[ Page 10309 ]

The House met at 2:06 p.m.

Prayers.

Hon. H. Lali: I'd like to introduce to the House the assistant to the Leader of the Opposition, who works in his Vancouver office. She is sitting in the gallery. Her name is Patti Sahota, and she's from my hometown of Merritt. I might add that her father Ajit and I. . . .

Interjections.

Hon. H. Lali: Hang on.

I also want to point out that Patti's father, Ajit Sahota, and I. . . . When I first started working in the sawmill, he and I were both working on the greenchain together. Actually, he owns a house next door to my lot in Merritt. So I'd like to introduce Patti Sahota from Merritt.

G. Campbell: Actually, I was going to introduce the next MLA for Yale-Lillooet, Patti Sahota.

S. Hawkins: In the gallery today are some very special guests from my riding of Okanagan West. They are John Peacock and Brent Peacock, their dad John Sr. and a guest. I can't identify her right now; sorry about that. If the name comes to me, I will. . . . Anyway, they are good friends and good supporters of mine. I'd ask the House to make them welcome.

Also in the gallery is a very special guest of one of our researchers, Tracey Golab. She is her cousin, all the way from Italy. Her name is Rosaria. She is here in the gallery to compare the B.C. parliament and the parliament in Italy -- if there is one. Would the House please make her welcome.

Hon. I. Waddell: I'd ask the House to welcome a friend of mine who was born and bred in Vancouver and now teaches philosophy at the Sorbonne university in Paris. I'd like the House to welcome my friend, Dr. Steve Wright.

C. Hansen: I hope the House will join me in welcoming a friend of mine from Vancouver, Fraser Randall.

G. Hogg: It is my pleasure to introduce to the House three members of the Affleck family. Jane is a French teacher at Royal Oak Middle School; John is an avid basketball player and the former manager of the Canadian national basketball team. Their son Paul is also an avid basketball player and was learning about B.C. politics for his grade 10 year at Arbutus Junior Secondary School. Would the House please make them welcome.

Hon. D. Miller: I'm not sure you could learn much about B.C. politics today.

I'd like the House to welcome some personal friends of mine. They are Bev Carry, her son Ian Macphee and a friend, Claire Regan. As well, in the galleries today is Mr. Tom Kennedy, president of Rock Resources, a B.C. mining company doing business here with the ministry. I'd ask the House to make them all welcome.

Hon. J. MacPhail: I'd like to welcome to the House today a bright shiny face, rosy cheeks and thatch of white hair that we haven't seen for a while. It is a great delight, on behalf of everyone in the chamber, to welcome back the member for Delta South. We're delighted that he is here.

Hon. P. Priddy: I see in the gallery someone who has, for a long time, been both a well-loved teacher and an administrator in the Surrey school district. Donalda Whaites is here today from Surrey with her husband. I'd ask the House to make them welcome.

Oral Questions

PUBLIC CONSULTATION PROCESS ON NISGA'A TREATY AGREEMENT

Hon. G. Clark: We've made no decisions on that. I'd be interested in the Leader of the Opposition's comments as to the time he thinks would be appropriate.

G. Campbell: To the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs. The Nisga'a agreement itself says that the initial enrolment period won't be complete for the Nisga'a until September 30, 1999. I would assume that the Nisga'a voters list will be based on that enrolment list. Presumably, the Nisga'a won't be holding their vote until their voters list is complete. May I ask the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs whether or not he intends to bring this before the House prior to the Nisga'a themselves voting on the agreement?

Hon. D. Lovick: We have not formally made that decision, but I think the assumption we have been making is that there may indeed be a fall session of the Legislature to consider the measure. We are not going to make our decision based on when the Nisga'a do their own ratification procedure, but we're obviously mindful of their protocol, and we certainly want to make sure we don't do anything that may make them feel we are somehow pressuring them unduly by the course of action we pursue.

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

[2:15]

According to the treaty, the enrolment committee has been underway since last October, I understand, and the enrolment process is cost-shared 50-50 between the federal and provincial governments. Can the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs tell us how much the enrolment process has cost to date and how many Nisga'a are currently enrolled?

[ Page 10310 ]

What I will say is that I gave him an estimate the other day of approximately 5,500, as the estimated number of people who will enrol. The specific details in terms of how many are formally enrolled and what our particular portion of that cost is -- no, I haven't got that information, but I'll be happy to get it to him as soon as I can.

IMPACT OF GOVERNMENT POLICIES ON FOREST INDUSTRY

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: There is a slight problem with the coastal producers selling in the United States when they don't have quota.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, members.

G. Abbott: Obviously, this further shows how far this government has gone in losing its perspective -- when this is a slight problem. This is far more than a slight problem; this government ought to be completely ashamed of its performance in British Columbia. Since 1992 B.C. has lost 10 percent of its share of the U.S. market.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members, members.

G. Abbott: During the same period, the rest of Canada has increased its share by 10 percent. B.C.'s declining share is a direct result of the highest stumpage rates and the most expensive forest practices code in Canada. When will the Minister of Forests understand that the NDP's policies have been pricing B.C. out of U.S. markets?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: The reference to a slight problem was just to remind the members on the other side that there are a number of problems over which we don't have control. One of them is the quota situation with the United States, where two years ago the coastal companies were virtually laughing at the interior, which had to have their exports limited. They thought they were doing the right thing being in Japan. No one foresaw the decline in the Japanese market. Producer after producer on the coast is saying that the problem is a 30 to 40 percent decline in price in Japan and a 30 to 40 percent decline in demand. Both of those add up to a significant problem. Plus there is a pulp problem, in that we have the problem of pulp prices and solid wood being down at the same time. Neither of those is a made-in-British-Columbia problem.

We as a government are taking seriously the concern of the many, many forest workers who are out of work, and we are taking the steps that we can to fix that. We are still working. . .

The Speaker: Minister, would you wind up, please.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: . . .on stumpage reduction. We have reduced the Forest Practices Code costs. Significantly, those add up to some $500 million to $600 million in savings that we've given industry in British Columbia.

G. Farrell-Collins: The corrective action the government says it's taken has undone maybe half of the damage that they've done since they came into government in 1992. That's why thousands of forest workers in this province have lost their jobs.

Since March 1996, when the NDP introduced its infamous jobs and timber accord, the share value of B.C. forest companies has dropped like a rock. Ainsworth Lumber shares have fallen by 60 percent, Doman shares have fallen by 59 percent, and Crestbrook shares have fallen by almost 70 percent. How does the Minister of Forests expect forest companies in British Columbia to invest in the forest, to invest in their workers and to create jobs when their share values are dropping through the floor and they can't get investment dollars anywhere else?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: It's not a surprise that when we're at the bottom of the market, there would be share devaluation -- no question about that. But let me give you a quote from an article today: " 'Many of the benefits of the cost reduction, including a 25 percent reduction. . . .' "

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, hon. members. The minister has the floor.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: This has to do with government policies in the forest sector. " 'Many of the benefits of the cost reduction, including a 25 percent reduction in B.C. stumpage rates, are still in the company's inventory accounts' -- this is referring to MacMillan Bloedel -- 'and haven't found their way into its profit and loss statements,' said Stephens." It seems to me that there is a slightly delayed response with respect to accumulating the benefits. It is regrettable that it takes some time for corrective actions to benefit workers and employment. I've said before that we won't see a return in stock prices and employment until the market turns around.

The Speaker: First supplementary, the Opposition House Leader.

G. Farrell-Collins: I would say that the time delay for the turnaround in the forest sector is about the same as the time delay for the next election.

The minister tells us about the 25 percent reduction in stumpage rates. This is a government that increased them by almost 200 percent, and somehow the forest sector is supposed to say thank you. Another great B.C. company, Interfor -- a major forest company in British Columbia -- has seen its share value drop by 72 percent, and they're laying off hundreds of workers. Can the minister tell the House how his jobs and timber accord is expected to create jobs in the province when forest companies see their share value drop by 72 percent and they end up laying off hundreds of workers?

[ Page 10311 ]

The other half of the problem, they say, is government forest policies. Yes, we are now collecting stumpage that would have been collected at the U.S. border and spending it here in British Columbia, not allowing the Americans to take it and spend it. We're protecting markets in Europe and other places with a strong Forest Practices Code, and that opposition and the industry and the professionals have not yet come up with an alternative to the code. We are experimenting with alternatives, hon. Speaker. We have done an awful lot, and we will and can do more.

M. de Jong: If this is the minister's idea of protection, I've got four words for him: thanks, but no thanks.

I've got a copy of a report on B.C. forestry, prepared by Goepel McDermid. Let me read what they say in analyzing the state of the industry: "The biggest problem is that British Columbia is headed by a government that is ideologically opposed to the use of market forces, instead preferring to micromanage the industry right down to job targets." Can the Minister of Forests explain to this chamber why anyone in their right mind would invest in British Columbia when faced with the truth as reflected in this report?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: When it's convenient to the opposition, they use free enterprise arguments. The logical extension of that is an open border and logs travelling out of our regional communities to be processed somewhere other than where the jobs should be created.

With respect to the investment climate, let me quote Tom Stephens, from MacMillan Bloedel. He says: "Our biggest concern is the continued deterioration of the market for lumber in Japan. The situation in Japan will continue to retard our progress over the next several quarters." It's clear: Japan is the problem. Why don't you get it, stupid?

The Speaker: First supplementary, the member for Matsqui.

M. de Jong: Let me share with the minister what our biggest concern is: a government that promised thousands upon thousands of forestry jobs is confronted by the reality that there are 15,000 working families that aren't working anymore in British Columbia. That's what we're concerned about.

The report from Goepel McDermid goes on to say: "We predict that industry conditions will get worse before they get better. In the past six months, B.C.'s forestry industry has racked up hundreds of millions of dollars' worth of losses." Can the Minister of Forests tell us: is it going to take a bankruptcy of one of the major forestry producers in British Columbia before he and the Premier and the Finance minister realize that their ill-conceived strategy around the forest sector has been an abject failure and is throwing people out of work?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Let's go back a few years, to '94 and '95, when we had two of the most profitable years in the past 11. That was under policies of this government, but it was on the upside of the cycle. They don't understand that. It is no surprise that at the bottom of the cycle, companies are going to start losing money. As I read the press releases from eastern Canada, the losses are showing up there. That has nothing to do with B.C. policies.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, order.

G. Plant: Well, it's this government that came up with the idea of the jobs and timber accord, and that was supposed to be their solution to the challenges in the forests. So let's look at what a great job that accord is doing. Let me just pick six forest companies: West Fraser, Slocan, Doman, MacMillan Bloedel, Canfor and Interfor. Those six companies have suffered a combined loss of $212 million in the first half of this year. In fact, since the jobs and timber accord was first announced by this government in March of 1996, the value of B.C.'s top public forest companies has fallen by $1.7 billion. When will the minister admit that his jobs and timber accord has cost thousands of British Columbians jobs and is causing forest companies to bleed to death and is a complete and abject failure?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: The reference to the jobs and timber accord and the job loss since that time. . . . I have to hasten to tell the opposition, remind them, that these jobs are temporary curtailments; they're not reported as. . . . They are shortened work-years, shortened seasons. But it is since, not because of, the accord. . . . Let me remind members of the opposition what the accord said. It requires a profitable, viable industry, which government and industry are working at together. It requires that we divert more wood to the small business program; we're doing that. It requires that we bring into consideration, as we passed last night in the House, leaving the 5 percent takeback with those companies that maintain and create jobs. We're delivering on the elements of the accord that will poise us for a recovery, which will create more jobs per cubic metre. That's the vision in the accord, and we stand behind that vision.

Tabling Documents

[2:30]

Motions Without Notice

Leave granted.

[ Page 10312 ]

SPECIAL COMMITTEE ON THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION AND PROTECTION OF PRIVACY ACT

[That a Special Committee be appointed to review the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (RSBC 1996 c. 165) pursuant to section 80 of that Act, and that the Special Committee so appointed shall have the powers of a Select Standing Committee and is also empowered:

(a) to appoint of their number, one or more subcommittees and to refer to such subcommittees any of the matters referred to the Committee;

(b) to sit during a period in which the House is adjourned, during the recess after prorogation, until the next following Session and during any sitting of the House;

(c) to adjourn from place to place as may be convenient; and

(d) to retain such personnel as required to assist the Committee;

and shall report to the House as soon as possible, or following any adjournment, or at the next following Session, as the case may be; to deposit the original of its reports with the Clerk of the Legislative Assembly during a period of adjournment and upon resumption of the sittings of the House, the Chair shall present all reports to the Legislative Assembly.

That the Special Committee of Selection will be empowered to compile the list of Members for the said Committee.]

EXAMINATION OF MEMBERS' CONFLICT OF INTEREST ACT

[That this House authorize the Select Standing Committee on Parliamentary Reform, Ethical Conduct, Standing Orders and Private Bills be authorized to examine, inquire into and make recommendations on the matter of the Members' Conflict of Interest Act (RSBC 1996 c.287). In addition to the powers previously conferred upon the said Committee by the House, the Committee be empowered

(a) to appoint of their number, one or more subcommittees and to refer to such subcommittees any of the matters referred to the Committee, but to deal with matters in the order in which the Committee has been authorized to deal with them;

(b) to sit during a period in which the House is adjourned, during the recess after prorogation until the next following session and during any sitting of the House;

(c) to adjourn from place to place as may be convenient; and

(d) to retain such personnel as required to assist the Committee; and shall report to the House as soon as possible, or following any adjournment, or at the next following Session, as the case may be; to deposit the original of its reports with the Clerk of the Legislative Assembly during a period of adjournment and upon resumption of the sittings of the House, the Chair shall present all reports to the Legislative Assembly.]

