, auto dismantling and scrap metal recycling, as well as major initiatives related to composting in communities.

I spoke at some length about our land use planning and some of the major decisions we've taken in the past year. We'll continue with that work, as well as work on new strategies related to marine protected areas. We recently released a coastal planning framework document which makes reference to coastal planning involving communities in discussions about how to zone the coast for different uses. Of course, part of that will be to potentially identify marine protected areas. Continued support for ecotourism. . . . I know the members opposite will be familiar with our recent announcement of initiatives to improve and deal with the backlog of Crown land applications and to also make some improvements in the tenuring system so we can offer new opportunities for ecotourism. So that will be a priority. We'll also continue to try and work smarter, in cooperation with communities, local governments, first nations and environmental groups, in order to deliver on our broad mandate and to continue to meet public expectations for environmental performance.

On the basis of partnerships, we want to work with industry on issues related to pollution prevention. We're taking a model where we're moving from being the cop that worries simply about compliance, to being the coach working together with companies on how to achieve our goals in pollution-prevention, rather than simply engaging in end-of-pipe initiatives related to permitting and limiting waste in that way. Both my deputy and I have made it a priority that we need to develop new approaches for service delivery and a client-focused service in our ministry. That's a goal that we've been working together on for the last 18 months.

Before we go into the specifics of the estimate debate, it's important to note one final point: that is, like other ministries across government, this ministry has been operating under significant budget restraints. That brings some challenges to us, and those are challenges faced by ministries across government. I think it's important for us to realize that the effectiveness of our work within Environment, Lands and Parks should be judged not only by how much money we spend but by how effectively and efficiently we spend it. We've gone a long way toward gaining those efficiencies over the last few years, but we've also been able to show British Columbians the kinds of results that they want for environmental protection. That's certainly a goal that I share with all British Columbians. I'm committed to continuing to work as a leader in environmental protection on behalf of British Columbians.

[ Page 9292 ]

M. Coell: I gave the minister and her staff a list of areas that I wish to canvass, and I wish to concentrate on some of those tonight. There is a great deal of interest in the ministry by the Liberal opposition, and there is a large number of MLAs who wish to ask questions with regard to areas of the ministry that affect their individual ridings. We will try to schedule those in the next couple of days as well.

In commenting on the minister's comments, one of the things that I view that an estimates debate is for is to look at the goals and objectives that ministry set for itself this year and last year and what they hope to accomplish next year. I would like to go through a number of areas of the ministry and just look at those three aspects to see how well the ministry is doing. I acknowledge what the minister has said about the cutbacks that the ministry has had over the last few years, and I wish to look at how those cuts have affected ministry services for residents of British Columbia.

I also want to spend some time looking at Crown Lands. I know we looked at Crown Lands during question period, but in the estimates what I'm interested in is what the ministry is doing to adjust to some of those problems that were pointed out. I'll be interested in that as well.

With that, I'll allow the minister to introduce her staff, and we'll start.

Hon. C. McGregor: Cassie Doyle, my deputy minister, is just immediately to my right; Greg Doyle, assistant deputy. . . .

A Voice: Koyl.

Hon. C. McGregor: Greg Koyl. Sorry, Greg -- I've only known you for how long now? Greg Koyl, assistant deputy minister of corporate services; Jon O'Riordan, assistant deputy minister of Environment and Lands, regions; Denis O'Gorman, assistant deputy minister of Parks; and Don Fast, assistant deputy minister of Environment and Lands, headquarters. They're here to provide as much assistance as is necessary to get the answers to all your questions.

[7:00]

The first issue that I would like to discuss is the flooding in the Okanagan, specifically in Okanagan-Vernon, which includes Vernon, Lumby and Cherryville. This year, fortunately, due to high ground saturation, it wasn't overcome by heavy snowpack. In fact, because we didn't have heavy snowpack, we didn't have the absolute chaos that's existed in the Okanagan for the last two years. It's been a very regular routine for me to go and visit my neighbours and find their houses under water and them evacuated to the nearest motel. Last summer we had as many as 30 families evacuated to hotel premises during the time of peak flooding, with high ground saturation and peak water flow.

The spring and summer of 1997 were absolutely memorable within the two decade cycle for high, high rainfalls, tremendously deep snowpack in the mountains and a resultant high water level. Sandbags were a common feature along the stream beds and the creek banks of the Vernon area. The only year that came close to such high water levels was 1996. So it was again within this term where heavy rains and flooding also created tremendous havoc for the people who live in my neighbourhood. Front-line workers dealt with a number of emergencies, and there was a great deal of cooperation between the agencies. As we're all aware, this particular issue has no respect for interministerial boundaries. It involves the Ministry of Fisheries, the Ministry of Environment, the Ministry of Agriculture -- a number of different ministries are involved in having the final say.

However, even though the floodwaters have subsided, and this year appears not to be one of any concern, many questions have not been answered, particularly with respect to dredging and water management. The spring and summer seasons of 1996-97 have left more than property damage in their wake. Now we have creeks and water channels that are clogged with silt, debris and trees. Now we are in a situation where a lot less water could create similar havoc to what which we had prior to these incidents for the properties along streambeds in Vernon.

Many residents in our riding are concerned that the Ministry of Environment allocated funds to dredge creeks. In fact, Vernon -- probably the worst-flooded place in the province -- received no funding for creek dredging. While the primary role of water management in the Ministry of Environment is that of a regulatory nature, there are occasions when the ministry must and should carry out stream restoration to restore stream channel capacity and stability. While moneys were allocated in the ridings north of Okanagan-Vernon -- Grafton Creek and other projects -- Vernon was left out. The MLA office is constantly receiving calls of inquiry as to whether residents can expect channel restoration. As yet, there has been no response from either the water management branch or the Ministry of Environment. Because we had so many calls to our area last summer, this particular issue probably superseded any with the Ministry of Human Resources, in that we had sometimes 30 calls a day relating specifically to water management issues.

As a result of this, on February 24 the MLA office in Vernon sponsored a meeting to provide residents with information on creek management. Over 70 residents attended and listened to speakers from the Ministry of Environment, the water management branch, the federal Department of Fisheries and Oceans, the MOH, the provincial emergency program and B.C. Hydro. All of these participated in the public hearing sponsored by the MLA office. Part of this meeting was a question-and-answer period. Many of the questions were presented in written form, and I would like to present those tonight, because they still require answers. In spite of the meeting being held in a non-confrontational manner. . . . You can imagine the détente that's involved in holding a non-confrontational meeting when you have a whole bunch of bureaucrats and a whole bunch of really angry people who bought a hay field and lost 35 acres of it or bought a house and then found that a creek was running through it after the 1997 flooding in Vernon. These are residents who are very worried about flooding and actually now have angst over every major rainstorm that occurs.

The creeks are clogged with debris and silt, and they've been that way for the last two years due to heavy runoff. The residents are losing patience with the ministry and would like some definite answers as to whether they can count on stream restoration taking place. For these people, property damage

[ Page 9293 ]

My first question to the minister is from a gentleman named George Ricketts, who lives at 7505 Holtam Drive in Vernon. His question is: is there a plan in place to educate the persons responsible for controlling the Kal Lake gates during a major storm? These storms add to the flow of Vernon Creek downstream. Last year one of the three gates was closed, but one gate did not reduce the flow. The people in Okanagan Landing got a full creek, plus all the storm water from the city. If Kal Lake gate had been shut down for two hours, there would have been tremendously less damage to properties along the creek in the Okanagan Landing area. On behalf of Mr. Ricketts, I would like to start by putting that question to the minister.