SPECIAL COMMITTEE TO APPOINT AN OMBUDSMAN

[That a Special Committee be appointed to select and unanimously recommend the appointment of an ombudsman, pursuant to section 2(2) of the Ombudsman Act (RSBC 1996 C.340), and that the said Committee shall have the powers of a Select Standing Committee and in addition is empowered:

(a) to appoint of their number, one or more subcommittees and to refer to such subcommittees any of the matters referred to the Committee;

(b) to sit during a period in which the House is adjourned, during the recess after prorogation until the next following Session and during any sitting of the House;

(c) to adjourn from place to place as may be convenient; and

(d) to retain such personnel as required to assist the Committee;

and shall report to the House as soon as possible, or following any adjournment, or at the next following Session, as the case may be; to deposit the original of its reports with the Clerk of the Legislative Assembly during a period of adjournment and upon resumption of the sittings of the House, the Chair shall present all reports to the Legislative Assembly.

That the Special Committee of Selection be empowered to compile the list of Members for the said Committee.]

Orders of the Day

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

G. Hogg: I seek leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

G. Hogg: It was with surprise and delight that I looked up and saw here my favourite aunt, Margaret Joyce, from Vancouver-Quilchena. I hope the House will make Aunt Margaret welcome.

ESTIMATES: OFFICE OF THE PREMIER AND
MINISTRY RESPONSIBLE FOR YOUTH

G. Campbell: There are a number of issues that I would like to canvass with the Premier, to give him a wee bit of a roadmap for where we're going to go. We have canvassed a number of these issues in the past, and we will do them again today.

Firstly, it would be appropriate for the Premier to outline for us the way he has organized his office this year. I have received what looks like a web page, kind of a printout, with regard to the office. But there is no real organization chart that shows the reporting relationships that are in place, similar to what his deputy has with him today. I'd appreciate at least a brief overview from the Premier of how his office is established and how it connects with cabinet and the ministries of government.

Hon. G. Clark: I don't know if the member has the flow chart, but I will be delighted to give it to him. I'll try to describe it briefly, if it's helpful.

Obviously there are two principal branches in the Premier's Office. One is operations, headed by my deputy minister who is sitting next to me, Mr. Doug McArthur. He is the head of the civil service and is responsible for all of the central apparatus of government, including cabinet secretary and cabinet operations. Then there is the political -- if I can put it

[ Page 10313 ]

G. Campbell: The Premier's deputy minister is at least reputed to be involved with a number of major policy issues, etc., within government and outside of government. Can the Premier outline for us where the deputy minister has been held to account and what specific projects he's been involved with over the last year?

Hon. G. Clark: My deputy minister is involved in many projects for the government. First of all, there are two functions, I guess. I'm speaking very informally; I'm sure there is formal documentation we can give you. One function is managing the system, the government, and ensuring that the cabinet's direction is implemented through the line ministries. It's an administrative function. It's ensuring that the instructions that cabinet deliberates are communicated to the system, to the deputy ministers and others. Often committees are formed by the deputy minister on issues to ensure that the will of cabinet is, as best as possible, implemented by the staff. The implementation is completely the responsibility of the staff in the line ministries, and the deputy simply ensures that this work is done to implement collective decisions of government.

Secondly, the deputy does take on projects from time to time as assigned by me. It's the same kind of approach, but it's for cross-government projects which require a more hands-on approach from the Premier's Office, even though the line ministry is the ministry which implements it, or a variety of ministries. Whether it's the major consultation with business that preceded the budget, which my deputy essentially headed up with me. . . . All of the implementation of the decisions made by cabinet that flow out of that are done by the line ministries -- in many cases, the Ministry of Finance and others -- and teams are put together to implement those decisions. So there are projects which come up from time to time which my deputy does pursue on behalf of the overall government.

G. Campbell: Does the cabinet policy and communications secretariat report through the Premier's Office or through another ministry?

Hon. G. Clark: It's located in the Ministry of Finance, but it does report through my deputy minister Mr. McArthur. That ensures that this agency is integrated into the budget-making process and is part of the central agency and part of the Ministry of Finance but is guided by the overall deliberations of cabinet, reporting through my deputy minister.

G. Campbell: Would that be included in the organization chart that you'll be providing me with?

Hon. G. Clark: No, but I'd be happy to give it to you, if you'd like. It's an organization chart that's available, and it's in the Ministry of Finance.

G. Campbell: Just so that I'm clear, do all cabinet ministries' deputy ministers report through to the Premier's Office through the Premier's deputy minister?

Hon. G. Clark: If the question is: do all deputy ministers report through my deputy minister, Doug McArthur, the answer is yes.

G. Campbell: One of the things that I think all of us in the province are concerned about is the whole issue of accountability: how programs are put out and announced and whether they perform according to the standards that have been set for them or according to the public pronouncements that come forth -- whether they are political pronouncements or staff ones. I really think that over the last little while, one of the things that has been most noticeable is how often the government has fallen short of the objectives that they've set for themselves. One of the concerns I and others have is the whole issue of accountability. How do we hold either cabinet ministers or the staff to account for performance in terms of the objectives that are set forward and the objectives that are announced to the public.

We have heard from this government that they are concerned about jobs and the economy. What we have watched is the loss of literally thousands of jobs in the province over the last two years. We've watched as our economy has gone from first to last place. Within those broad frameworks we've even watched as individual projects have fallen far short of their timetables in terms of delivery and costs. It's hard to think of an area of government where in fact we have seen targets met and exceeded.

In six of the last seven years -- I'm sure the members opposite know this -- the average take-home pay for B.C. families has gone down. We have watched as the quality of life in this province has dropped. A growing number of people are without work, and unfortunately, there's a growing number of people who are losing their sense of hope. When you go out and talk with people in the province, one of the first things they'll say is: "We don't get any input; we don't get to participate with the government the way we'd like to."

I'm going to go to a number of areas that we've touched on in the past with regard to the entire committee setup that we have in the Legislature. Over the last little while. . . . In every throne speech we announce the creation of a number of committees. If people thought about what the most important areas of government were, I think they would identify, for example, health and social services. Those would be important areas of government. There have been massive changes in government in the way that health services are delivered. We've heard the people of the province say that they feel that health care is actually deteriorating, for the first time in a long time, yet the Health Committee last met on August 25, 1993.

[2:45]

We have a committee established on women's equality. I wonder if anyone can guess when the last time the Women's

[ Page 10314 ]

We have a Education, Culture and Multiculturalism Committee. It hasn't met since at least 1977.

Again, in this Legislature we have talked, over the last two sets of estimates -- this is the third set of estimates -- about the potential for parliamentary reform, where we can actually have a committee system that works, where we can actually have an opportunity for legislators to not just sit on the back bench and keep their mouths shut or sit in the opposition and try to move forward and gather information from the government side of the House, but an opportunity for all MLAs to participate with the people of this province to formulate solutions so that we can move forward.

I am pleased to say that when we do come together with a common purpose, there is no question that MLAs can work together and come forward with comprehensive and, I believe, useful solutions to the problems that are in front of us. We have huge problems in front of us in this province. We simply can't keep turning our back on the people at the front lines and on the people who are willing to work and contribute to those solutions -- whether they are front-line health care workers; whether they are teachers who are involved in our schools and our classrooms, teaching our students; or whether they are people involved in the forest industry who have solutions to the problem of losing 15,500 jobs in the last year. Surely we can find a way and a will within this House, through our committee system, to bring together those people to ensure that we can start to come up with solutions that will help provide a stronger future for British Columbia.

My first question to the Premier is. . . . We have talked about this in the past; we've sort of treaded around it. I would really like to ask the Premier if he is ready to commit himself and his government to working with the opposition and all members of the House to establish a strong and vital committee system, which will include the people of this province, to come up with solutions to the drastic problems that we currently face.

Hon. G. Clark: It's a little bit ironic that the Leader of the Opposition has made a plea for more committee work within seconds of the Minister of Finance and Government House Leader announcing the creation of three committees to sit this fall. There's one standing committee to review freedom of information, one to appoint a new ombudsman and one to appoint a conflict-of-interest commissioner. We've now got a forestry committee that meets every year to review the business plan of FRBC. Public Accounts is sitting off-session. There is more committee work by members of the House than at any time in the history of British Columbia.

Does that mean we could do more? I think the answer is yes, and I'd be delighted. It would help somewhat if there was one constructive suggestion from the opposition at any time during the course of the session, which would give us pause that there would be constructive debate in committee. Having said that, I think it's reasonable to have more committee work.

Unfortunately, we've been unable to reach agreement with the opposition on reform in the House. What we should do. . . . In my judgment, the House should not be sitting in July. The estimates debates have been longer during this session than at any time in history, which is the opposition's prerogative.

Interjections.

Hon. G. Clark: There's no problem at all with the government; we're here in any event.

What should happen is that we should have time limits on estimates debates. We should have a legislative calendar where we're out in June, and the committees should be doing work on substantive issues. Instead of a committee of the whole debating estimates -- the only place in the Commonwealth where that is done -- the estimates should be debated in real committees, and they should be debated when the House is not sitting. We have been unable to convince the Opposition House Leader of the merits of a legislative calendar which has reasonable time limits and allows for committee work to be done.

It's very hard to take seriously the position of the Leader of the Opposition when we are unable to get reasonable rules in the House. I stand and say before all members of the House on both sides that we should have a fixed legislative calendar that commits the opposition to passing the estimates in a timely fashion, which is about a quarter of the time they currently spend, which would be consistent with the rest of Canada. We should have substantive committee work done when the House is not sitting -- or when the House is sitting, but in real committees canvassing real areas. That's real reform; I support that. Unfortunately, it takes two parties to agree, and we haven't been able to agree.

F. Gingell: Hon. Chair, I had the honour to be appointed Finance critic in the fall of 1991, when the thirty-fifth parliament was elected. On the first day I came over to Victoria, I went for lunch with the then Minister of Finance. We had a very interesting discussion about the Legislature and the way that it runs and the hope for cooperation that would take place between the minister and his critic at that time -- about being told and informed of what was going on and what was happening. There was a feeling of cooperation. It sounded to me as though it was going to be an exercise similar to that which I was used to on the school board, the college board and those kinds of things, where we all sat around the table and discussed common issues.

I would like to suggest that the failure of that proposal to blossom lies more on the minister's side of the House than on mine. I guess he got busy in the exercises of taxing people out of their homes on the west side of Vancouver and certain other matters that pushed from his mind the commitment that he'd made to keep me informed. But that was the fall of 1991. I remember subsequent discussions with the minister over a beer about the size of the Legislature. I must admit, in retrospect, that I think he was right, and I was wrong and I accept that. But we have talked -- the Premier and I, and your side of the House and our side of House -- on many occasions about legislative reform. Why are we sitting here until. . . ? I mean, I wasn't here participating this past week, but I was able to turn my TV set on even in Tsawwassen and see that you were still at it at 11:30 at night. That's not good. That's not good for this government, and it's not good for people of British Columbia, and it's not the way you will get good legislation.

So how did we start off this session? Well, the House was called back on March 26. The appropriations for last year's expenditures expired five days later -- in fact, in less than five days. I mean, what absolute nonsense! Surely this government has calculated its budget and has done its planning by the end of January. Surely you can call the House back by the middle of February. Surely you can leave enough time for thoughtful and sensible discussion to get the people's business done in one of the most important areas there is: how much money you're going to spend, what you're going to spend it on, what you're trying to accomplish, how you're going to measure that and how you're going to report.

[ Page 10315 ]

I categorically refute the statements that the Premier has just made about a lack of proposals for legislative reform. The Public Accounts Committee, in dealing with the accountability initiative of the thirty-fifth parliament -- not the thirty-six parliament -- made a complete set of recommendations on the way in which estimates are dealt with, expenditures and budgets are approved, and a sensible, thoughtful process for accountability reporting. Now, the Public Accounts Committee has a majority of government members on it. That report was endorsed by every single member of the committee. Has the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council responded to that? Oh no. I've had the opportunity to have a couple of private discussions with the deputy minister which have encouraged me that the government would be moving forward, that there was seen to be some benefit and some worthwhile proposals, but nothing's happened.

We talk about a fixed legislative calendar. All these things are give-and-take; we can work out a fixed legislative calendar. One thing that we know it won't do is commence on March 26, for goodness' sake. That is ridiculous! With the way in which budgets are still prepared in British Columbia -- in secret, behind closed doors, and not disclosed until the minister stands up -- how can proper approval and debate take place within a period of five days?

We need to have a weekly calendar that allows members from Columbia River-Revelstoke, Peace River North or North Coast to be able to get back to their constituencies. It is relatively easy for the member for Delta South or the member for Esquimalt-Metchosin to get home to do those things that one needs to do on the weekends and to get back, but if you're from North Coast or Columbia River-Revelstoke or the more remote areas of the province, it's a very different problem. We need to get back into our communities, because we need to get the community response to the important and relevant legislation that any government tables during its mandate.

[3:00]

I often accuse this government's mode of governing as being press releases and photo opportunities, and I think that it is fair to state that this Premier's commitment to parliamentary reform has been nothing but press releases and photo ops. I think there is a very genuine opportunity for us, particularly as we come to the dying days of July in a nice warm summer, to recognize that legislative reform can't be done all in one big jump. We have to take it one step at a time.

Let's not boast about setting up parliamentary committees for the appointment of an ombudsman, as required by legislation, or about evaluation and review of the Forest Renewal business plan -- which exercise I sat through for two years; a great exercise by Forest Renewal, in my opinion, to tell us as little as possible about their plans -- or the need for review of issues dealing with conflict of interest, as required by legislation. Let's talk about setting up committees and giving them projects, important things to consider on behalf of the people, that are not required by legislation but by good governance. I'd be most interested in the response from the Premier on this.

Hon. G. Clark: Well, I'm disappointed in some of the remarks that the member made. We have made more parliamentary changes in the last few years than really almost at any time in the history of the province, other than the last NDP government. You know, if the member feels that way, then maybe we shouldn't allow Public Accounts to sit out of session, because that was a major change that we made which no government has ever agreed to. We made it.

F. Gingell: Every other province does it.

Hon. G. Clark: Nobody's ever agreed to it; we did it.

We have Committee A sitting to hear estimates. That was a major change to try to shorten. . .and it was done when the now leader of the PDA was leader of the Liberal Party. The former House Leader and the member were part of those discussions to try to find a way to remove some of the partisanship from this House and have an expedited estimates process.