Hon. C. McGregor: I'd like to begin by commending the member for her efforts and her work with the community on creek management questions. I think that was a very proactive piece of work for her to engage in: to try and provide answers to members of her community to deal with those very important and often life-threatening issues. There can be nothing more frightening than flooding. As the member notes, in her community a variety of watercourses changed as a result of high snowpack and our unusual weather pattern, and a high level of flooding occurred in her community. It happened in my community, as well, and I think that many of us were engaged in very specific actions to try and prevent huge damages to people's personal homes and property as a result of natural events that we can't really control.

I think that's where we have to start in this discussion around where water flows as a result of flooding events. We can't control, as much as we might like to, the very acts of nature that in fact cause damage to the personal property of people who live close to a river or stream that is flooded as a result of certain weather and other events leading to the flooding situation. There is a lot of work done with communities in floodplain management. The member may well be aware of some of those efforts -- in particular, because both the Attorney General and I were extremely interested in flood prevention initiatives. Through the provincial emergency program, during a flooding event -- or when we're imminently faced with a flooding threat -- dollars can flow to construct or repair dikes and so on. In the aftermath of the flooding that the member describes and in communities around the province, it seemed to both of us that there was really a need to engage in proactive planning in diking and floodplain management. So we worked together to create a $3 million flood protection assistance fund, which the member may not have been aware of and which would give members of her community the opportunity to apply for preventative work that might well lead to a different situation in the future.

On the specific issue of the Kal Lake gate, we can't give you that answer right here. There is no one who can give us the specifics on that, but we'd certainly be prepared to take that question on notice now and get that answer for you.

A. Sanders: Thank you, and I appreciate that answer, hon. Chair. I hope that the minister will address it to Mr. George Ricketts of 7505 Holtam Drive, V1B 1T5, as he is the gentleman who asked me to specifically ask that question to the minister. This was a very significant problem, in that that amount of flooding did not need to happen, if whoever was managing the gates could have had an educative process that would have prevented the amount of water flow or water volume -- metres per second or however it is measured -- from going down into the Landing area.

My second question to the minister is about Vernon Creek, the same creek that caused the problems the last time. This is the creek that comes out of Kalamalka Lake. We have virtually run out of creek channels. After consulting with numerous engineering people, it seems that dredging may be necessary. Is this an option from your perspective? The original creek bed is at least five feet lower in most spots. This is a question from Rob Irwin of the Big Chief Mobile Home Park, 5484 25th Avenue, Vernon, V1T 7A8. This gentleman owns a trailer court that's been there for a number of years and that has recently had a succession of tremendous flooding, which has put all the people in that trailer court in the unenviable position of relocating or moving out or having quite significant property damage.

Hon. C. McGregor: Dredging is an activity that we are sensitive to permitting only at certain times of the year, because of fisheries windows, and that's one of the constraints under which dredging needs to operate. Certainly the flood protection assistance program that I made reference to earlier might be a tool that an individual or a community could use to apply to for preventative works. I think that what the member is making reference to is that as a result of the build-up of silt and debris from previous flooding events, another flooding event could then really damage, even more than it has already, homes or areas -- in this case a trailer park -- quite close to the streamside. I would think that this kind of application to that fund would be totally appropriate and that it might provide some assistance for the individual in paying for the dredging, although an individual can certainly apply at any time to our ministry regional office for permission to engage in dredging. But again, that has to be done within a certain fisheries window.

A. Sanders: I think it's really important for the minister to recognize that those in the know in bureaucracy often use completely different syntax and language and linguistic patterns from those who live in the community. One of the things that I found very astonishing this year, in having to work with this particular problem, was that the people in Fisheries and Environment, and so forth, would talk about windows. They would talk to people who live in my community who may or may not have a grade 8 education, let alone a high school or university education. They were talking about the concept of windows, which people may have heard on a computer basis but certainly were not aware of in terms of creeks, streams and waterways. One of the things that I suggested very, very strongly was an educative program for people to help them conceptualize the obscure data and syntax that's used by ministry officials and bureaucrats. When you're talking to a farmer, for example, who has lost 35 acres of a 160-acre hay crop because of flooding, and his land is completely gone and unusable. . . . The ministry official said to me: "Why didn't this guy have his paperwork in at the end of August?" And I said: "Because he was out haying what was left of where he lived, and when you're out haying, you don't fill in government forms. If you do fill them in, then everyone's on holiday anyway, because it's the summer, and they aren't processed until September. By that time, perhaps you've missed the window."

So it would be very, very beneficial for people who do not work in the bureaucracy and who have no concept of the linguistic peculiarities of the Ministry of Environment to have some kind of public awareness plan created. So if these win-

[ Page 9294 ]

Hon. C. McGregor: I really appreciate what the member says about the use of plain language. I remember that when I first started in this job, at one of the first meetings I was at, I said: "I wish people would stop speaking in code." When you're not familiar with the language, it's very hard to detect what people are talking about. I take what you offer as good advice for us, because we are trying to focus our staff on a client-service model. One of the ways that we can better serve clients is to make sure that we don't use language that doesn't assist people in figuring out what it is that we want them to do. I take the member's comment very seriously.

I would also assure her that we are working with the agricultural community in my own community, in Kamloops. We have a staff person out of the regional office who is actually assigned to work with the agricultural community on an ongoing basis to deal with some of those issues, because it is very important for us to understand the nature of their work as much as it is important for them to understand the nature of ours.

[7:15]

I have a question from MP Darrel Stinson's office -- from his assistant, Susan Anderson. This question to the minister is: what is the progress on dredging Ross Creek, Hummingbird Creek and Ashton Creek? Does this include removing gravel and debris for future safety?

Hon. C. McGregor: We have detailed plans for each of those creeks, and we'd be happy to provide them to the member if she would like.

G. Abbott: I am pleased to be able to join in this discussion. The issues the member for Okanagan-Vernon raised are also very important to me. As the minister undoubtedly knows, we had some severe flooding difficulties in the Shuswap last year. We've had similar in years past, but I'd have to say that last year there were some events that were remarkable -- not because they were good but because they were remarkably bad, as the minister probably knows.

The Shuswap, like other parts of the province, annually experiences during freshet a fair amount of problems. What we had in addition to the normal spring freshet this year and the associated problems were events around. . . . As I recall, it was about July 10 or 11. After some very heavy rains in the area, there were debris flows -- mud slides, if you like -- on a number of creeks in the Shuswap, most notably Hummingbird Creek, where there was very considerable property and other damage; Hudson Creek at Anglemont, where there were some serious problems; Ashton Creek and others. As I said at the time and still continue to say, I think it was very much a tribute to the PEP officials and the Ministry of Highways officials, and so on, that they did an excellent job of responding to that emergency. In some cases, people worked for 36 hours or longer to try to help get the situation under control. I think the initial response was very good. The situation after the initial response was completed was more of a longer-term one of trying to address some of the things that needed remediation. Also, when we get into the issue of longer-term recovery, some situations arose that were quite frustrating and not nearly as effective as the initial response.

For example, at Swansea Point, at least six months after the event and possibly even longer, there were still people who had not had potable water restored to their residences. On numerous occasions I contacted the provincial emergency people and tried to persuade them that these people had good water prior to the event and did not after the event, and that consequently they should be doing something about it, but that didn't work.

I'll just enumerate some of the less satisfactory elements of the response to this situation. There was that. As well, there was -- and I know this very well because I tried to be a proactive part of this -- an attempt to involve local governments in the remedial efforts. The Columbia-Shuswap regional district and the North Okanagan regional district, for example, came to meetings, and we talked about how the different parties could participate in addressing the situation, trying to put in protective works and so on. The really unfortunate part of how that evolved was that. . . . The regional districts would have been happy to come in as sort of local proponents for people within an area, but I'd have to say that they were subjected to attempts to try to get them to bear a part of the financial load; whereas by not getting involved, they'd have no financial load to bear. There was an attempt to draw them into that. I also think there was not sufficient effort devoted to freeing them from the liability considerations which go along with their involvement.

I'm not necessarily looking for a response from the minister now, but I want to alert her to that situation, because that was far less than satisfactory -- the way that the local governments were treated in that situation. I think they wanted to be involved, but they didn't want to get into a situation where they started to carry 10 percent or 25 percent or any other percent of the cost of these efforts; nor were they prepared to assume the liability for works completed by the province, either through FRBC or through Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks, or any other combination. I think the minister should know that, because I think that was one of the unsatisfactory things that occurred.

The other thing I want to say here initially is that when it comes to prevention, we are still falling short of where we need to be. Just before I got here, I think the minister mentioned that there is a new flood protection assistance program -- that $3 million-some has been devoted to that. That is, hopefully, a step in the right direction. Again, what occurred subsequent to the events, particularly a month or two or three after the effect of the events was starting to wane a little bit. . . . It was a question of: who's going to pick up the ball in terms of flood prevention? How are we going to ensure, for example, that we don't see a repeat event on Hummingbird Creek in 1998, '99, 2000 or any other time? How do we put the flood protection works in place to ensure that that doesn't happen?

What occurs is kind of a merry-go-round where: "It looks like FRBC might have some money, so why don't we try FRBC?" FRBC says: "No, it's not our thing. Go to the Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks." The Ministry of Environ-

[ Page 9295 ]

Three million dollars in a flood protection assistance program is good. Maybe it restores something that was there in the past, which for a while there wasn't a great call for. Hopefully, we're moving back in the right direction. I don't know what is an appropriate cost-shared program, but we need to have some program whereby people can, with assistance from senior governments, protect their properties again, put in riprap or whatever is necessary to do that -- rather than the diffuse and sometimes confusing routes that one can follow now.

Pardon me for the long preamble. Could the minister advise what is similar and what is different about the new flood protection assistance program, as compared to the riverbank or streambank protection program -- I'm not sure which it was -- that was in place in British Columbia, I think, until 1991 or '92?

Hon. C. McGregor: I appreciate the member's comments about flood protection and the work of the provincial emergency program. In case the member isn't aware, the Ministry of Environment is a member of the team that works with the Ministry of Transportation and Highways and the staff. The Ministry of Transportation and Highways does take the lead in coordinating that, and as the member notes, they do a terrific job. I noted that in my own community in terms of their flood response.

In terms of the example that you gave about responsibility for water systems and so on, I want to try to be helpful in detailing a possible response. It's difficult generally to determine responsibility from the broad example that you gave, but obviously it does depend on what kind of a water system is currently in place. Is it a municipal water system? Are the people on wells? Whose water is it, and who has legislative or local authority over those water systems? In lots of cases, municipal governments have created the water systems, and, of course, we want to engage in partnerships with local governments in that regard. So that could explain the approach that was taken on those questions, although PEP adjudicates whether or not the loss of water potability was as a direct result of a flooding event and whether it's then ineligible for funding.

In the specific case that you gave, I'd like to be helpful with a response. If we can perhaps set up an opportunity to talk about that in more detail, I'd certainly be happy to do that.

In terms of the flood protection assistance program that was announced just a month or two ago, it is largely similar to the program that existed. I think that 1991 was the last year that there were dollars available. It is 75 percent provincial funding and 25 percent local funding.

G. Abbott: I just want to make sure I've got this right. The old program was 75 percent provincial, 25 percent local. I think I understand that. How does that compare to the new program, or is it the same for both?

Hon. C. McGregor: It's the same for both.

G. Abbott: Good. I think that's a reasonable way to deal with it. I think the challenge that you will have -- and it will probably be evident in the relatively near future -- is that when you start riprapping rivers and streams, $3 million doesn't go a long way. It's quite a remarkably expensive process to protect water bodies, and $3 million may soon be found to be an insufficient amount. But we'll see by that. At least the program is in place, and I think that is a step in the right direction.

In the case of the folks who lost water at Hummingbird Creek, these were individual systems; there's no municipality involved. I think it was the contention of the PEP representatives that it hadn't been proven that the flood was responsible for the change in water. Now, I have a big difference of opinion with them on that, but I guess. . . . You know, I argued the case twice with PEP and didn't succeed. It's unfortunate, but I guess that was the way it was gonna be.

I believe the member for Okanagan-Vernon has further questions.

[7:30]

My next question to the minister is as follows: what action needs to be taken to lessen the threat of flooding of Coldstream Creek and keep the level of Kalamalka Lake from getting to extreme height?

Hon. C. McGregor: I understand that the matter is being investigated by regional staff now. We'd be happy to provide the member with a report once that investigation is complete.

A. Sanders: With respect to that question -- will we need to re-engineer the discharge gates at Kalamalka Lake and Penticton? -- the answer to that question should go to G. Harvie, 8203 Kalavista Drive, Vernon, V1B 1K4.

Hon. C. McGregor: We'll be happy to provide the answer directly to that constituent of yours.

A. Sanders: I understand that there is a storm sewer and easement at the bottom of lots on the east side of Lakeview Drive in Coldstream, but there doesn't appear to be any ditch or manholes to allow water to enter the system. Should there be ways that excess water from rain, snowmelt, etc., can enter the system to help prevent flooding of homes below that area? The answer to that question should go to W. Duncan, 7912 Kalview Drive, Vernon, V1B 2R6.

Hon. C. McGregor: I wonder if the member could provide a little more information about the area in which the individual is making the inquiry, because it may well be a matter of local government authority in terms of creating a capacity for runoff and storm sewers and that type of way to handle the excess water.

A. Sanders: At this time I have several other questions. But what I'd be more than happy to do is give the list of questions to ministry staff and the minister and have them provide answers directly to the individuals who have asked

[ Page 9296 ]

Hon. C. McGregor: I would be happy to provide responses.

G. Abbott: Could the minister advise of the relationship, monetary and otherwise, between federal disaster relief and the provincial emergency program? My understanding is that federal disaster relief kicks in when an event is above a certain magnitude in terms of dollars, and there is a 90-10 formula at point. Could the minister give me the specifics on that, please?

Hon. C. McGregor: Unfortunately, member, we are not the lead agency on the questions related to this. It's handled through PEP, which is through the Attorney General ministry. We can probably get that kind of information for you, but you might find it easier to ask those questions directly yourself. We do know that there is a funding formula with the federal government, but we're just not intimately familiar with the details of the criteria and so on. I'm sure the Attorney General's office would be able to provide those for you.

G. Abbott: That's fair enough. I appreciate that the connection is more with PEP than with the Ministry of Environment. I'm just curious as to how it may mesh with the other things that the Ministry of Environment may do, but we'll leave that aside, because that's a question of detail which I don't need to necessarily have answered now.

One of the first events that occurred after my election -- and it was purely coincidental -- was the event on Chase Creek, about two days after the 1996 provincial election. From a property perspective, it was quite a catastrophic event for the people along Chase Creek -- all the way, it seemed, from the top of the hill, miles and miles up the mountain and right into the village of Chase, where there was some significant damage as well. In that case, PEP responded initially -- actually we talked about this back in the '96 estimates -- but there was no mechanism at the time, apparently, to deal with the protection element in the wake of the damage that occurred.

Ultimately, Forest Renewal B.C. volunteered -- I guess that would be the best way to put it -- a considerable amount of money to help with that situation. Some work has been done. I know that people there are frustrated, though, that the funding they received has never been what was indeed promised by Forest Renewal B.C. in the early years. I don't know if the minister is able to comment on that. I know that she is not responsible for Forest Renewal, but I know as well. . . . I'm not sure whether this minister would have been the Minister of Environment at the time, but I think she was. Whether as MLA or whatever, she was spokesman for the project.