A funny thing happened: we added a whole layer, another committee room, and it simply doubled or tripled the amount of time in estimates. There's no politics in it for you folks, but that's up to you. There's certainly no pressure on the government; we've just extended the sitting time. So we made historic changes, which were partially implemented. The change to add a second committee was supposed to reduce estimates time, to allow for further committee work to begin; that's the discussion we had. We did the first piece of it. Unfortunately, the opposition, for some reason inexplicable to me, filibusters everything. So a thing which used to take minutes takes hours and hours. That was a huge change to the thing. It's debatable whether it's better. I think we should get rid of it, frankly, and go back to the old way. But I'd be reluctant to do that. We'd be here ten months, with the way members opposite consume time. That was a huge change that we made.

These things you refer to. . . . We did the conflict-of-interest commissioner. We didn't have to put it in legislation that we'd pick by an all-party committee; we did that. The changes to the Forest Renewal board reporting to a committee

[ Page 10316 ]

Members opposite may not like it and may disagree with it, but these are big parliamentary changes we've made. If the member opposite is saying that we haven't made enough parliamentary changes, I agree; I've done this every year. But we've got to have an agreement which works both ways. There must be. . . . We can no longer agree to what we did initially -- naïvely agreed to all these committees, Committee A and all of that stuff -- if the opposition then simply consumes the time. It was designed to shorten the time, so we could get on with more productive business, because it's. . . . Frankly, a lot of what's done around here is a historical anachronism; the public know that.

We should redesign what we do here so it has more relevance. But we can't get the opposition to give up the kind of power that they think they have by taking us into August every year. I mean, I know that maybe there's lots of criticism of when we were in opposition. We never once went past June -- once, to make a big case, we went past June 30. And we thought we were a pretty effective opposition. Now, suddenly, to the opposition, time seems to be the measurement: "Well, we'll show those guys. We'll take them into August." I'm sure that everybody in the public thinks they're an effective opposition because they've taken us into July. Trust me, folks: nobody knows the place is sitting in July. Nobody knew we were. . . . We kind of figured that out, so we got out at the end of June. We only once took it into July, just before an election, to make a major point. Now we've got an opposition that feels that filibustering everything at great length is an effective tool, so we don't get any business done.

The Premier's estimates, when I was in opposition -- I know I sound like an old veteran -- never lasted more than one or two or three hours. I don't want to give hints to the opposition, but the gallery was packed when the Premier's estimates came up. It was a wild two hours of tough debate. Then we adjourned and got out for the summer.

But we come in here, and it's the structure of the Premier's Office -- which we could give you, and we could give to everybody. . . . You get it by FOI, go into details and all that stuff, and take hours and hours of discussion. Everything seems to be done that way now. I don't know when it changed. It changed in '91; we had lots of new members. So estimates, which were short and sweet and wild and fun, with lots of debate and partisanship and action and interesting times, now have become an incredibly boring. . .

An Hon. Member: Chinese water torture.

Hon. G. Clark: . . .and torturous process of how long we can go to put people to sleep. I don't like it. It doesn't hurt us; it doesn't hurt the government. We're here. It doesn't hurt me; I'm here in July anyway. But it doesn't seem to be very effective for anybody. So we should get rid of some of this debate and agree to time limits on it.

I want to give one other piece of advice to the opposition. After a record debate, taking it into July, there was always a headline in the Vancouver Sun, saying: "Opposition Caves." You're going to get that whenever the Legislature adjourns, whether it's in August or in June. That happens, and I'll just give you that little warning. Whenever it happens, you'll get a thing saying that the opposition is caving in to the government's agenda. We always had that, and it didn't take very long to figure out that it's just what the press does. It doesn't matter how long you go, they're still going to say you caved in. So you try to make your points.

What we should do is have time limits on estimates. By the way, you'd get a media report saying the opposition caved in, if you agreed to that -- which is probably why you haven't. But you should agree to time limits. Have a family life in the summer and get out in June. Have short, intense debates, where you actually make some political points, I get to make political points, and we all go on and have a family life. And then have some detailed, substantive committees working on policy issues, which might actually contribute to the public debate in British Columbia. That's what I'd like to do, and if the members opposite want, we'd be delighted to try again.

F. Gingell: I wonder if the Premier would like to give us the number of bills that this government has tabled just in the month of July. He keeps talking about how they were finished in the month of June.

An Hon. Member: They were ready.

F. Gingell: Then why didn't you table them before?

If I may, Mr. Chairman, I would like to bring the Premier back. This parliament and the parliament before have never allowed committees to sit and deal with the substantive issues of the select standing committees. The Public Accounts Committee has met intersessionally. Why? Because the deputy ministers' council prepared a report on an accountability issue, and you wanted the Public Accounts Committee to look at it and discuss it and go through it thoroughly and report back to the Legislature, which the committee was pleased to do.

The next time, why did you want to do that? The Minister of Finance -- your predecessor, sitting on your left -- wanted us to look into the issue of the entity: what should be included in the consolidated revenue fund. That couldn't be done while the House was sitting, so we sat intersessionally. Both of these things weren't done with the Public Accounts Committee delving into the things that the Public Accounts Committee normally deals with, which get dealt with throughout the rest of the country and the Commonwealth -- issues to do with government expenditures. Both have dealt with accountability issues and the Minister of Finance at the time looking for some -- I hate to say guidance -- support for initiatives that the government supports.

I'd like to leave the issue there. It may well be that other members of the opposition wish to move this thing forward. But I think that the Premier doth protest too much. You really haven't thought about the contribution that committees can make to this process, which can reduce the partisanship and can get us working towards solutions rather than disagreements. Really, all the committees that have been set up and that have worked have been required to appoint an auditor general, to appoint an ombudsman and to appoint a child commissioner. We need to get into more of the public policy debate, which you can't do during legislation because the legislation is far too focused on specific issues rather than on broad public policy issues.

The time is now; the time was last year; the time was the year before. There was a real opportunity in 1991-92, when we came into the House as neophytes and were looking for you to give us some guidance as to how one in opposition should act. I remember getting beaten up by you, the minister from North Coast and the minister from Esquimalt-Metchosin, and dis-

[ Page 10317 ]

Hon. G. Clark: You know, the opposition has to be able to do a deal with the government that works both ways. I want to say one thing very clearly: the member is absolutely correct that if there was a calendar, then the business and the bills of the House must be in by a certain date, whether it's June 15 or whatever the date is. That's what we would have to commit to -- to give up our ability to bring in legislation in July or at any time. We would have to give that up. I say clearly and just for the record, because the member knows, that we offered to the opposition to give that up. We offered to give a time limit on when the bills would come in -- it was in early June -- in exchange for a time limit of estimates completion, by the end of June. In case you weren't aware of that, I still make an offer to you generally again. We were quite prepared to agree. It requires both sides.

[3:15]

What's required is for the opposition to agree to the kinds of time limits that every parliament agrees to and for the government to give an absolute commitment to the timing of the legislation in the House. Those are the key variables. We offered ours. We did not get commitments on time limits. Therefore we're back to what we've done forever; we're here in July.

It doesn't affect the government. In fact, one could argue that it's good for the government to sit in July, because very few people. . . . If there are controversial things, it's not as big an issue to the public. So from the government's perspective, we probably should want to sit in July. But it's dumb, it's not good parliament, and it doesn't make sense. We should be sitting till the end of June. That requires discipline on both sides.

I say again to the member who raised the question: I'd be delighted. . . . I will once again for next year make formal overtures from the Government House Leader to the opposition for a legislative calendar which requires those kinds of compromises.

G. Farrell-Collins: I heard my name being taken in vain, and I thought I'd come in and participate in the debate for a little bit, if I may. I think we're all saying the same thing. I think what we're saying is that this place needs to work better, to be more efficient, to be more focused and to allow for a couple of other things too. The Premier talked about time commitments on estimates debate and an agreement to introduce bills at a specific time. Both of those are very valid requirements, and they're both very doable.

But there are more things that need to be done to make this place work well, to make it relevant and to allow the people who work here to have a life, to see their families, to visit and keep in touch with their constituents on an ongoing basis -- to make sure that marriages don't fail, that people don't lose contact with their children and that we don't forget what our constituents are there for and what they're telling us. Those are all important things. It's also important to make sure that those people who sit in that corner of the chamber, the government backbenchers, have the opportunity to participate in what goes on in this House. I can't imagine what it would be like to be a government backbencher in this chamber. It must be difficult. I'm not trying to be political about that; I'm sympathizing. It's fun to be a minister, because you get to do things. You get to be part of the decision-making process; you get to bring the ideals of your constituents forward and to make changes.

Interjection.

G. Farrell-Collins: The member for Surrey-Whalley asks how I would know. Well, I'm dreaming. I know she used to know; she doesn't know now.

On this side, in opposition, it's also challenging; it's also stimulating; it's also interesting. We get to participate in the debate; we get to get up and talk in estimates; we get to get up and ask questions in question period. We get to bring the concerns of our constituents to this House and pursue them aggressively. We feel like we're being effective. We feel like we're changing in some small way government policy or direction -- modifying it, encouraging them to go one way, encouraging them not to go another way.

I do, in all sincerity, have a great deal of sympathy for members of the government back bench, whatever party it's been in the 60 or 100 or however many years. I can remember how bad it used to be. We rarely get the chance to hear the concerns of their constituents in this chamber. I'm sure that they discuss it in caucus meetings and at party meetings and retreats, etc., and in ministers' offices. But they never or rarely ever get the chance to stand up and grill a minister, to stand up and ask tough questions, to stand up and speak on behalf of their constituents. They're always sitting there. I know they want to get up, because they heckle so loudly. I know they've got strong concerns, so you would hope that there would be some opportunities.

I think the Premier is looking at it from the Premier's viewpoint in that he wants to get out, and he thinks, justifiably, that it's important to have a reasonable length of time for the legislative session. One could argue that he's also thinking about it from the opposition's point of view to a certain extent. But if you look at the way our standing orders are structured, the government back bench and indeed in many cases the opposition become virtually irrelevant. We have the most restrictive standing orders in opportunities for individual MLAs to bring stuff before this House and actually debate it.

Every year on the order paper there are dozens of private members' bills, pieces of legislation brought forward by private members -- those who don't give up after seven years and stop even trying to introduce them. Year after year private members' bills are put on the order paper. Members spend hundreds of hours; volunteers spend time drafting them; government backbenchers do it. And year after year there are 50, 80 or 100 motions on significant and real policy issues brought forward by members of the opposition and, more importantly, by government backbenchers, which never see the light of day in this House. Those members never get a chance to bring the issues of their constituents to the Legislature -- the job they were hired to do. They weren't hired just to attend caucus meetings; they weren't hired just to go on bended knee to

[ Page 10318 ]

This House has the shortest question period of any jurisdiction in the British Commonwealth. Every other province and every other country in the British Commonwealth or around the world with the British parliamentary system has a longer question period than we do, if they have one. There's another opportunity.

There are lots of things that we need to talk about if we're going to turn around the way this place works. You can't just say: "Okay, so many hours for estimates. We'll bring the bills in on a certain date. And that's all we need to do."

Interjection.

G. Farrell-Collins: The Premier says it'll be a start. Yeah, it would be a start. That doesn't give the government backbenchers any more opportunity to do anything; it gives them less opportunity. He's got a caucus too. He doesn't just have a cabinet. He's got a caucus, and they've got something to say about this, as do members of the opposition. They have the right as members of this Legislature to be able to bring issues of concern to their constituents before this House. If there were opportunities for private members' debates, if there were opportunities for private members' bills to be debated in this House, for motions, for written questions on notice to be answered -- if you can imagine that. . . . In this House they've stopped putting written questions on the order paper, because they're never answered. If there were opportunities for members to do those sorts of things, then they wouldn't be lining up around the block to spend time in estimates, because they would have had an opportunity to debate them here in this House and get a resolution on them.

Instead, as a critic. . . And I have great sympathy for the Health critic in particular, the Education critic and a few others who, every time their estimates come along, have a list of 30 caucus members who have issues they want to debate in their estimates. That's why the estimates go so long. Their constituents are saying to them: "I want you to bring this to the House. Why won't you bring my issues to the floor of the Legislature?" And instead of having a constructive debate, we end up in these protracted, lengthy estimates debates, which don't get us anywhere.

Hon. Chair, when we were approached late last fall with the idea of going to some sort of fixed parliamentary calendar, which would get us in here and get us out of here in a particular amount of time, our caucus took that very seriously. We had lengthy discussions in caucus; we debated back and forth what some of the opportunities might be, what some of the suggestions might be, and we came forward with a proposal. That proposal was mailed to the Government House Leader. I don't know if the Premier ever saw it; I'll be glad to give him a copy. The Premier said that we never made any suggestions, that there's been no discussion, that there's been no response. Well, there was response; there was a five-page letter. And albeit it was late -- it should have been there at the beginning of January -- I explained to the Government House Leader why that happened. My father was ill and eventually passed away, and that took time.

But on February 5, I sent a letter to the Government House Leader -- five pages with suggestions to change the rules of this House. I'm not going to read it here, but there are five pages of suggestions for ways to make this Legislature more relevant to constituents and more relevant to MLAs, particularly backbench MLAs -- opportunities for government members to speak in question period, a daily and weekly schedule that would allow us to compress our workweek into perhaps even three days and allow members to spend Monday and Friday in their constituencies dealing with their constituents' issues. Why do we need to sit here on a Monday when we debate for only about three and a half hours? It would make more sense to try and compress those days, to work hard on Tuesday to Thursday, to be in our constituencies on Monday and Friday -- to actually sleep in our own beds and see our families on Sunday night and Friday night and try and keep our families together too.

I suggested a weekly schedule, which would have looked something like what's done in Ottawa. The House sits for three weeks, and then you spend a week in your constituency. You spend three weeks here and a week in your constituency, so you don't end up becoming disenfranchised from your constituents. You're not just talking to them on the phone and reading their faxes, but you're meeting them face to face. You're in your constituency office; you're in the community where they can come and talk to you. What wrong with that? We may not want to do it exactly like that, but it's a suggestion; it's an opportunity.

How about actually having some time for private members' days -- actually allowing government backbenchers and opposition members a couple of hours a week to really have debates? Right now we have these private members' statements on Fridays, where if you say anything that's at all political, you're out of order. Well, this place is political.

An Hon. Member: You only have ten minutes to do it.

G. Farrell-Collins: You've got ten minutes. I mean, why not allow some of the private members' bills to be debated? Why not allow some of the motions to be debated? There are some good motions in here. A lot of them I don't agree with, but there are some motions in here that I know would spark some good debate in this House. You know, the Premier's got the order paper there, and he can look through them. There are 50. . . .

Interjection.

G. Farrell-Collins: The Premier says we spend too much time on estimates. I know he was talking to his colleagues when I highlighted that problem earlier. The reason we spend so much time on estimates is because there's no other opportunity for backbenchers or for opposition members to raise their constituents' concerns but estimates. If there were other opportunities, they wouldn't be lined up around the block to do it. The Premier talks about the hundreds of hours spent in estimates. Well, when they used to spend 100 hours on estimates, the budget was a lot smaller -- and I might add that the debt was a lot smaller too. You've got about four times as much spending and about four times the debt, and that has an impact on it also.

The Premier should look at the order paper. There are opposition members, government members -- the member from Burnaby, the member for Vancouver-Burrard, the member for Comox Valley. . . . There's a whole bunch of them. There are 50 motions in here, all on important issues to those members and their constituents, which never get debated. I know the member for Surrey-Whalley has had to fight tooth and nail to get an issue that's dear to her heart before the House, the MAI. Now it's in a standing committee, and credit

[ Page 10319 ]

Committees. The Premier and the member for Delta South talked about the committee structure. There were four different suggestions for the way committees could work in this House, not just the standing committees but special committees -- committees on legislation. Oftentimes the Premier wants to move things through the House quickly. Why not take bills where there's a contentious nut that needs to be cracked or a complex piece of legislation and refer that to a legislative committee? Then allow them to go out and hear what people have to say; to do some travelling around the province and listen to what constituents have to say about it; to take back their recommendations and hammer out some changes, amendments, compromises; to bring it into the House in the same session or perhaps in a fall session and put the thing through. You'd move legislation way faster through this chamber if that were the case. It's done in Ontario and other jurisdictions, where legislation in committee in the House takes almost no time, because the work is done. You know what? You'd get better legislation, and you'd get it quicker.

[3:30]

That was another suggestion in the letter that was sent to the Government House Leader. There are other suggestions -- and I'll give the Premier a copy -- on policy committees. An education and health care committee is a pet issue with the Leader of the Opposition. I don't know if the standing committee on health and the standing committee on legislation have ever met. Maybe they have met in the past hundred years, but certainly not since I've been alive, I think. Health care and education are two issues that the government says are its biggest concerns, and the committees have never gone out and talked to British Columbians about what they'd like to see done in health care and education. So there are some other opportunities to do things.

A fixed calendar. There's a whole page here on fixed calendars and how that might work. It's touchy. . . .

Interjection.

G. Farrell-Collins: I'll ask a question, or perhaps one of the other members wants to get up and yield the floor to me.

The question, I guess, is: if there are all these opportunities put forward, all these suggestions. . . . They weren't "take it or leave it." The last line of the letter. . . .

L. Reid: Hon. Chair, I'll happily yield to the member.

The Chair: Opposition House Leader.

G. Farrell-Collins: Thank you, hon. Chair. I'll try and wrap it up relatively quickly. I won't take another 15 minutes, but I'll take a few minutes.

The line says: "We should discuss this important area further." This is a five-page document with suggestions. I don't expect the government to agree to them. I don't necessarily expect them to agree with any of them. But they're a starting point for discussion; they're a starting point for debate. I didn't get a response to that February 5 letter until, I think, the day the House sat or the day before the House was supposed to sit. Again, I'm not holding the Government House Leader responsible for that. Part of that was my fault in not getting it to her until February. I couldn't do it any quicker. But there are opportunities there for discussion that will not just help the government and the opposition get in and out but help all members of this House to be more effective for their constituents and to actually have a life -- to actually spend time with their families, to know their kids as they grow up, to keep their marriages intact. All of those things, quite frankly, are a heck of a lot more important than what we do in this chamber. There is no reason why those things can't be done.

I don't want to belabour the point; I don't want to go on for hours on this issue. I think everybody knows the need; we agree with the need. Everybody in this House, I think, would like to see that change, and all I would ask is that. . . . We're now at the end of one more session. There will be some months before the next sitting of the House, whether it's in the fall or next spring. I think we should work in a serious way to discuss these issues. It shouldn't be just the Government House Leader and the Opposition House Leader. There should be some government backbenchers; there should be the independent members of the House; there should be some other members of our caucus. Maybe a couple of cabinet ministers would want to be part of it, too, because they have a unique view on how this place works. Put half a dozen people together ad hoc, and we'll start talking about how this place might work. Get some advice from the Clerks who know what's done in other jurisdictions. Let's try and do it. But let's not wait until December to start. Let's start now or on September 1 or in the middle of August. Let's get on with this process now.

I claim no pride or ego with these recommendations; they are some suggestions. If the government has other suggestions, let's talk about them. But let's get started. Let's not find ourselves another year later in this House doing exactly the same thing in the middle of July, having moved nowhere on this topic. If the Premier will give us the commitment to do that -- to involve all members of the House, not just two members; to have a realistic discussion about this and give us some time to work at it -- I can almost guarantee you that by this fall you'll have some changes that all members of this House can agree to, which will make all members of this House far more relevant.

Hon. G. Clark: I'd be delighted to give a general commitment, with the Government House Leader. But whether we have a committee of our caucus or not, I'm not prepared to

[ Page 10320 ]

L. Reid: I rise to volunteer my services on this committee that the Premier may or may not call. I too have been a member of this Legislature for seven years, and the best intentions have never produced a plan or a product. I agree with my hon. colleague the Opposition House Leader when he talks about commitment over the past seven years. I believe that this opposition has demonstrated that commitment, and I've been in discussions with members opposite where they have agreed.

My hon. colleague the member for Delta South talks about this House not sitting five days before the budget needs to be in place for this province. There's $22 billion-plus in spending, and the government gives it less than five days' consideration. I would like the Premier to get to his feet and indicate that this House will sit at least 30 days in advance of April 1, that we will sit in early March or late February, and that we won't wait until there's a handful of afternoons -- two or three of which have a ceremonial intent -- that do not allow adequate consideration or scrutiny of a very important budget document. I will commit -- and I trust the Premier will agree -- that the budget has been a failing point for this Premier and this government. They indeed have an opportunity next March to allow some useful consideration time and to allow the public at large to get a better handle on how this government will choose to expend well in excess of $22 billion. Three afternoons don't make for good, careful deliberation.

I put that question to the Premier: will he commit to putting in place a reasonable 20-to-30-day time line for consideration of the budget in the next session of this parliament?

Hon. G. Clark: Once again -- and I'm not saying that there isn't. . . . It takes two to negotiate an agreement, so I'm not suggesting that we are perfect in terms of our discussions. But I will say that part of the discussions we had, at least preliminarily, with the Opposition House Leader was that not only do we have to have a fixed end date, which is really the opposition's call, and a fixed date for when legislation can come in so that it's reasonable, we also have to have an agreed-upon start date. I was offering, through the Government House Leader, a specific start date which was in advance of the date we came back. But in the absence of any agreement in terms of reasonableness at the time, I felt that if we came in three weeks early, we'd just be here three weeks longer. We'd still be here at the same time, and no commitment was made.

That's not to say, however, that we shouldn't still come in earlier anyway, aside from any agreements we might have. I think that's true. Part of it is discipline on the government's side in terms of preparing for the House. Again I apologize for this, because as one of the few members who have been here for 12 years. . . . The Socred government never came in before March 31. I mean, the budget was late every year of the Vander Zalm administration. I think every single year the budget. . . .

Interjection.

Hon. G. Clark: Yeah. And they were a bad government -- I agree.

We established a revolutionary principle: that we were always going to bring in the budget before the end of the fiscal year. I appreciate that maybe it's been too close to the end of the fiscal year; I think that's valid. But it is a modest accomplishment that in seven years, we have never brought in a budget after March 31 -- which was the case every single year previously, when I was in opposition. I think it was every year; there might have been one exception to that.

So we've improved it. We're coming in before March 31, and the budget comes in before the end of the fiscal year. That's an improvement over past history. Can we improve it further by coming in earlier? Frankly, to do other business -- the throne speech even before we do the House -- I think the answer is yes. But the incentive to do that comes from an overall agreement, which has a beginning and an end and a time, and that's what we've been trying to accomplish. We haven't been able to do that, and I'll accept some responsibility for that. It's because we did not agree to some recommendations from the Opposition House Leader. We put forward our suggestions, and there was -- I don't say this in a critical way -- a late response, which was fulsome. It looked like it was just so far out that we couldn't agree.

But I've made a commitment, and I'd be delighted, again, to take seriously this suggestion and see if we can come up with something next year. You know, it's not a question of time for members -- sitting in July. We're all working in July in any event. It's a question of just having the business of the House done more efficiently and more effectively, both for the opposition and for the government, in terms of the focus and sharpness of the debate.

Once again, I think we've unfortunately gotten into some bad habits. I'm not trying to be critical of the opposition when I say that, but when you go from a hundred hours in estimates to 400 hours in estimates. . . . Is it three times more effective for you -- for the opposition -- or three times. . . ? Is it better for anybody? I don't think the public or the media would see that the opposition has improved the quality of the debate because it's now three times longer, nor do I think the government has benefited or been hurt because it's three times longer. It's a question of if it were shorter, then you might get sharper debate and accomplish more.

I mean, even this discussion that we're having today, which I'm delighted to have, is a not a discussion that would normally have been the case in the Premier's estimates at any time prior. It would be a more lively debate about politics and ideology and differences. In some ways, this is a better debate and a not insignificant one and reasonable for members to be discussing. But anyway, I'll just say that I recognize the member's concerns, and we certainly agree to try again to see if we can do a better job.

L. Reid: I think it's a fascinating ramble that the Premier engages in when he is positioning himself as being slightly better than the Socreds. For the first three years that we sat in this chamber, every issue had befallen them only because of the mess they were left by the Socreds. I mean, this should not be a drive to mediocrity. Certainly when the Premier gets to his feet and says that perhaps we did not meet all his demands so that's the reason we have not reached an agreement. . . . What rubbish! At some point, this Premier has to stand up and be counted on the issue of good government, which is delivering timely, reasonable debate to the individuals in this province -- the taxpayers who pay for this chamber's operation.

[ Page 10321 ]

[E. Walsh in the chair.]

Yes, I'm looking for some political leadership on this question. I'm looking for some political will from this Premier to commit to actually doing it this year. He's made the commitment to me, personally, every year for seven years. I would expect that every once in a while, a commitment would be kept. I expect this Premier to get to his feet, accept the offer of this opposition -- and my offer personally -- to work with him on this question and deliver, before the House next sits, a reasonable calendar that sees us sitting before the end of March. Period.

M. Sihota: I'm sure the Premier might be concerned that I might offer my opinions after 12 years on this debate, but I'm not going to do that. I would like to have leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

M. Sihota: On a day when, in the midst of this debate, we're talking about long summers here and family, I look up in the chamber and see my family rather unexpectedly. They have to come here to see me this time of the year. I must confess that it's a real privilege for me to introduce my wife Jessie, who is here with my mother-in-law Mrs. Parhar, from Nanaimo; my wife's cousins who are visiting from Derby, England, and who arrived in Victoria today; and of course my 11-year-old daughter Karina, who I have no doubt one day will have a seat in this chamber. Will all members please give them all a warm welcome.

[3:45]

The Premier committed to having some ongoing discussions. He said that he wouldn't make the commitment that it be broader-based, only that it would be between the House Leaders, the Government and Opposition House Leaders. If that's the only option, I think we have to pursue it, but I'm going to ask the Premier a really quick question. What would be so bad about having a representative from the government back bench and the members of the third party and perhaps an additional member from the opposition participate in that, in an effort to try and come to some conclusions? It need not be a committee that's struck by this House. It can just be a committee or a group of people sitting down, trying to solve the problem. What would be so difficult about doing that?

Hon. G. Clark: There's nothing wrong at all with that. I think it's a very good suggestion. I'm hesitant to make that commitment until I talk to my caucus. We've already delegated the Government House Leader that task, but I'd be happy to bring it back to my caucus and discuss it with them.

G. Farrell-Collins: I look forward to the answer to that, because in all sincerity, I do want to try and get to the bottom of that, and I think there's an opportunity. I'm going to take a copy of the letter that I gave to the Government House Leader on behalf of my caucus, and I'll get a copy to the Premier, if he hasn't seen it. I think I'll also give copies to government caucus members so that they can have a chance to look at some of the suggestions and see if they've got any ideas of ways to try and do these things differently.

I want to say a couple of things about the debate that has gone on and about a couple of things the Premier has said. He said that we filibustered everything this session. I'm not sure he's aware of how this session went, because I know he had other duties. The reality is that there was one piece of legislation that the opposition was adamantly opposed to, and that was the labour bill. That debate did go for some time -- not as long as it needed to go, but thanks to some members of the government, it went longer than we'd anticipated. That was the one issue.

I must admit that in the estimates this session, the opposition has reduced the time dramatically over last year. I think if he checks with his House Leader, it's probably about two-thirds or less of what it was last year. They're not quite completed, but they will be completed shortly.

We also had a commitment that we had worked out with the government. The government felt it needed to have supply by the end of June. We agreed to do that in a meaningful way. We had scheduled to complete it by the end of June, and then the deal went out the window one day. Just all of a sudden, it changed. No consultation. We were just told: "Forget it. We're not going to do supply now; we're going to go do this." You know, it is hard to try and manage the House agenda when we go out of our way. . . . Members from the opposition tighten up the time they're going to spend on their issues and have to go tell their colleagues: "Sorry, you can't spend as much time on that issue as you may have liked, because we're trying to behave in a responsible way. We're trying to move the supply bill through the House in a reasonable fashion and complete it before the end of the 90 days required under the interim supply act that was introduced at the beginning of April." That was an effort by the opposition to try and move the House's business along and try and get that completed. All of a sudden, without any advice or any consultation, we're sitting until midnight. The estimates are off, and legislation is on.