Could the minister advise what the people at Chase Creek can expect this year in terms of their situation and their ability to deal with the problem?

Hon. C. McGregor: In fact, I wasn't the minister at that time. But I lobbied the then minister heavily and lobbied FRBC as well, to make funds available for those individuals who are actually private property owners -- that there be a policy change for FRBC to actually allow investment of public dollars through FRBC into private land in exchange for a covenant making sure that whatever works were put in place would remain in place. That was a significant stumbling block before funding could be directly addressed to the actual streamside repairs that needed to go on -- related to the flooding event.

As the member is likely aware, a lot of the work that's gone on through FRBC dollars has been in the upper slopes. Some of those dollars have also been used for things like riprap and streamside protection measures. It was just last weekend, in fact, that the regional FRBC staff was in the community, making an announcement about the new dollars for the upcoming year and showing the public the kind of work that had gone on around streamside protection. I wasn't able to attend because I was here, but one of my staff in the Kamloops office went. They're doing some very innovative things, and it is going to assist greatly in the restoration of that creek area. But it is a long-term strategy, over some five to ten years, before all of the work will be done. I don't recall the exact amount that was announced for this year. I seem to recall that it was somewhere in the neighbourhood of $130 million. That may not be exactly correct, but I can certainly check.

G. Abbott: Actually, I think the $130 million across the province is correct. I gather that the minister doesn't have any particular knowledge about this situation in terms of how much of that $130 million will be devoted to Chase Creek -- presumably not.

The question, then. . . . I'll try to wind this down. With the flood protection assistance program in place, when events at Hummingbird Creek or Hudson Creek or Ashton Creek occur, how does the minister see things unfolding in these situations? And again, last year it was a case of PEP stepping in initially and dealing with the problem. I presume nothing changes there. Last year, after PEP was done -- the initial damage was dealt with and the initial remediation was taken care of -- then it was a longer-term chase for dollars, if you like, whether from Forest Renewal B.C. or from the Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks. It was sort of a question of where to go.

In the world of 1998, with the new flood protection assistance program in place, how does the minister see events unfolding in a hypothetical flood event where damage has occurred, where there are longer-term issues to be addressed and where there are flood protection issues to be addressed? Does FRBC continue to be a player? Does MELP continue to be a player? How does the new program fit in? How would the situation evolve, and what are the circumstances in which the different elements could come into play?

Hon. C. McGregor: I think it does depend in part on the cause of the event. In the case of Chase Creek, for instance, there was a lot attributed to the logging activity that went on in the upper watershed. So that's where FRBC's original involvement came from. There clearly have to be links to logging activity for FRBC to play a role. When there is flooding activity in an emergency situation, that's when the PEP funding would kick in. That's the emergency nature of the fund, and that funding would then be applied in building temporary dikes, sandbagging and that kind of activity. Then there is the fund that we spoke of earlier. That's clearly designed to be a preventive kind of program to deal with maintenance or issues that have come about as a result of ongoing flooding activity. So which one of those possibilities is the correct route for a community to go depends, I think, on the specific circumstance that has to be assessed.

I take the member's point, though, that it may not be easy for a small regional government or a local government to

[ Page 9297 ]

G. Abbott: That's useful. The issue that will arise will be on the third instance that you mentioned. Where there's a clear, definitive cause for the problem, I think that's not going to be a problem. If it's related to previous logging practices or something like that, FRBC is where you look. We look to PEP during an emergency situation. I think it's in the third area, the area of prevention, where the confusion is going to result. I think the minister already anticipated this to some extent.

Where we have clear risk that a subsequent flooding event may cause property or other damage, people presumably will want to get assistance. They may be able to get it through the 75 percent contribution of the flood protection assistance program. Does that mean that accessing 100-cent dollars from the Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks -- as has been done in a few specific situations in the past year. . . ? Is that gone? Is the flood protection assistance program going to supplant that? Does that do away with the possibility of going directly to MELP and saying: "You need to deal with this"?

Hon. C. McGregor: Yes.

[7:45]

So far so good in 1998. This is the first year of my term that I haven't been confronted with serious flood problems in my constituency. Touch wood; I hope that stays the same. Probably my good fortune in 1998 may not be universal throughout the province. Perhaps in 1998, $3 million may be adequate. In a year like 1997 or 1996, $30 million probably wouldn't have been enough to deal with it. Given that we're only one year away from 1997 -- and the property damage of 1997 is still pretty fresh in everybody's mind -- there may be considerable demand. What happens if the $3 million is not enough?

Hon. C. McGregor: In fact, we know that the $3 million won't be enough. We could spend two or three times that, and we probably wouldn't satisfy the demand. So we'll have to prioritize projects. But this is the beginning of an annual budget, and I think it's a step in the right direction, as I think you said earlier. So we're taking that philosophy, and we'll prioritize the projects and put that $3 million -- which is levered by another $1 million contribution from local governments, with a 75-25 funding formula. . . . So it is a bit more than the $3 million, but I certainly understand what you're saying about the need for more preventative works.

I would certainly suggest that the member may want to consider -- and we can continue to talk about this -- the opportunity of working with the federal government on this question. It may be that there will again be in the future some joint federal-provincial infrastructure programs. We could identify this, which is a huge priority in our province in terms of the need for flood protection works and dike maintenance and, in some cases, the kind of irrigation programs that have been built, particularly in the Okanagan. I know there has been a huge network of channels built over the years, which will require some maintenance. I think that's an opportunity to engage in a cost-sharing program that might have a larger amount of money through which communities could access funds to do that kind of work. I would certainly suggest that that might be something we could work on in the context of discussions with the federal government, if they should so decide once more to engage in a joint infrastructure program.

G. Abbott: I won't delay the further progress of these estimates with other questions in this regard. I just want to leave the parting thought with the minister that if it is proven that the demand for this program is in excess of $3 million -- I fully expect that it will be, and I suspect it may be up to ten times that demand -- the province look at this program as an investment rather than an expenditure. I appreciate that it is expenditure as well, but the issue here is that if we don't deal with the problem, the province ends up paying for it through another door anyway. It won't be the Ministry of Environment budget, but it will be the provincial emergency program budget. As grandma used to say an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. I hope that will be the case here and that as the demand for this program is demonstrated, the province responds to it in that spirit.

Hon. C. McGregor: I appreciate what you said about the need for future investments, and I think there's an opportunity at the end of the program this year to do a review and see what we might consider in future budget years.

J. van Dongen: I'm pleased to pick up on the discussion that's been initiated on this floodproofing issue, riverbank protection and diking, etc. First off, as the previous critic for Agriculture and the current critic for Fisheries, I want to say that I spend as much time in the Ministry of Environment as anywhere else. I did hear the minister in her opening comments use the term "composting," and I hope she was thinking "mushroom composting," because growing and marketing mushrooms in this province is an important industry. So I just wanted to throw that in.

With respect to the $3 million that's been set aside under this flood protection assistance fund, I felt that in the last couple of years, when the previous program was discontinued, it would only be a matter of time before the province and, hopefully, the federal government got back into this area of expenditure. I don't feel that it's something that local government and local citizens can handle by themselves. The scale of the issue is much too significant and demanding, and I'm glad to hear that it's a permanent program. I also agree that we should be approaching the feds collectively to try and get them involved again, because certainly it seems to me that my recollection of the past is that there has previously been federal involvement in programs such as the Fraser River flood control program and others. So I'll just ask the minister: are there any discussions taking place right now with the federal government on this issue?

Hon. C. McGregor: We are actually not engaged in discussions with the federal government at this time on that question, although the provincial emergency program's staff may well be -- also the Fraser Basin Council, which is another opportunity to engage the federal government.