It's hard from the opposition's point of view. When is it that we're supposed to agree to a deal to manage the House business that's going to actually work and run its course, and when is it that we're just being played with? That makes it very difficult for that element of confidence, as the minister knows, because he was Government House Leader when I was Opposition House Leader. We didn't have a lot of trouble with that; that seemed to go relatively well. So it's hard for the opposition to know when the government is serious and when it's just playing with and trying to have its way with the opposition.

The Premier needs to understand that it's not just the government's House; it's the opposition's House. It belongs to the 75 members who are here representing over 4 million British Columbians, and they have a job to do and a duty. That means that if the government brings in a piece of legislation or a particularly abhorrent resolution or something that a large number of members of this House think is wrong for the people of British Columbia, they also have a duty to do everything within their power and everything within the rules to try and convince the government not to proceed. We will

[ Page 10322 ]

The minister said they never went past the end of June, I think he said. I would assume, then, that they never had bills introduced in July. I have my count here. In this session we've had eight bills since July 1, and one of them, a particularly odious piece of legislation, Bill 50, was introduced on July 17. It's what I call the Louis XIV act, which is basically that the government can do whatever it wants. It's another rendition of that one. That comes on July 17, and then the government complains that we're not moving the legislation and the estimates through the House in a reasonable fashion.

How is the opposition supposed to respond when something like that is brought in at the end of the month and when the government was saying that they wanted to be out three weeks previously? In fact, if you look at the last week of June and the month of July, there were 11 pieces of legislation. Over 20 percent of the legislative load that was placed on this House this session has come in the last three or four weeks. In the last three and a half weeks, over 20 percent was introduced, and some of that was fairly major legislation. As the member for Richmond East said, this issue has come up and has been discussed for years in this House, either formally or informally.

Interjection.

G. Farrell-Collins: Well, the Attorney General may not be aware because he was on the back bench at the time, but this issue has been discussed since 1992. I'm sorry I'm misunderstanding or perhaps I'm not hearing the Attorney General, but the reality is that this issue comes up every year, and every year the Premier, who used to be the Government House Leader, talks about doing these great things, and then nothing happens. I remember that when he became Premier, and within days of becoming Premier, something happened. I think it was the day before he became Premier. . . .

An Hon. Member: The day of.

G. Farrell-Collins: The day of? No, it was actually the day before; it just seemed like that, I guess, because of the papers, but it was about that time. The Premier offered. . . . I think it had something to do with B.C. Hydro. In fact, he said, he made a commitment, that he was going have the Crown Corporations Committee examine what was going on at the Crown corporations. They could sit and discuss and debate it, and that would solve that problem. They could make sure that that type of thing never happened again, because they needed to be overseen more tightly. Everybody said great, and he said it was a good idea.

Well, it's now two a half years later, and that committee has never met -- and it's still a good idea. The election happened shortly thereafter, and the Premier was too busy to actually get that committee up and running. After the election it became: "Well, you can have either the Public Accounts Committee or the Crown Corporations Committee meet, but you can't have both of them." Well, if it is a good idea, it should be a good idea, not based on the role or actions of another committee. The Crown Corporations Committee has a vital role to play, but so does the Public Accounts Committee.

The member for Delta South has chaired that committee for seven years now and has done -- and I know all members of this House will agree -- a spectacular job. He has done it in a constructive manner. They have made real progress -- and I see the former Finance ministers all nodding their consent -- working with the bureaucracy, the various Ministers of Finance, and the members of the committee from both government and opposition sides to change and improve the way the government keeps its books and to improve the accountability of the government of British Columbia. That is valuable work. It is done in a very efficient manner, it is done in an effective manner, and it is something that they should continue to do every year. They shouldn't have to put that on hold so that we can examine the Crown corporations.

The Crown corporations need to have some accountability. There is none there. Quite frankly, as the Premier and the former minister responsible for all the Crown corporations. . . . As the opposition critic who, at one time or another, has had a lot of fun being the opposition critic for various Crown corporations, I would think that he, of all people, would realize how unaccountable the Crown corporations are in this province and how difficult it is for ministers of the Crown to oversee them. If you appoint your hacks to run them, they may run amok. If you're not paying close attention, they can get you into an awful lot of hot water as a minister. He should know that, having overseen virtually all of the Crown corporations at one time or another, and having dealt with the problems and the fallout of the lack of accountability with those Crown corporations.

Those are important issues that need to be dealt with. If in 1996 the Premier thought it was a good idea to have the Crown corporations report to or be accountable to a committee of the Legislature -- one for the Crown corporations that the government had the majority on, much like a public accounts committee for the public sector. . . . It could look at their business plans, could look at how they're spending their money, look at the projects and be a check and balance. I think that would be very productive.

I remember in the first year we were elected here, I was lucky enough to be put on the Public Accounts Committee -- and lucky enough to get off it, from what I understand the workload is, with the member for Delta South. That first year I was on the committee, and I remember. . . . I don't know how the Public Accounts Committee used to work before, but I don't think it worked the way it works now. I think it was far more political. I think it did far less work and was more of a playpen, rather than an accountability venue.

I remember sitting there at one of the very first meetings, and one of the issues that the auditor general had written about in his report was a sinking fund used by B.C. Hydro with regard to the B.C. Gas sale. Two people from B.C. Hydro showed up at the Public Accounts meeting -- fairly junior people from their finance department -- and proceeded to give us what I thought was a fairly incomplete and low-level, condescending briefing on how that worked. I remember that the member for Delta South, who chaired the committee, took offence to that, and he proceeded to grill them for about 45 minutes. When he saw the little beads of sweat going down the temples of the people from B.C. Hydro, the member for Delta South directed them to go away and come back the next week -- and they had better well have some answers to the questions that he wanted. The following week, when I went to that committee, there were about 30 people from B.C. Hydro there, and they were all top people. They had the slides that you do -- what are they called? -- the PowerPoint slides. They had briefing books; they had notes; they had every expert and consultant there they ever needed. They answered the questions like that, and they were out.

An Hon. Member: Are you filibustering?

[ Page 10323 ]

Interjections.

The Chair: Order, members.

G. Farrell-Collins: That just proves the case that the Premier was making -- that if there is an opportunity and a desire for Crown corporations to become more accountable, then that's the venue for them. If it was a good idea in 1996, it should be a good idea now, and the Premier should be able to make a commitment to ensure that that committee will meet.

Year after year, when that committee appears on the order paper as a committee that may or may not meet, the opposition has put forward the member for Abbotsford as the potential chair of that committee. The member for Abbotsford is a very serious member; he's very concerned about accountability issues; he is hard-working; he is determined. I know that the Minister of Agriculture has worked with him and knows his character and knows the type of job he could do in that capacity. I think that if that committee were allowed to meet and that member were to accede to be the chair of that committee, you would find that it would be as successful over the long term and do as much for British Columbia and for Crown corporation accountability in this province as the member for Delta South has done with the financial sector.

[4:00]

Hon. G. Clark: It took a long time for you to get to that point, hon. member. I certainly agree that. . . . I'm not backing away from a commitment on the Crown Corporations Committee. I do think we should try to get it up and running and functioning. I don't want to make a commitment right now, but I will take it on advisement.

Interjection.

Hon. G. Clark: No, the issue has been -- and this was the challenge when we first did it, and the reason the member referred to this -- about whether it should be Public Accounts or Crown Corporations, which the member didn't agree with, and I respect that. It was because we had the Aboriginal Affairs Committee meeting on Nisga'a, and they were holding hundreds of meetings. We ended up with a workload question about how many committees could sit in the fall. We are, as you know -- and I've made no secret about this -- looking at a fall sitting of the House itself, and we've got these committees. We just announced three today; I acknowledge that they are to appoint people. But at some point, if you've got three or four committees meeting -- I think four are now meeting -- and we've got the House sitting. . . . It's just a functional question. That's what I want to consider. But I certainly agree with the principle, and I certainly will again talk to the Government House Leader about the possibility of it.

G. Farrell-Collins: Maybe the Premier can talk to the Government House Leader from six to 6:35 tonight and come back with an answer. Every year we ask this question in one form or another, and every year we get the undertaking, but we never get the commitment. The member from Penticton showed me that it's actually in the throne speech for 1996: ". . .a new Crown corporation committee of the Legislature, modelled on the Public Accounts Committee and chaired by a member of the opposition." It's right there. It was in the throne speech in 1996. We've had 1997, and we're now at the end of 1998. The commitment was made; I just hope that it can be followed up on.

Interjections.

G. Farrell-Collins: I'm going to ask my members to calm down, because I don't want to make a big political deal about this, but I do want to get more than just an undertaking. Perhaps the Premier can tell us when he'll get back to us on that. Can he tell us when he's going to get back to us on the Crown Corporations Committee? The reason I ask is because we are getting somewhat toward the end of the session, and as he knows, that needs to be done by a resolution of the Legislature.

Hon. G. Clark: I'll certainly commit to getting back before the end of the session. Again, it's a question of looking at all the committees that are sitting and the possibility of the House sitting and seeing if we can't ensure that we have a quorum and that we literally have enough members prepared to do the business.

G. Farrell-Collins: Just a couple more points, and then my colleague from Richmond Centre has a couple of questions for the Premier regarding one of the Crown corporations. In other Houses, in other parliaments, committees meet while the House is sitting. Ontario is one that I'm familiar with, because I've been there a number of times, and Ottawa, certainly, but it's a much bigger House. Ontario is somewhat bigger than ours but not huge.

One of the suggestions in the letter that was full of suggestions made to the government was that some of those committees could be smaller. Not every committee needs to be big. There could be committees made up of three government members and two opposition members. That's certainly a possibility. Those are the types of things, if it's a matter. . . . I understand the tight majority that exists right now, so I think it's possible to have committees -- the MAI committee, for example -- that needn't have 15 members or 12 members or whatever it is. They could have five. They don't all need to do that. It would save money, too, and they could travel more freely if there weren't as many members.

There are other things that could be dealt with on an ongoing basis. I think that Public Accounts and Crown Corporations do require a larger membership, but maybe not as big as the ones we have. There's no reason why, if it's a workload problem, we can't cut down those committees and have more of them meeting and doing the work they need to do. Quite frankly, it becomes a more onerous job for the members doing it, but it also becomes something that is intriguing, something that's interesting and something they can take the time to

[ Page 10324 ]

So that's another suggestion that the Premier may want to look at. If he, in his thoughts of how this might work. . . . We in the opposition are certainly willing to have smaller committees. We're willing to have them meet in locations that are more practical for government members. Perhaps they can meet in Victoria, in this building if the House is sitting, where they're well within the bells in case of a vote. There are all sorts of things that could be done. Perhaps when the Premier responds to that suggestion, he can also tell us whether or not we're going to have a fall sitting. Are we going to know that before the end of session, or is this one of those things where. . . ?

Interjection.

G. Farrell-Collins: The Premier jokes. I know that traditionally it's sort of been a hide-and-go-seek thing here. I don't know why that is; I've never understood that. I remember that the Premier once announced that this House was going to sit and then the Finance minister, the Government House Leader -- who is now the Premier -- went out and contradicted him within minutes. Even within cabinet, it seemed it was a big secret. I don't know why there's some advantage to that. I don't understand why there's an advantage to someone knowing when the House is going to sit and someone not knowing when the House is going to sit. Perhaps if we can get from the Premier a commitment or some sense of when that will be, it would allow members and committees to schedule their time. That would let us know sort of where we're going as far as how that's all going to come together.

I'll just cede the floor for a minute, and after the Premier answers, the member for Richmond Centre has some questions for the Premier.

Hon. G. Clark: My colleagues on the government side are waiting for the answer to the question as much as the members opposite. I'm sorry, there is no. . . .

Interjections.

The Chair: Order, members.

Hon. G. Clark: There is no secret. There has been no decision made for a fall sitting. That's not being cute or anything. It's a question of timing and workload and whether the Nisga'a debate requires a fall sitting -- whether it's our judgment that we should have a fall sitting on it or just wait until the spring. So we haven't made. . . . I've been fairly transparent about it. We're kind of leaning toward the possibility of a fall session, but we haven't made the decision. I don't think we'll make that decision until probably early in September about whether we'll come back in the fall or in the spring.

But certainly I want to give some comfort around that, if I can, and to give as significant an amount of notice as we can to all members of the House, including the opposition. It won't be a flash thing or a secret thing. We just haven't made the decision on it. So that's the answer to the last question. We'll inform all members sometime in September, I think, about whether there'll be a fall session.

Interjection.

Hon. G. Clark: I think probably a little --, 24 or 48 hours. No, we'll certainly try to give more notice than that.

On the suggestion that the committees be smaller. . . . I think that's an excellent suggestion. I think it's just important for the record to say that we do have a committee on choosing a new FOI commissioner, a committee of the House to choose a new conflict-of-interest commissioner, I believe. . .

Interjection.

Hon. G. Clark: Oh, sorry. It's reviewing the conflict act.

. . .and a committee, as well, to choose a new ombudsman. We have the Public Accounts Committee, which will sit separately. We have a committee on the MAI, which will be sitting in the fall. We, the government, are considering another one or two select standing committees on issues which we have not entirely decided upon yet. Within that context, we may have a fall session. So I'm not, for any reason, saying this to try to defer or evade answering the question. It's just the practical reality. We have a lot of committees which will be sitting this fall. Again, this is relatively new for this House and is, I think, a very positive development. It's within that context that we have to decide.

So perhaps, actually, a very good suggestion is to fairly significantly shrink the size of the committees, so we can in fact have more functioning committees take place. I think that's a suggestion we'll look into right away.

D. Symons: It is indeed a pleasure to get up and debate with the Premier, you know, because he's always very amiable in these discussions and manages to give us very plausible-sounding answers. I'd just like to make reference also to the fact that in '96 you did make the recommendation in the throne speech that we would indeed have a public Crown corporation committee set up and that you would use that. You've talked about having the committees used in a more effective manner and about involving the members in the House more in the committee stage in the legislation. Well, none of that's taken place. The Premier's words sound very nice, but when it comes to following through, that's another matter.