J. van Dongen: Noting the hour, I move that we rise, report progress and seek leave to sit again.

[ Page 9298 ]

Motion negatived on the following division:

YEAS -- 7
Penner	Coleman	Sanders
Hawkins	Abbott	Coell
	van Dongen
NAYS -- 10
Conroy	McGregor	Calendino
Giesbrecht	Sawicki	Ramsey
Goodacre	Bowbrick	Kasper
	Gillespie

[8:00]

G. Abbott: I was just waiting to hear those magic words before I leapt back into action.

I do appreciate the discussion we had around flood protection prior to the adjournment motion. I think it's most unfortunate that we again see evidence of the immaturity of this institution in the way it conducts business. We have, at times, very productive discussions in estimates. In fact, I would have to say that during the current session, which began in late March, we've had lots of very good, efficient, productive estimates sessions. It's sad that for whatever reasons -- and I think everybody knows the circumstances around which the vote was just conducted -- the government has apparently decided that we're no longer going to be carrying on in that fashion and that we no longer want to have the useful, efficient, productive estimates sessions that we have had up to this point in the 1998 session.

Last April or May I had an invitation to speak to a group called the Study of Parliament Group. They are a group of academics and politicians and interested citizens who every year meet with one another in Ottawa or one of the provincial capitals. They talk about the legislatures and the way they operate. They talk about Parliament and the way it operates. This year they met in Victoria, and it was an honour for me to participate in that and to be one of the panellists. I really enjoyed it. The subject of the panel that I was on was electoral reform and how it might contribute to a better parliamentary institution. It was, in my view, that a better parliamentary institution would not be the product of electoral reform; rather, what was needed in order to make this Legislature a better, more functional, more productive institution were some changes in the relationships and arrangements that we have.

As I recall -- and I didn't expect to be giving this little impromptu chat tonight, but I think it's a good time for me to talk about it given that we have just launched into. . . . Again, we don't know -- and probably the minister doesn't know either -- whether we're going to be sitting until 10 o'clock, until midnight, all night or until next week. Who knows? It's just typical of the way this institution operates. This is typical of the juvenile manner in which this institution operates. Our relationships in this institution are so dysfunctional that I think it's shameful, the way we conduct ourselves here. I'm happy to stand up here at the start of another round of silly season in this institution, where we go all night and we don't, in a serious way, address important public policy issues.

I mean, we were just having, for the last hour, a very important public policy discussion about flooding in this province, which in sometimes life-threatening ways affects the people of British Columbia. We were having a good useful discussion, but for whatever reason, the government has decided, without any kind of notice to the opposition, that we are going to launch into one of our famous nights of uselessness here in this B.C. Legislature. I think it's most unfortunate.

At the Study of Parliament Group discussion that we had -- in this very room, in fact -- a couple of months ago, I talked about some of the ways in which this institution was dysfunctional. I also talked about some ways in which I thought we could make this institution a useful, more efficient, more productive, less partisan, less rancorous institution than it is today. Now, I can't claim to be a saint in this regard, and I wouldn't want to be. I think a lot of spirited partisan debate is part of this institution, but where we go beyond that, where we take this institution and let partisanship rule the institution to the point where we are not doing useful productive work on the part of people who elected us, underlines. . . .

Interjections.

The Chair: Order, members.

G. Abbott: I would be glad to hear the views of some of the members on it as well. Some of them may even have the view, as I do, that the partisanship in this institution frequently reaches a point where it renders this institution counterproductive. It diminishes us all as participants in this institution to be doing some of the things we do.

There's a whole range, I guess, of frustrations. There's a whole range of symptoms of the dysfunctional nature of this institution. For example, we don't know. . . . And I'm not saying that the current government is to blame here. A lot of the dysfunctional behaviour evident in this institution has grown up over decades and through a variety of governments, but over the past few years I think we have moved more and more into less productive, more partisan, more rancorous relationships. I think it hurts us all, I think it diminishes this institution, and I think it diminishes us as legislators when that happens.

No one may want to be treated to this lecture, and it's no treat for me to be giving it -- as I say, I had no plan to give it -- but it's something that I want to say and that I need to say. There are a lot of things that tell us about the dysfunctional nature of it. When we come around to March, we pretty well know that sometime in March we are probably going to sit as a Legislature, because we know that the government has to bring in a budget by the end of March. Were it not for the requirement to bring in a budget by the end of March, we would have absolutely no idea if and when this House was going to sit, and that's unfortunate. I guess the federal government has gone through a lot of this nonsense, too, and over time they have reached a level of maturity where they have

[ Page 9299 ]

We frequently don't know from day to day what we will be debating in the Legislature. We don't know whether it will be estimates or bills; we don't know whose estimates; we don't know whose bills. The level of cooperation in the House is not even such that in the interests of better public policy, we can agree that we're going to be doing the Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks estimates for the next few days. We don't even give ourselves that. We don't even give ourselves the benefit of knowing from day to day what bills we're going to be doing. Everything is ad hoc. Everything is based around the priorities of the moment. It's a sad reflection on the institution that we're all a part of.

We don't know from day to day or week to week when the House will be sitting. I guess tonight is a classic example. We had an agreement that we would be sitting until 8 o'clock, and then at five minutes to eight, the motion to adjourn was negatived by the government members. We don't know why.

A Voice: Childish.

G. Abbott: We don't know why. We don't know what time we will be sitting to.

A Voice: A bunch of children.

The Chair: Order, members.

G. Abbott: And I can tell you this: the whole complexion of these estimates is going to change as a consequence. What was a useful, productive, efficient exercise is gone. It's gone because we're. . . .

Interjection.

The Chair: Order, members. Just a moment, member. We have one member on the floor, and that is the member for Shuswap. If anybody else would like to take part in the debate, I am sure there will be plenty of time to do so.

G. Abbott: It's not going to be a productive, efficient exercise because we're angry, and perhaps the members across the way are angry about something too. But the fact of the matter is that it's another reflection of the dysfunctional relationships in this House. Somehow this institution needs to come to grips with the growing partisanship in it. Now, a number of us -- perhaps the minister is one of them, and I know the Chair is one of them -- had opportunities to be involved in local government prior to our election to this institution. There are many great things about local government. I think the greatest asset that local government has is that it doesn't function on a partisan basis. People don't go to the meetings with the notion that they're going to do this or that because they are Liberal, NDP or anything else. People generally sit around the table and try to work on issues on a non-partisan basis -- in fact, just as we were earlier on in the Ministry of Environment estimates.

Regrettably. . . . I shouldn't say regrettably. It's part of the tradition of parliaments, including this Legislature, that the governments tend to be constructed along partisan lines and that there are partisan divisions in the House. I respect that, and I like and enjoy it. We have lots of exciting, vigorous, stimulating debates based on the division in party lines. Where it becomes a counterproductive rather than a useful thing -- meaning partisanship -- is when we get into these ridiculous situations where we are butting heads for no particular good reason. We're butting heads, and nothing good is going to come out of it. We are going to spend hours and hours here talking about stuff that we might not otherwise talk about, and frankly -- I see the green light is on, so I'll try to close here -- if we want to make this a useful, functional institution on an ongoing basis, we need to find ways to involve members in issues and debates that aren't on partisan lines.

We do a little bit of that on Friday mornings, but it's not enough. We need to do some other things, because this situation is ridiculous, and I'm sure it's going to get even more ridiculous before it's over. The government is going to try to smear us with this; we'll try to smear the government with this. And you know what, hon. Chair? It's all of us. It's the whole institution that we're going to reduce in the eyes of our electorate. No one is going to win out of this. It's going to be one of those situations where we all look bad. Frankly, we're all going to look bad. We're all going to be less in the eyes of our electors as a consequence of what goes on here tonight and what perhaps will go on here for weeks to come.