Also, the Premier just earlier, in speaking in response to the question from the member for Richmond East about starting earlier in doing things. . . . The Premier may remember, if he's listening. . .

Interjection.

D. Symons: Good, thank you. I just wanted to make sure.

. . .that he made a comment there about the fact of how late the Socreds began the session, always in April; they never began on time, before the end of the fiscal year. Well, hon. Premier, in 1985 they met, and March 1 was the throne speech; in 1986, March 11; in 1987, March 9; in 1988, March 15; and in 1989, March 16. Hon. Chair, really, the Premier made that comment quite bold-facedly just a half-hour ago, talking about how late they always began and implying that we're doing better than was done before. Well, we're not. The only two times when they didn't meet in March were the last two years of the Socred administration, when basically they were disintegrating -- two years. But in all those other years, you know, they met much sooner.

There's absolutely no reason logically, where. . . . The Premier says, well, if we began three weeks earlier, then we'd

[ Page 10325 ]

Now, that wasn't really what I got up to speak about. I was going to get up to speak -- since you'd brought in the question of Crown corporations -- of the B.C. Ferry Corporation. I have a concern, because the B.C. Ferry Corporation has gone out with requests for expressions of interest in the purchase and leaseback of the three fast ferries, that program that, in my estimation, has run deeply into the red. From the figures that the Premier gave me when he was minister responsible, this program was going to cost $70 million a ferry -- $210 million for the three ferries. I rather suspect that the first ferry is actually over $100 million, and all three will certainly be in the $300 million range -- considerably more than the Premier indicated, about 60 percent more.

So I'm curious now, since you seem to be going out for requests for expressions of interest in a purchase-lease arrangement on the three ferries, with an option to build seven more ferries in the future, if we're going to do that. . . . Crown corporations really belong to the people of this province. We are, in a sense, the shareholders of those ferries that are currently being built by CFI, which is a subsidiary of the B.C. Ferry Corp. If B.C. Ferries or the government is planning on selling off CFI, it is only right and proper that the people of this province should know exactly what we are selling and the value and costs of what we are selling.

It's only appropriate, I would think, that the people should know. If we are going to sell off the fast ferry program, what investment did we have in that program? In order to do that, I think it's essential, since the government's bookkeeping has not been too reliable in past years, particularly when it comes to budget figures. . . . I'm wondering if the Premier would agree that it's essential to clear the air on the costs of the fast ferry program, that we do have a full, public, independent audit of that program before any sale and leaseback arrangement is made.

[4:15]

It is correct that we've put out a request for proposals to see if we could, if you will, privatize the construction of fast ferries or other ferries. The reason for that is pretty simple: B.C. Ferries is not in the construction business, and we didn't intend to be in the construction business. But because of both the superferries and the fast ferries, the existing yards weren't capable of building them on their own -- or that was the contention. And because we wanted to spread the work around the province, they set up a corporate vehicle, as you know, to construct them. Now that the first one has been constructed but has not had sea trials or anything yet -- there is still work to be done -- there is a very good argument to be made, it seems to me, now that we've invested and now that we've formed a structure that appears to work, to try to sell it to the private sector. We obviously wouldn't do that unless we wanted to recover all of the costs that were invested in that operation. Further, it's to allow for the further expansion of it through a mechanism which does not require debt on the books of B.C. Ferries. In fact, someone else takes on that responsibility.

I remind the member, as well, that there are ferries in British Columbia which, ten years ago or so -- or a little more than that -- were sold and leased back, and they're in operation. It's quite a common technique to help the balance sheet of any corporation. There is an RFP which looks at selling and leasing back some of the fast ferries. What the corporation is looking at is (a) getting out of the business of construction, which I hope members agree is not an unreasonable proposition; (b) finding a way to finance the ferries with the private sector, so that it's kind of a partnership; and (c) seeing if we can't use this to lever further non-B.C. Ferries work by having a private operator look at construction of other vessels either for themselves or elsewhere.

I don't know the status of any of that; obviously there is an authorization to proceed with this expressions-of-interest kind of idea. I know that the member is an able critic, and I say that sincerely. All of that will have to bear public scrutiny in a very serious way, especially if we're to sell what has become a public asset, with the investment made. You're quite correct: the auditor general, the comptroller general, the audits of the books of the corporation, public debate. . . . All of that must meet the public test, or we shouldn't do it. If we did do it, I'm sure we'd be criticized for it.

In a general sense, I have no hesitation in agreeing with the member, but it seems to me that there are lots of public vehicles now for exposure of all of the costs associated with this enterprise.

D. Symons: Yes, and as I said earlier, the Premier answers very nicely, but I find that. . . . Last year, I believe it was -- certainly the year before -- I was asking about the costs of the construction shed that was going to be $9 million, and would that be amortized or added into the costs of the fast ferry program. The answer was yes, that basically you amortize over the three ferries -- $9 million, so $3 million each ferry. This year, however, when I asked that question, the answer was: "Well, no, we're not going to be calling that cost of the fast ferry shed. . . ." By the way, it didn't come in at $9 million; it came in at $13 million, a 40 percent increase. So that's not going to be counted as part of the fast ferry one.

Then my next question to the minister responsible was: "You said last year that you were going to count part of it. Which part?" The answer: "Well, we haven't quite decided yet." "Is it 25 percent, 50 percent, 75 percent. . . ?" "Well, 50 percent." To give me an answer, they picked a number out of the blue. This is not the way you do proper accounting for the cost of the fast ferry program, where you throw figures into one account and then into another account.

When he was the minister responsible, the Premier told me that there was $9 million going into upgrading the terminals for the fast ferry program. They do not appear on the books for the cost of the fast ferry program. We've had training of welders; we've had money to upgrade the shipyards that are building the ferries. All of those are not now counted in the books as costs of that program. If we're going to sell that program off to some private enterprise, we need to make sure that those costs are all part of the expenses of operating and putting into place the fast ferry program.

[ Page 10326 ]

That debt has not yet been put into B.C. Ferries. The debt in B.C. Ferries is pretty close to $800 million now; it's quadrupled since this government got into office. But we find that that does not yet include the money that's been spent on the fast ferry program -- not till they're capitalized. Not till the three ferries are built and added to the ferry fleet will that be capitalized -- if indeed those ferries are still part of B.C. Ferries. If you manage to off-load them, well, you can hide $300,000 by leasing back. But nobody is going to buy that fast ferries program and lease them back to B.C. Ferries, unless they make a profit on the deal.

I guess that the Premier's saying basically: "Maybe we built these and maybe they're more expense and what not, but we'll hide them off the books by selling them off to somebody and leasing them back." But nobody's going to buy them unless they're going to make money on it. So they're going to have the government on the hook for lease arrangements that are going to pay back all that they paid for the program, with interest, and we the taxpayers of the province, the users of that service, are going to be paying for it for years and years to come.

Hon. G. Clark: First of all, I just want to remind the member that I'm not the minister responsible for B.C. Ferries, and you've canvassed this with the minister.

Secondly, I recall that in fact we allowed it to come back into the House for debate after it being passed so that you could canvass these questions. So you're better to be questioning to the minister responsible. I try to be informed on these questions, so I'm delighted to engage in some discussion, but if you want to sort of pin me down on some detailed and specific thing here, compared to the minister. . . . The minister would be right, not me, because he has the file.

I have one substantive comment to make. There are ferries that are leased right now that were sold and leased back. The auditor general and others reviewed them and found them to be sound, partly because of tax considerations for depreciation. I assure you that similar considerations are being given with respect to any sale and leaseback now, and if there isn't a business case for it, I'm sure that the members opposite will raise that, and we'd be held accountable for it. So they're doing it if there is a business case for it and to try and encourage the private sector to participate and to pursue other opportunities.

Also, the members opposite have been complaining about the debt load at B.C. Ferries. Of course, with the construction schedule, which is required to keep pace -- one ship a year for, really, every year is required just to maintain our capital stock, with the growth there -- then it behooves the government, it seems to me, to look for opportunities for private-public partnerships, which allow the debt to be carried by the private sector and which build services for government. We're doing that across government. Generally it's not as competitive, so we can't do it, but often it is. And you do have to answer one question, which is whether it is actually worth paying more in order to have the debt of the government lower. Some jurisdictions feel it is worth it. Because we have the highest credit rating and the lowest borrowing costs in Canada, then generally it's a tough test in British Columbia. But in other places, they will pay more to the private sector in order to reduce the debt load on the government itself. I suspect you could probably make an argument for a few basis points difference on that, but those are questions which we have to canvass on a case-by-case basis.

D. Symons: Two comments in response to the Premier's remarks, the first one being that when those ferries he referred to were sold and leased back, it was an indication by the government of the day that they were in financial difficulty at that time. It was a way of pumping money into the treasury, which seems to be what this government is currently doing as well. At the same time, there were some federal tax advantages then that no longer exist today. So the situation is, in one sense, similar but, in the other sense, not the same. I don't concur with the Premier on that.

B. Penner: I'd like to ask the Premier a few questions about his self-proclaimed role as the Minister Responsible for Youth. Presently in Canada there are about 300,000 youths -- of the more than four million Canadian youths -- who are classified as unemployed. Youths, of course, are people between the ages of 15 and 24. Another 200,000 young Canadians are out of school and are not actively seeking employment, and therefore they're not caught by the unemployment statistics. I think the problem of unemployment among youth is in fact much greater than even the statistics, dismal as they are, lead us to believe. I think it's clear that while young Canadians are resourceful and capable of adjusting to an ever-changing world, they are presently faced with employment problems not encountered by their parents. It's a new kind of problem, and clearly that problem exists in British Columbia.

We have the fastest-growing youth population in Canada, and that growth is forecast to continue well into the next century. There are now more than 505,000 youth in B.C. That's up from 443,000 in 1989. But the economy in British Columbia has not kept pace by creating enough jobs for our young people. Youth participation in the labour force has dropped sharply in B.C., and the unemployment rate has risen from 13.1 percent in 1989 -- which was a cyclical high then -- to 18.3 percent in June of 1998. That's according to the most recent Statistics Canada information.

Partly in an effort to combat the serious youth unemployment problem in British Columbia, the provincial government has embarked on a series of programs. It used to be under the umbrella of Guarantee for Youth. Most of us will remember that slogan being trotted out sometime prior to the last election, and it was under that umbrella that a number of different components were announced. I'd like to point out, though, that this year the government abandoned the so-called Guarantee for Youth and replaced it with Youth Options B.C. We'll deal with that in more detail later.

Before proceeding, I'd like to go through a number of the component parts of what was the Guarantee for Youth and see how the government measured up in performance compared to their stated objectives. There were about seven components last year to the now defunct Guarantee for Youth: Student Summer Works; environmental youth teams; First Job in Sci-

[ Page 10327 ]

If I could just go back, then, I'll ask the Premier to help us compare the government's stated objectives last year with what the actual performance was by the end of the year -- that is, fiscal 1997-98. Starting with Student Summer Works, the stated objective was to help generate 3,300 student summer jobs at a cost of $6.2 million. This was going to be accomplished using a wage subsidy to assist private sector employers in hiring young people. I'm wondering what the final numbers were in terms of students employed through that program and the overall cost of that program.

Hon. G. Clark: Yes, I have that information, and I'd be delighted to give it to the member. Maybe, if you don't mind, I'll run through them.

Environmental youth teams -- we targeted 1,400 jobs, and we created 1,546, with a program budget of $10.35 million. Student Summer Works -- the member is correct -- 3,300 jobs were targeted, and 3,292 were created. The budget was $5.95 million, and the actual amount spent was a tiny bit under budget and a tiny bit under the target. First Job in Science and Technology -- 200 positions targeted, 166 positions created, $1.8 million. Job Start -- this is the one which did not work as well, and this was a replacement for Opportunities B.C. We were trying to work on the private sector. The target was 2,000, and 924 were created. It had more success than the previous one but was not quite up to target -- $2.4 million. Youth Mentorship program -- 300 targeted, 319 positions created, $250,000. Crown corporations -- 3,500 targeted and 3,822 positions created within existing budgets. Youth business and entreneurship training, You-BET -- 1,400 positions targeted, 1,455 created, $1.2 million budget. Youth and the Internet pilot project -- 24 positions and 24 created, $250,000.

So overall, we targeted about 12,000 jobs, and we created 11,548 jobs -- or positions, because some of them are merely training positions; 96 percent of the target was reached, for a total of $22.2 million. That is as of July 21, 1998, prepared for these estimates. It is, I know, last year's program, but there is still some potential for refinement.

[4:30]

I just want to correct one thing for the record. All these programs still exist. This year we renamed it Youth Options B.C., and we expanded it dramatically. The summer jobs are expanded. The number of jobs expanded, so the target this year is 17,000, in recognition of some serious youth unemployment problems in British Columbia. We can go into that in more detail, and I'm sure we will. There are some significant new initiatives for students, which we are doing well in. I think we're at about. . . . I'll have that information here, but the last time I looked, almost 50 percent of the positions were filled. But we're not 50 percent into the year yet, or we're just beginning. We're on track, by and large, for a performance which I believe will be roughly equivalent to this year's, which will be pretty close to the target. And the target, of course, is much bigger, because the money this year has gone from $22 million to $36 million. In a very tight budget year and with some of the challenges we face, a 50 percent increase in funding for the youth jobs initiative and the subsequent increase in training positions or jobs is a significant accomplishment for the government.

B. Penner: We'll challenge the Premier a little bit later about his stated increase in funding. I'm not sure it's quite what it's made out to be, when we break down where the actual money is coming from and where it used to go.

However, to ask a few more questions about the Job Start program, which replaced a previous program which was also under target. . . . That previous program attempted to encourage employers to hire unemployed young people without a wage subsidy. I note that the Job Start program did move to a wage subsidy incentive in order to encourage employers to hire young people. I wonder if the Premier could just elaborate on the amount of the subsidy that's offered to employers vis-à-vis individual young people. Is it an hourly amount? If so, what is the maximum, and what was the average amount of subsidy required under that program to entice employers to hire young people?

Hon. G. Clark: I would, of course, be delighted to provide a detailed briefing with staff on the specific question. I don't really think it's fruitful to get into all the detail here. I might give you some sense of it. We provided a subsidy of up to 320 hours. The salary range was somewhere between $7 and $18 an hour. But the average was probably about $8 an hour; they tend to be more on the low end.

Youths gained work experience and had the opportunity to develop work habits and skills transferable to the workforce. That was the goal. The goal was to try to target young people with difficulties getting employment and get them entry-level work.

We found, as you'll recall from last year's discussion or the year before. . . . We had the Opportunities '96 program to try to get private sector participation in youth employment. While the challenge was taken by some, we didn't have much to offer them. So we moved to a kind of wage subsidy program, which of course has been more successful. We did limit the criteria somewhat, to try to make sure there was no overlapping between the various programs we have and to try to target some of the hard-to-employ young people. Fifty-two aboriginal youths were hired, for example, out of the 924. I think we did that.

But what happened was. . . . When you put a wage subsidy program out there, there is a lot of interest from employers, as there is with Student Summer Works and some other wage subsidy initiatives. We had a lot of interest from employers, but then we were trying to ensure that the targeted young people would receive it, and some of the employers had some misunderstanding of the nature of it. They applied, thinking that they could simply get a wage subsidy for, say, existing employees or summer employees alike. So we had a big lot of applications. But then when we focused on targeting individuals, we didn't quite get the takeup we'd have liked. But I think we've got a good chance of doing it.

The subsidy program was 50 percent of the minimum wage, or $3.58 per hour, for a maximum of 360 hours. That's what we provided; that's where the money went.

[ Page 10328 ]

I have some questions about the Crown youth employment initiative. Last year I asked questions of the Premier as to whether or not any of the various wage subsidy programs were extended to Crown corporations or other government agencies. His answer last year, according to the Hansard that I have with me, was no. I take it that is still the case -- that Crown corporations and other levels of government do not qualify for wage subsidies in terms of youth employment.

Hon. G. Clark: Yes, that's correct.

B. Penner: In 1996, when the Guarantee for Youth initiative was in its infancy, the Premier stated that 3,000 of his global target of, I think, 11,000 jobs in that year would be achieved through Crown corporation hiring of young people. Last year that target was increased to 3,500, and he's just told us that in fact the result was 3,822 positions created. This year the government, under its Youth Options program, is projecting 4,275 positions for young people. The Premier told us moments ago that there is no extra cost to this program -- that it's paid for out of existing budgets of Crown corporations.

My question to the Premier is: what are those extra 1,275 young people doing at the various Crown corporations? Where did that extra demand for their labour come from? If we're led to believe that this is not simply a make-work effort and that it's not costing the Crown corporations any more than had been the case in their existing budgets, then what are those extra 1,275 people doing? Where did that extra demand for that additional labour come from?

Hon. G. Clark: Actually, this is a real success story. I'm very proud of the Crown corporations of the province, and I hope all members are. It's a challenge -- it's a higher test, in many respects -- working for the government in Crown corporations -- particularly commercial Crown corporations, because they're competing, often, in the private sector, but they have the microscope and the scrutiny of the opposition, the government, the media and others. We put a challenge to them a few years ago to be corporate leaders in the province in employing young people. They have really taken up that challenge.

The PNE, of course, which has largely temporary summer jobs, short-term jobs, is still a huge employer of young people, and some of these numbers reflect the PNE. But what we're finding is that the Crown corporations themselves are taking this very seriously. For example, BCBC has a new program called Generation Y, which employs young people in six months of employment and training. B.C. Ferry Corporation has a program targeted for young people. B.C. Hydro has. ICBC has one, which I believe the PDA leader's daughter was working on last year. Without the government micromanaging and telling them what to do, they've all established programs now in their own right, to become corporate role models for hiring young people. Does it cost money? The answer is yes. These are not free, because they obviously have to hire people. But what they're doing is targeting young people for work that needs to be done. They're not make-work programs, but ones which can add value to their corporation -- hopefully, to the bottom line. But it is also work where young people can get necessary training.

So we are seeing the corporations really coming up and delivering some significant initiatives around it. I must say that we've been most impressed by all of the Crown corporations' performance in this regard. They can do better; we want them to do better. The increased numbers come from them telling us that the programs are up and running, that they're working. They feel comfortable that they can meet those targets. It is really spread throughout the Crowns as to how they meet these job targets. Some are doing better than others, but all of them are actually doing a pretty good job.

B. Penner: Just to clarify for the benefit of those who are just joining the debate -- and I hope the Premier can confirm this -- I don't believe the Crown corporation employment initiative is restricted just to student summer jobs. I believe it's youth generally, not simply a student summer job program with Crown corporations.

That being the case, I wonder if the Premier could tell us what number of jobs are actually related to the PNE, and whether or not that number has increased. What captures my attention is a more than 33 percent increase in jobs at Crown corporations between 1996 and 1998. That's a very dramatic increase in about a two-year period. I don't think there are many other government entities that have increased their hiring by 33 percent in about a two-year period -- at least I hope not. That's why my attention was drawn to those numbers. I'm curious what those people are doing and whether they've displaced existing workers or where, at the risk of sounding cynical, positions were created that maybe didn't have to be created, in order to meet a certain preset target of jobs. Again, a one-third increase in two years is pretty dramatic. I'm just looking for some more clarification on that.

Hon. G. Clark: I think it's about 2,000 PNE jobs -- three-week jobs and the like -- in that number, and that hasn't changed. That hasn't gone up at all this year, and in fact, if anything, it may be going down a little bit as the PNE goes through some changes as a result of the changing nature of the site. Each corporation is then driving above that base. In some cases, it is fairly significant.

Have they taken special initiatives -- in other words, created jobs to meet this need? The answer is yes, and so I want to be clear about that. The ICBC road safety program they created probably wouldn't have been created if it wasn't for the Premier's Youth Office and for this initiative, because we challenged the corporations to find a way to involve young people. Having said that, we obviously have to stand the test of public scrutiny, and these are not make-work jobs. They came up with jobs that add value to their corporations, save lives and save taxpayers' money -- and, in ICBC's case, save ICBC money. They are ones which they designed themselves, both to employ young people and to achieve other objectives. They've really done some wonderful work, in my judgment.

So it is true that they are going out of their way to create new jobs in response to this initiative, and it's not bankrupting them. It has to be within the reasons and there aren't any layoffs in those corporations, etc. They are new initiatives that they are pursuing. I think what's happened is that because the corporations have taken this very seriously and because they're committed to being good corporate models, some of the earlier work they've done is easier to expand. At the beginning it's hard to get new programs. Now it's easy to expand. I think the ICBC program was initially not throughout the province. Now that they've got the infrastructure and it works, they're expanding it. I think that's where most of the new jobs are being created.

[ Page 10329 ]

[4:45]

As we were saying earlier, about accountability, we're looking at a situation where the government announced that they're concerned about youth employment and announced the programs that they're putting in place. The government policies that we have in place are clearly, and unequivocally failing the young people of the province. We discussed this last year, and we pointed out that there were thousands more young people out of work in 1997 than there were in 1996. Now there are thousands more out of work in 1998 than there were in 1997. As the Premier said himself: ". . .trends indicate that the problem of youth unemployment could become a crisis. . . ." It's no longer a question of "could become a crisis"; it is a crisis. It is a serious crisis for the young people of this province.

I believe that it's time for us to look at whether or not the responses of the government to date have been effective, have been successful. They have not. In any other endeavour, if we said that our goal was to make sure there were more young people at work, and we had fewer young people at work, people would do things that were substantial and significant. It's clear that for what's taking place today, the program response is not working. The economy is failing our young people; the government is failing our young people.

My question to the Premier is: how does the Premier explain the enormous drop in youth employment in British Columbia over the last two years?

Hon. G. Clark: Well, first of all, the member is correct. There has been a drop in employment in British Columbia. The explanation is really a structural one. There's been a drop in employment amongst young people across Canada. I want the members to listen to these numbers. Youth employment in all of Canada from 1990 to 1997 dropped 360,000. In British Columbia it dropped 15,000. In other words, the youth employment picture is better in British Columbia in that period of time than in any jurisdiction in Canada. There's been a decline, yes, but the decline has been less here than in other jurisdictions. To put it another way, there's been a 2.5 percent decline in jobs for young people from 1990 to 1997. There's been an 11 percent decline in jobs for young people in Canada as a whole; in Ontario, minus 14.4 percent. It is true that it is not a positive picture. We have seen some job decline, but it is also true that the decline has been less than in other jurisdictions in Canada, and particularly overall. This does not mean that we're pleased that youth employment in British Columbia has not grown, but I think it does point to the fact that some significant structural changes have taken place.

Sorry, the numbers I gave were for the labour force size.

In employment, in British Columbia there's been a decline of minus 5.6 percent in those years. In employment for young people, 15 to 24, in Ontario it was minus 20.4 percent; in Canada as a whole, minus 15 percent. That's not to say that I'm proud of what we have done; I think we need to do more. But I think this should point out, even to members of the opposition, that this is a broad structural problem; that political parties and governments across Canada, regardless of their ideology or their disposition, are facing the same challenge. In fact, we've done a better job than most, if not all, of the other provinces, in terms of the percentage of decline. Having said that, that is significant.

Our labour force participation declined even less than the decline in jobs. Why is that? It's because we're seeing a dramatic increase in post-secondary participation rates. Participation rates have gone from eighth or ninth in Canada to fourth, because of the tuition freeze and the funding for post-secondary education. So we're seeing a dramatic and significant increase in school population. We are seeing young people dropping out of the workforce -- hence our participation rate is down -- and moving into post-secondary education in unprecedented numbers. There has been a 20 percent increase in young people attending post-secondary institutions just in the last few years. We've moved from eighth or ninth in Canada to fourth in Canada. I venture to guess that in the next couple of years the participation rate will continue to rise in Canada because of the policies of this government, in particular the tuition freeze and the significant increase in funding to post-secondary institutions.

I don't think that as a province we have done as good a job as we need to do. I think we have lots of work to do. The level of youth unemployment is unacceptable. But we have done some things here that are better than in other parts of Canada, and we need to keep working at it. That's why I put youth unemployment on the agenda of the Western Premiers' Conference and got a commitment from western Premiers to move this onto the national agenda. That's why it's on the agenda of the national Premiers' conference -- to make it a national issue to grapple with the problems of youth unemployment.

It was British Columbia that put the issue of child poverty on the agenda and achieved some significant gains for children in poverty in Canada. As a result, on July 1 there was the first major social policy initiative in Canada since the 1960s for children of the working poor.

Similarly, we are pursuing this kind of agenda with other provinces and the federal government on youth unemployment. Because we are leading the country, because we are spending more money on youth programs, because we've created more jobs, because our decline in employment is less than almost any region in Canada, we are in a good position to lead the national campaign for national solutions to youth unemployment.

The members may be interested. The western Premiers prepared a best-practices report. This report came out of the Western Premiers' Conference and the national Premiers' conference. It looks at what other provinces are doing and at what is working in other provinces and what isn't. From that, we hope to continue to refine our approach, because we think there are obviously opportunities to learn from other provinces, notwithstanding our record. Other provinces, of course, take the opportunity to learn from the programs that are successful in British Columbia.

G. Campbell: The Premier has conveniently not paid too much attention to the last two and a half years. The fact is that in the last two and a half years we have fallen behind the rest of Canada. We have been consistently outperformed by our competitors. Frankly, that is not nearly as relevant as the fact that there are 14,000 fewer young people at work. That's 14,000 fewer young people who are able to go to work. The Premier is correct. There is a far lower participation by young

[ Page 10330 ]

On February 7 the Premier asked us to think about what would have happened if the government hadn't in fact invested dollars in youth unemployment programs. I think the problem is that no matter how much money we spend on these individual programs, we have to understand that the economy has to be flourishing in order for young people to have work. Let me tell you just two stories. One is the story of a visit I had with a small business person in Fernie. That person told me that they used to hire four young people every year. Because of this government's taxation policies and regulatory regime, because of this government's imposition on that small business, that particular person doesn't hire any of those young people anymore -- four lost jobs.

Last year the Premier pointed out during these discussions that he had a small business task force to look at some significant structural changes. We haven't seen those structural changes. So once again, we are looking at a situation this year where thousands more young people are out of work. The question I have to ask is: how much evidence do we have to have before the government takes a dramatic look at what it's doing and acts boldly to change the situation, so that we can put young people to work in this province and again create for them a sense of hope and a sense of opportunity.

I was at another meeting organized by a group of young students in the lower mainland the other day, and I pointed out to them that youth unemployment was over 20 percent -- one out of five young people can't find work. One of those people came up to the microphone and she said to me: "You know, Mr. Campbell, you're wrong. Four out of five of us can't find work." It is very difficult to find work. We now have headlines about huge lineups down the block of young people who are looking to get waiting jobs in restaurants. That's how desperate their situation is in the province today.

So my question to the Premier is: when will we see some dramatic changes in direction? Clearly what has been in place for the last two and a half years has failed the economy. It has failed the young people of this province. It's failing them because it's creating an environment in which they don't feel a sense of hope, and they don't feel that there are jobs for them right around the corner. In fact, they're pretty confident that they won't find jobs.

Hon. G. Clark: Well, they sure wouldn't find any hope from members of the opposition, because they smile every time unemployment goes up. They're relentlessly negative.

What has happened structurally in the last few months in British Columbia? We have announced a 22 percent reduction over two years in the small business income tax rate and the biggest tax cuts for the oil and gas industry in Canada, putting us significantly lower in the tax regime for oil and gas compared to our competitors next door. We have announced tax breaks for the film industry, one of the largest employers of young people in the province. We are very competitive and growing, with significant tax breaks for both domestic and foreign production. There's a $600 million stumpage relief package, which we are fighting the Americans right now to sustain, which is the largest. . . . In fact, it's the first time in the history of British Columbia that there has ever been a stumpage cut -- the first time ever. It's a $600 million cut.