[8:15]

The document that I think the minister is well aware of gives a number of areas where the environmental movement feels that they've been betrayed by this government. What we're going to do is look at those promises, and we're going to look at what the Clark government has done with those promises.

The Chair: I'll remind the hon. member that the use of first names is not allowed in the House.

M. Coell: You're correct. It was a second name that I meant to be. . . . The new Premier of the NDP government. . . .

The first one is beehive burners -- putting profits ahead of human health. The commitment by the Minister of Environment was: "Smoke from beehive burners is one major source

[ Page 9300 ]

Hon. C. McGregor: I want to make it clear from the outset that the government has not backed off its commitment to phase out the beehive burners. Clearly, as the member notes, there are health concerns related to beehive burners -- ones that are recognized not only by this ministry but by citizens around the province. What we've developed is a phase-out strategy in order to achieve that goal.

In fact, the member may well be aware of one of the reports we engaged in, when he makes reference to what reports were done. We engaged in a study we call the Bridges report. This was an opportunity for us -- so there were some funding provided by MELP, as well as funding by the Ministry of Forests and COFI, the Council of Forest Industries -- to work together on developing an action plan where we could look at alternatives to engaging in expensive burner upgrades and high-end burners. In fact, what industry identified as a chief concern of theirs was that there would be high-cost investments necessary to phase out beehive burners, when in fact it would be better for us to look at wood waste residue strategies and opportunities for cogeneration.

The Bridges report helped us to design a method through which we would phase out the burners over a longer period of time, so that regulation was amended by cabinet in December of 1997. To date we've shut down 45 beehive burners as a result of the regulation which was passed in late December. We're actively working with industry across the province. Since that time, we have achieved the phase-out of several other burners. There are a variety of plans that we're working on individually in different regions with different forest companies on a variety of strategies to either, in some cases, compost the wood waste or, in other cases, engage in cogeneration so that the wood residue can be used to generate energy. In other cases, it's used to dry wood in another application in the mill and so on.

M. Coell: I wonder if the minister could tell me how many beehive burners were working in 1996-97 and how many there are today in British Columbia.

Hon. C. McGregor: Of the tier 1 burners, there were about 80 before '96. We closed down 30 before '96, and since that time, an additional 15.

M. Coell: I wonder if the minister can tell me what is the total pollution caused by those burners. You can tell me if the studies are on the total number of the different levels of pollution that you test for on those burners and what the difference is in the ones that are shut down as compared to the ones that are going now. The reason I ask that is: are the ones that are going now burning more refuse from areas that have been trucked in? Indeed is the same amount of pollution being caused by a lower number of burners?

Hon. C. McGregor: Generally, what we have are ambient figures that reflect all of the air quality issues in a community. We cannot measure the impact of a beehive burner versus other sources of particulate matter that might be in the air. Things like wood stoves, for instance, also add to the particulate matter that's in a certain atmospheric area.

M. Coell: It's my understanding that in many cases where the smaller beehive burners have stopped or have been shut down, they have been trucking their material to beehive burners in other areas. So in a sense, they would be creating the same amount of pollution, but with a smaller number of burners. I just wondered whether, for the Enderby area, for example, which has a number of beehive burners working, you could comment on any ministry tests that were done on ambient air in '96, '97 and '98, and on what the difference is with fewer burners working but some still working.

Hon. C. McGregor: The closest monitor we have is in Vernon.

M. Coell: That would be a suitable example as well. The Vernon area, again, has a number of beehive burners, some of which have been closed down, some of which are going. My understanding is that ambient air should have been tested in '96, '97 and '98. I'd be interested in knowing the difference.

Hon. C. McGregor: We don't have those statistics here with us, but we can certainly get them and provide them to you.

M. Coell: Thank you. I would appreciate that.

I wonder if the minister could tell me what areas in the province are tested for ambient air. I would be more interested in where the beehive burners are and which ones are in the interior area.

Hon. C. McGregor: I don't have a complete list in front of me, but they are generally in larger centres. For example, we have ones in Smithers, Quesnel, Williams Lake, Kamloops, Prince George, Cranbrook, Vernon and Penticton.

M. Coell: There are beehive burners in those areas that the minister has mentioned. Some have been shut down, but there are still others working. Does the ministry differentiate between forest fires and beehive burners when they're testing?

Hon. C. McGregor: Obviously if there were a forest fire in the area, that would have an impact on ambient air quality. We would take that and record that as a part of our information gathering.

On the question of ambient air monitoring, I did find a statistic that might be helpful. There are 100 ambient air monitors at 49 stations in 23 communities and six industrial areas outside of the GVRD.

M. Coell: I would also be interested in the minister's comments on the effect of slash burning. You have forest fires changing the ambient air, especially in the interior. You also have slash burning. I would be interested to know how the ministry differentiates between the effects of those two things, which can have an effect over a wide area, when they're doing the testing. My understanding is that they do the testing on a regular basis and that they don't shift around because there's a forest fire. What is in the ministry's repertoire of testing instruments that would give the differentiation between slash burning, beehive burners and forest fires?

[ Page 9301 ]

[8:30]

Does the ministry have any data that would reflect the difference between beehive burners' effect on ambient air quality and slash burning or forest fires? What I'm getting at is: is the ministry able to differentiate what's causing the majority of the air pollution? Is it beehive burners? Is it slash burning? Is it wood stoves? Is it forest fires? What I'm interested in is what data you are collecting on the effects of those different things on the environment.

Hon. C. McGregor: In some communities where we've worked, particularly where air quality is a big issue, we've worked with the community to engage in looking more specifically at where the impacts on air quality are. There are two examples that immediately come to mind, in both Prince George and Quesnel, but we don't apply that broadly across the province, due to lack of resources.

G. Abbott: Hon. Chair, the rules of this House require that at least ten members be present to constitute a quorum. I don't believe we have that here, and I would like you to call a quorum to determine that.

The Chair: I would just like to clarify that it's ten members, including the Chair.

G. Abbott: That's fine, hon. Chair. There are not ten members here.

The bells were ordered to be rung.

The Chair: We now have a quorum. I recognize the member for Saanich North and the Islands.

M. Coell: I'll wait until the minister's staff returns, for her convenience, but I'll remain standing.

The point I'm trying to get to is that there are a whole range of factors in air-quality monitoring, beehive burners being one. What I am trying to ascertain from the minister is: are they able to discern what pollution beehive burners are causing? What is the difference between the ones shut down and the ones still going? My contention -- and that of many environmentalists, I think -- is that the pollution is probably still close to the same, because larger burners are running more often and materials are being trucked to them. What I'm interested in is: can the ministry shed some light on that? Is that indeed the case? Is there monitoring showing that -- especially in the interior, where I think your monitoring is very good?

Hon. C. McGregor: I will assure the member that indeed air quality has improved significantly in some parts of the province as a result of the phase-out of beehive burners. If you would like the specific data that we have available on specific communities and if you would identify what those are, we would be happy to provide those for you.

G. Abbott: I'd appreciate some clarification from the Chair. As I understand it, the standing orders and the rules of the House require the presence of at least ten members in this chamber during the conduct of business. There are still not ten, despite your quorum call. Could the Chair advise as to why a quorum call should not be called again?

The Chair: The Chair does not have to put the question -- not if it is intended to obstruct the business of the day. We do have ten members.

G. Abbott: If I have miscounted, I'm certainly pleased. There's three here, five, seven, eight. I count nine, including yourself. That member is not in his seat, so I presume he's not to be counted.

The Chair: He's in the chamber.

G. Abbott: So the rule, just for my future edification, is that the members do not need to be in their chairs. They only need to be in the room.

A Voice: They could be lying on the floor somewhere. Would that be all right?

The Chair: I call the members to order.

G. Abbott: So that's the answer to the question, hon. Chair: they don't have to be in their chairs.

The Chair: We have ten committee members in the committee room. I will recognize the member for Shuswap if he has a question to pose to the minister.

I recognize the member for Saanich North and the Islands.

M. Coell: I would like further clarification on that. Maybe you would want to check with the Clerks. Do the members have to be sitting in their chairs?

The Chair: Hon. members, at the time of the quorum call, there were ten members present in the House. The Chair is satisfied that there were ten members in the House at the time that quorum was called, and there are presently ten members in the House.

M. Coell: I really am being serious. I want clarification as to whether those people have to be in their chairs or whether they can be lying around on the floor or whether they can be standing at the back wall. I want to know: do they have to be in their chairs?

The Chair: The Chair will not take part in any discussion on the decision of the Chair. The Chair will, however, encourage further debate on vote 34.

M. Coell: I am extremely disappointed in that. I think that the Chair is being very unprofessional, because I don't think the Chair would put up with having us lying on the floor.

Interjections.

The Chair: Order! The Chair's decision will not be debated, and the Chair is satisfied that the quorum has been met. Continue on the vote, member.

[ Page 9302 ]

Interjections.

The Chair: Order, members.

Hon. C. McGregor: The work we're doing with the sawmills that have burners is ongoing, but I will read those that we have reached agreement on since our call for proposals. Gilbert Smith Forest Products is shipping wood residues to a tier 2 burner. Seel Forest Products in Edgewater is shipping to Evans in Golden pending the startup of the Purcell co-gen facility. North Enderby Timber Ltd. has their gasifier system up and operating, and the silo has been retrofitted to meet compliance. TRC Cedar in McBride is mulching its residues, and their silo burner is shut down. Quesnel Waste Disposal has indicated that they are dismantling their second beehive. That's a total of five, and we're continuing to work on a variety of others. All of the details have not yet been worked out.

M. Coell: I appreciate that, and I think you are making progress. I think that's a positive sign.

I would be interested to know which of the five are tier 1 burners and whether any of the burners that are still working this year will be trucking from those sites to other sites. What I'm concerned about is that those ones are being shut down, yet they're trucking their wastes to another burner to be burned for a greater length of time.

Hon. C. McGregor: All of the burners that I made reference to are tier 1 burners. The only example that the member is concerned with would be Gilbert Smith Forest Products, which is shipping its residue to a tier 2 burner.

M. Coell: Has the ministry looked at the effects on air quality of that one -- terminating burning in one place, but the cost of trucking putting gasoline into the air? What I'm looking for is: is the ministry spending some time looking at the other effects of turning one burner off and trucking that waste -- whether there is any kind of interest or any kind of research into the cost to the atmosphere of trucking waste to another one? When that other one is going to burn longer hours, what is the effect on the air quality in that area? I guess what I'm trying to ascertain is: how we are going to tell that the air quality is better because of that change or whether that change is strictly for window dressing in that particular area?

[8:45]

In other cases, companies make decisions to go with a high-end burner -- a gasifier was one of the examples that I read aloud. That's a very high-end burner that does a more efficient burn, and there is no wood waste and reduced emissions. It is a matter in some cases of determining which route is the most cost-effective one for the company to consider as they work towards their goal of phasing out those burners.

The Bridges report is probably a good example -- and the member might want to take a look at a copy of that -- because I think it does examine many of those different issues related to what is the most efficient way. Many of the sawmills are concerned with the cost of complying with the environmental regulation. We share that concern as well. Our goal is to phase out the burners, of course, because we are concerned with the air quality issues. The cost to our health care system is significant, so we must take these steps. But we must also, I think, work with the industry to find the best way to achieve that.

M. Coell: Does the ministry have a five-year plan, looking at the phasing out of all burners, or are the ones that aren't to be phased out to be upgraded to meet the standards that the ministry has set at this point?

Hon. C. McGregor: I don't know that I can point to a formal plan to show the member. Clearly our efforts are mostly focused on the work with tier 1 burners, but over time we certainly hope to address the question of tier 2 burners as well. One of the exciting possibilities is the opportunity to establish an ethanol plant in British Columbia. We recently held a workshop with industry and some international investors to find some way of building a partnership through which such a production facility could be put into place. It would serve a number of purposes. One is to generate a new source for wood waste, and that would come largely from tier 2 burners. But also because of the fuel -- ethanol itself and how that can be used on vehicle emissions issues as well -- it's very much win-win in terms of a solution for the future.

M. Coell: The ministry's change in attitude from their original commitment to close down beehive burners. . . . Was there an economic impact study done with the industry? I'm looking for the reason why there was a change and whether that change was made after a study had been done on the economic impacts or whether it was done on environmental impacts. We've been talking about the environmental impacts, and what I tried to do. . . . I think the ministry has satisfied me that they do air quality studies. Those studies have shown in areas of the province that there is a. . . .

The Chair: Member, continue. We'll check and see if the bells are for a quorum or a division.

M. Coell: I think the ministry has shown that there have been some changes in air quality. For me, the problem is I don't think the data is conclusive as to whether it's beehive burners, slash burning, wood-burning stoves or forest fires. And I think that's something that I would hope the ministry looks into: how do they differentiate between air pollution caused by those things that are all happening in the same area at the same time? At the same time, you're taking some wood from tier 1 burners, moving it to tier 2 burners and burning those burners for 24 hours, rather than 18 hours. So there's a whole bunch of variables that I don't see the ministry having enough information on to make some of the decisions that they have.

And that brings me to the decision to back away from the original commitment to close them all. It appears that there probably weren't studies that showed the necessity for closing beehive burners as compared to stopping forest fires, wood stoves, slash burning, those sort of things. So what I'm looking

[ Page 9303 ]

The Chair: Before I recognize the minister, I'd just like to inform the members that that was for a quorum in the big House.

Hon. C. McGregor: I want to assure the member that we take very seriously the issue of air quality. It's not only the work that we're doing with beehive burner phase-out that points to the efforts we're taking on particulate matter and how that relates to air quality. The member made comments about open burning, for instance. We do have a regulation on open burning, where we're working with communities to phase it out over time. We have wood-stove standards; we are moving to a different standard that will release less particulate matter into the air. We have vehicle fuel standards, and again those help us to achieve less particulate matter in the air, as does the beehive burner phase-out. So there are a variety of components to the issues related to air quality, as the member knows. We're taking a variety of steps in all of those areas to work towards achieving improvement in ambient air quality and reducing the amount of particulate matter in the air.

On the question of economic studies related to beehive burners, the Bridges report was really the tool that we used to examine the economics of beehive burner phase-out.

M. Coell: I wonder if the minister -- and I don't think it's in the report she mentions -- has a figure for what the dollar loss to the industry and the loss of jobs would have been if the ministry had gone ahead with the closures by the effective date.

Hon. C. McGregor: That answer is very difficult for us to compile, largely because it is dependent upon the type of technology that is put in place in order to deal with the wood waste. In some cases, something like composting a small amount of wood waste might have a very low cost; whereas if one were purchasing a gasifier, that could be in the range of $2 million or $3 million in costs for that specific situation. So it does vary from burner to burner.

M. Coell: I had a number of calls, interestingly, from environmentalists, as well as from owners of mills and beehive burners, who had a similar need for answers. I'm curious to know what it was that triggered the ministry to step back from the closures at the level that the ministry had set prior to the election in '96. There were some commitments made for closing them. We had the Bridges report. I suspect you've had a number of air quality reports during that time. What was it that triggered the change in attitude and the move away from the commitment that had been made?