We announced a 15 percent cut in the high marginal tax rate in the budget. We announced a 2 percent income tax cut two years ago, a 2 percent cut a year ago and a 2 percent cut now, and a 6 percent cut in income taxes across the board in British Columbia. We announced a $300 million tax break for the working poor in this province, leading the country and putting money into the pockets of the working poor. We have made significant structural adjustments to become more competitive in this province, and we are determined to continue making significant structural adjustments.

While we were doing that, we increased by 50 percent the amount of money we're putting into job creation for young people. There's more money for the environmental youth teams, more money for Student Summer Works, more money for Job Start, more money for programs designed to give young people a hand up -- instead of a handout -- to get them into the workforce. And they are working. There are 17,000 more jobs or training positions as a result of these initiatives.

We have a serious problem which revolves around Asian markets. We heard. . . .

Interjections.

Hon. G. Clark: I want the members opposite to listen up. In question period a member opposite asked about the forest industry. We have a quota with the United States on how much we can export. We are exporting right to the quota -- 100 percent of what we are allowed to export to the United States under the quota. We could cut stumpage to zero, but we cannot export more to the United States than the quota allows. We're exporting 100 percent. The Japanese market has collapsed. We could cut prices to zero, but there is no market for lumber and pulp and those products in Japan or in other parts of Asia.

Hon. Chair, the members should know that there is a serious structural problem in British Columbia. It has to do with the market situation for pulp, for lumber, for copper, for coal, for fish, for all of the products we produce which are still a significant part of our GDP. What has happened, and what members should understand, is that if this had been the case ten or 15 years ago, we would have a $2 billion or $3 billion or $4 billion deficit in this province. But because the tourism market is booming and up in British Columbia, because high-tech is booming and up, because the film industry is doing well in the province, because we have a more diversified economy in the lower mainland and the Okanagan and on southern Vancouver Island, we are still facing modest positive growth in this province, in spite of the biggest decline in commodity prices that we have seen in decades.

What has happened is that we are making structural adjustments to counter what is happening in the marketplace. It's a challenge. We can't solve international problems or the problems of the Japanese market, and we certainly can't solve them alone here in British Columbia. What we can do is make the kinds of adjustments that we are making, which are prudent and reasonable and lead to job protection in those sectors that we're moving on. We are making dramatic structural changes to improve investor climate in British Columbia and to deal with some of the challenges, and it is working.

We are making changes and employing more young people throughout the system and investing in young people. We

[ Page 10331 ]

Yes, we have problems. Yes, they're significant. We don't minimize them, but we have made, I think, significant steps in trying to deal with those problems and laying the foundation for very positive growth for British Columbia in the future, particularly for young people.

[5:00]

Let's be really clear about what has happened. You're trying to undo just some of the damage that you created on that side of the House. Unfortunately, this government is so out of touch with what is taking place in the real world that they actually think this is a big deal. Imagine standing up and saying: "This is great. We're going to stimulate the economy. We're going to get young people back to work. We're going to have some tax breaks in the future." In the future, not today. It's not having any impact at all. It's a tiny little amount that you've done. Zero. Virtually nothing in 1998. Nothing. What's going to happen? We're going to get so that taxes for small business are only 66 percent higher than they are in Alberta. Isn't that great! Isn't it good that you've done that!

Well, it isn't great. It's bad, because what it's doing is driving young people out of work in this province: 14,000 fewer jobs for young people in this province in 1998 -- and thousands fewer in 1997.

The problem is that the Premier goes out and says: "I am going to consult. I am going to hear from people. I want to find out, from people who actually create jobs, what to do." They come, and they deal with the Premier up front. They try to give the Premier and the government some good ideas about how to create new jobs, and the Premier ignores them. The government ignores them.

How many people in the silviculture industry came and said: "You know, what we have to do is unionize the silviculture industry, for us to do well." How many young people have got their jobs because of this so-called New Forest Opportunities program? There are no new forest opportunities for young people. Those young people that counted on silviculture to provide them with the resources to provide for their university education or to get on with their lives -- shut out. They're closed down.

We have the Premier saying that he is making structural changes. He has made a huge structural change in the province. He has made British Columbia the black hole of the economy in Canada. Every analysis that we've seen has said that our growth rates are down. In fact, one institution suggested zero percent growth in 1998. Boy, that's a reason for hope. That's what we can give to the young people of this province: zero percent growth. Zero percent growth and nothing to encourage employment. Absolutely nothing to encourage employment, across the broad economy.

The Premier says that we are giving tax breaks to the film industry. That's good. We're giving tax breaks to the oil and gas industry. That's good. But you know what? You're killing them first. That competition that's taking place in the film industry, which is why we have to provide the tax breaks -- at least, that's what the Premier said to us. . . . That competition is taking place across the economy. It doesn't matter where it is. This government seems to be happy to say: "Well, things could be worse." I want us to say: "Things could be a lot better, and we're willing to change things to make them better."

We talk about students, and we want to make sure that students have access to higher education. But you know what has happened in the last year? Five hundred more young people who were students have gone bankrupt in the last year. You know what else has happened in the last year? We've watched as student unemployment has risen to 22.9 percent. What's really taken place in the last two and a half years? What we've seen is that the student unemployment number has grown by 41 percent. How can the Premier sit there and pat himself on the back and say: "Boy, I'm doing a good job"? That's not a good job. Any objective observer will tell you that a 41 percent increase in youth unemployment is not a good job. We now have the second-highest youth student unemployment in Canada, and the effects of that unemployment are disastrous.

We've watched as student loans have skyrocketed in this province. The average debt per student in British Columbia has increased by $8,000 in the last two years. Because we aren't willing to deal structurally with these issues, because we aren't willing to deal with the small business community or the large business community or the investment community, because we're not willing to learn those lessons and because this government has turned a blind eye and a deaf ear to all of the pleas of the small business community, we still see young people losing work. We still see students going deeper and deeper into debt.

Many of them say to me today: "You know, I can't afford this anymore." There was a time, I bet, even when the Premier was a student. . . . He would have gone out and got a summer job, and that summer job would have paid him almost enough money for his tuition -- maybe even more than his tuition, maybe for his tuition and some room. That was not unusual ten years ago, 15 years ago. It is very unusual today. Young students in the province are all desperately looking for work, and the reason that that desperation is there is because of this government's policy.

Let's stop blaming everyone else. Let's look at what has happened in British Columbia. Look at British Columbia, and see where we've gone from the number one economy in the country to last place in economic growth. We're going to be in last place next year, as well, in economic growth. That's what all the projections are suggesting. No one's suggesting that suddenly there's going to be an influx of investment.

The Premier suggests that they've done structural changes. They haven't done anything like structural changes. He consulted with the community, consulted with the business community, consulted with the small business community. He asked them: "What should we do?" All of them

[ Page 10332 ]

We've watched the summer job prospects for students deteriorate by 41 percent over the last two years. So my question to the Premier is: is the Premier now willing to go and listen and act on the recommendations that have been brought forward by the people who he asked to give him advice last year? Is he willing to act boldly and dramatically? Stop this incremental stuff. Stop this little class A battery stuff that isn't going to power any economy anywhere in the country. Make significant changes so that next year, if we happen to be having this discussion on estimates, we can say that we have far fewer people out of work, instead of 14,000 more young people out of work in British Columbia. Let's in fact have a province where we have more student employment than any other province in Canada. Let's set that as our goal, and then let's act boldly and decisively to make sure that that takes place over the next year. Is the Premier willing to do that?

Hon. G. Clark: Well, obviously we've consulted extensively with business. Unfortunately, there's a bit of revisionist history, at least by the member opposite, because the business community did not recommend any tax cuts. The Business Council and the Vancouver Board of Trade were very aggressive in my meetings with them and the Minister of Finance. No tax cuts was what they recommended to government. What happened was that in all of our consultation, there were people who suggested tax cuts. People in the high-tech sector, people in the film industry and people on my advisory committee did recommend tax cuts. But there was no consensus, because the major business organizations in this province spoke as one voice against any tax cuts, and they spoke very aggressively.

We did not heed their advice. We decided instead to cut taxes significantly, and we did it over a phase-in period of time. But if there had been a consensus from business that dramatic tax cuts were required, then clearly we would have taken that very seriously. Unfortunately, in my judgment, there was not a consensus. There was a view from business that in fact we should be moving to balance the budget and not jeopardizing the fiscal situation by any kinds of tax cuts. That's not a consensus view. There were differing voices in there. We tried at lots of meetings to try to drive a consensus. If you recall, on the budget we did have people who were calling for bigger moves, who said it was a step in the right direction, and people who said no tax cuts but a balanced budget and people who said we didn't cut taxes enough. That's the reality of what happened.

What happened in British Columbia was that we listened very carefully to what business had to say. We've made some significant moves to try to accommodate them. There are many business leaders in this province who are working closely with the government to pursue agendas which work for them and for jobs and for the economy. On a sectoral basis, we have done that, and we will continue to do that. I give the member opposite whatever assurance he's asked for that we will very much listen to business, particularly to the advisory committees that I've set up, to try to seek ways to seek consensus on the appropriate action and stimulus we need to try to deal with the serious economic challenges we face in our province.

G. Campbell: Last year I stood in this House and talked to the Premier about the structural changes that needed to be made to provide youth with employment opportunities in British Columbia. Last year in this House the Premier stood up and said: "Do you know what I've done? I've got a business group that's set up. I've asked for a report to me." They ended up calling it "Working Together, Working Now: Combatting Youth Unemployment." It was put together by the Premier's own business advisory committee. Paul Lee was its chair. The Premier was very encouraged by the fact that Mr. Lee was there. These are some of the things they recommended: "Urge the federal government to reform employment insurance to eliminate payroll taxes on work-training programs and summer employment for youth." Have we done that?

Hon. G. Clark: Yes, absolutely. The Minister of Finance and the previous Minister of Finance have been very aggressive about demanding cuts to payroll taxes to try to stimulate jobs in British Columbia.

G. Campbell: The task force recommended that we reduce the tax on machinery and equipment, that we phase out the corporate capital tax, that we embark on a full review and dramatic reduction in the regulatory codes in the province -- not in the future, but that we get on with it now. Once again, what we see is the government standing and saying one day, "We're going to reduce regulation," and the next day introducing a bill that establishes literally dozens and dozens of new regulations for small businesses across the province. So what happens is that Mr. Lee's partner -- from Electronic Arts, I believe it is -- says that in fact the government's done too little. He's very concerned about what the government has done. It's making it very difficult to do business here. The so-called sustainable businesses that we were looking for are leaving the province.

[W. Hartley in the chair.]

The report requests that the government not just reduce taxes but reduce regulations on small business so that they can actually go out and hire people. But the government has increased regulations so that they can't go out and hire the same number of young people. It's not a matter of the opposition enjoying that. We don't enjoy that. I'd far prefer young people in this province to have a sense of hope and opportunity. I'd far prefer them to be able to come to me and. . . . Instead of saying to me, "This program doesn't work at all. All I've done is go around and hand out résumés to people. I'm not getting any job offers. I wait at home at night for a job offer, and it doesn't come through," I would like them to have a sense of optimism in this province. They do not have that.

So once again we have the Premier's own task force recommending these changes, and once again we see that the changes do not take place. I think it's critical that we understand that we are not going to succeed in terms of building the kind of economy we want if we deal with everything on an incremental basis.

Let me just use the technology industry as an example. In British Columbia -- the Premier is correct -- we have had significant growth in the technology industry. It's certainly significant compared to the decline that we've seen in mining,

[ Page 10333 ]

[5:15]

Again, to the Premier, I would hope that in the future we can see some real structural shifts that will make a difference, help stimulate the economy and, most importantly, help send a message to people in this province that if they're willing to work hard, they can get ahead, and if they're willing to work hard, the government isn't going to try and tax it all away from them. If the government is ready to do that -- if it is ready to really act so that when the small business community is dealing with this government, they have a sense of hope that the government will actually listen and that their input will make a difference -- then we may be able to turn this around.

My question to the Premier is in regard to his report from the youth employment advisory committee. Has the government itself reviewed all of their recommendations -- the ones that they've accepted and that have been already implemented and pushed forward, and the ones that have been rejected? And has the advisory committee been informed of the issues and initiatives that they put forward that have been rejected by this government?

Hon. G. Clark: The member says he doesn't like being negative and that he'd much rather be positive, and then he paints a picture of the high-tech sector that is really almost bizarre. There's a 22 percent growth rate in the high-tech sector. Talk to IBM, which has just established the new Pacific Development Centre, creating several hundred jobs in British Columbia. Talk to MacDonald Dettwiler, one of our most successful high-tech firms. Talk to Electronic Arts. They're building a brand-new building, and 800 people are working at Electronic Arts. This sector is a bright spot in British Columbia, and it is growing rapidly.

One of the reasons it's growing is because of the high educational standards, high environmental standards and the quality of life we have in this province, and this is a sector that can grow even more. The Leader of the Opposition raises the task force report. I'm very pleased with the task force report and with the business people who contributed to it, and we've started to implement their recommendations. We cut the capital tax for thousands of small businesses in the budget, which I neglected to mention in my previous remarks. We have made changes in the regulatory environment, and right now, we have a committee looking at changes to employment standards that deal with some of the legitimate concerns of the high-tech community.

They have some legitimate concerns, as pointed out by my advisory committee. We made a significant cut to the high marginal tax rate -- in fact, the biggest cut we've ever seen in British Columbia. It's 15 percent of the high marginal tax rate on top of overall tax cuts, directly in response to criticisms made largely by the high-tech community and people like Paul Lee in particular. Have we implemented all their recommendations to the extent that they would be absolutely happy? No. Would they like bigger tax cuts? Yes, absolutely.

These are questions of trying to balance the different needs and demands of government with economic development. If we were to do as the Leader of the Opposition would like to do -- to slash health care, education spending and public services in order to give tax breaks for business -- we would find the high-tech community not very happy about coming here, looking for graduates from university, looking for newly trained individuals, looking for the quality of life that they expect -- because it is a footloose industry. It is important that we protect and invest in public services, particularly education, while we reasonably and affordably make tax cuts and changes to improve our competitive position. That's the position we've taken. The members of that committee know that; we've had good consultation with them. They would like us to go faster -- no question about it; I completely acknowledge that -- but we believe we are going as fast as we