Hon. C. McGregor: I just want to reiterate to the member once again that government has not backed away from its commitment but is in fact working with industry to achieve the commitment of phasing out the beehive burners. I think there were a variety of reasons that we took the approach we did. First, industry in some cases identified cost and economic pressures for them. There were also issues of debate over what to do with the wood waste. While early on in the phase-out, generally beehive burners were replaced with high-end burners that simply incinerated the product to a greater degree, over time we've all become more aware of the other uses of wood waste and how we can add value to wood waste either by creating other products or by using them in a mill operation, for instance, as part of their kiln-drying operation and so on.

There are some other opportunities and options, but we need more time to be able to develop those more fully and to meet our other values related to the use of wood waste, rather than simply incinerating it.

G. Abbott: I'm delighted to join in the debate on this particular area. It's an issue that I've canvassed in Ministry of Forests estimates in previous years and in Ministry of Environment estimates. It's a pleasure to be able to get up and join the estimates debate here tonight. I have a lot of questions in this area, and I know that the Environment critic does too. I hope that we're not cut short by any unfortunate event like adjournment, which might get in our way. I really have a lot of questions tonight, now that we have a full quorum and a lot of bright-eyed and smiling faces out there that are keen to learn more about burners, the shut-down of beehive burners and some of the solutions to the problems that have been presented by this government.

Interjection.

G. Abbott: I'm sorry; I missed that.

The Chair: Order, members.

G. Abbott: Well, thank you, hon. Chair. You're right to bring the member to order. He was being quite disorderly, and I appreciate you bringing him to order. He is a spunky young fellow, and sometimes that spunkiness has to be held in check. I appreciate your doing that tonight.

I do have a number of questions around beehive burners. This has been a difficult issue for many people in my riding. It's not only mill owners who have been facing timetables for shutting down their beehive burners. I've received 50 or 100 letters from employees of those mills who are deeply unhappy, as you might expect, with the prospect of losing their employment because their employer faced a timetable for shutdown of either the burner or the mill.

As the Environment critic pointed out previously, the government has been changing its position over time with respect to this issue. I believe that back when the member for Esquimalt-Costco -- no, Esquimalt-Metchosin -- was Environment minister, he was very, very pumped up about shutting down beehive burners. It just couldn't be done quickly enough. Under his direction, the Ministry of Environment was truly zealous in terms of its pursuit of shutting them down within a five-year period. I believe the government was committed to a timetable of around '96 or '97 -- somewhere in that area -- for most of them to be shut down. I know this caused a lot of consternation both for businesses and for employees, as I mentioned.

For example, there's a cedar mill near where I live in Sicamous. In fact, one of my neighbours has a cedar-pole operation. What they do there is strip the poles of their bark and treat them and so on -- cut them to length and all the rest. The only residue, really, from their operation is the cedar bark. For a long time they had been running their bark up into a burner and incinerating it. Under the direction of the former Environment minister, they were faced with a shutdown -- I think it was by June 1, 1996. They received the word from the minister, and there certainly wasn't any five-year notice to them that this was going to happen. . . .

[ Page 9304 ]

[9:00]

In another case, little mill right beside my farm in Sicamous, they've had trouble as well. A very small cedar operation that does open burning was again threatened with shutdown. All kinds of mills around Salmon Arm, Armstrong and Enderby were threatened with the same thing. In some cases, the mills, because they couldn't absorb the additional capital cost of the alternatives to beehive burners, simply told the ministry that they were going to either get an extension or shut down their operations. It was as simple as that.

I think this was after the member for Esquimalt-Metchosin left his position as Minister of Environment. I can't recall the circumstances under which he departed that time. I'm sure they were colourful, if nothing else. But the consequence of it was that subsequent to the unfortunate -- at least from his perspective -- departure of the member for Esquimalt-Metchosin from the Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks, there seemed to be a softer, friendlier attitude in the ministry with respect to extensions. Fortunately -- at least for the mill owners and their few hundred employees up in the Shuswap -- they were able to continue their work, because extensions were, after the sad departure of the member for Esquimalt-Metchosin from the Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks. . . . They were able to continue.

The one option that wasn't available to them, which was used by the cedar pole mill operation that I was telling you about in Sicamous, was that. . . . Because they weren't granted an extension, what they do instead is they now, about once a week, load all of the cedar bark into a big truck, haul it about 30 kilometres to another mill and run it through their burner. So that's how it's worked up there. You either haul it to a tier 1 burner and burn it there as opposed to doing it in a tier 2 burner or whatever, or you say, "Leave me alone or I'm going to shut down," and the ministry provides the extensions and life goes on.

Now, this is a bad way to do business. I'm sure all of the members would agree that this is a really stupid way to be doing business. What's clearly required here, rather than going through absurdities like loading up trucks with bark, taking them from one place where they used to burn bark to another place where they're still allowed to burn bark. . . . Clearly everyone would agree that that's a ridiculous waste of resources. It's obviously going no distance toward achieving the objectives here.

It just so happens -- I think it was last year, in fact -- that I did a private member's statement on this particular issue in the House on private members' day -- one of those few non-partisan occasions that I was telling you about earlier in my post-8 o'clock discussion. As was the theme of my chat that day during private members' statements, what we really need is for this government to not only take the view that in the interests of the social good, beehive burners should be shut down, but also move on from that position and say: "Well, if it's in the social good for beehive burners to be shut down, surely it is also in the social good of the communities that the province be part of the solution."

What we need are further opportunities for cogeneration. One of the big sticking points with respect to establishing these cogeneration opportunities, where we actually make productive use of wood waste, is to have co-gen opportunities throughout the province. Right now in the southern interior, around Kamloops, for example, we don't have that opportunity. The big sticking point has been B.C. Hydro's reluctance to be proactive along with mill owners and the province. B.C. Hydro has been a sticking point. This is an issue I raised in estimates with the Minister of Forests. He said I should come and ask you, because I would get a full and frank and completely supportive response. Would you direct B.C. Hydro to be part of the solution and not just part of the problem?

Hon. C. McGregor: I'd like to begin, if I could, by talking a little bit about the example the member used in discussing the issue related to beehive burners. He talked about the operation he was familiar with, and I just wanted to make him aware that it was the Environmental Appeal Board that actually overturned the decision of the regional manager. As a result of that decision, we were engendering a lot of appeals from companies all over the place. So that's what led to the development of the regulation to phase out burners. That's what I understand has happened historically.

Certainly what the member notes is part of what we've been discussing in our new approach to phasing out burners under the regulation. What we've been trying to achieve, in fact, is to balance the many issues that you mentioned. It is not simply a matter of the economics of the company; it is the social benefits, as you note, related to beehive burner phase-out, as well as the health issues. Far from it simply being a matter of transporting waste from one burner to another, in the case of a tier 1 burner, we're talking about a burner that's very close to a community. There are many public health impacts as a result of having those particulates in the atmosphere and young children and families breathing them on a regular basis, whereas tier 2 burners must fit the definition whereby they are a certain distance from larger communities, and so on, so that the health impacts are limited.

It is a complex matter, as the member points out. We do our best to balance all of those questions: the economics, the social benefits and the health benefits of beehive burner phase-out. That is why we are working with industry: to find solutions that are not one size fits all -- because we could indeed have taken that kind of approach. Obviously there are a variety of different tools that we have, and that industry has as well, in terms of solutions that we can apply to the issue of how best to phase out a beehive burner in a particular community.

On the question of B.C. Hydro, I agree with the member that it is important that we have B.C. Hydro participate with us, because there are some solutions, particularly related to cogeneration. In fact, we have meetings scheduled with B.C. Hydro within the next few days. I've already mentioned it to the chair of B.C. Hydro, to try and begin the dialogue that, as the member notes, is an important way of us solving this problem. I have confidence that we'll make progress on that very point.

Noting the hour, hon. Chair, I move that we rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 9:09 p.m.

[ Return to: Legislative Assembly Home Page ]

Copyright © 1998: Queen's Printer, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada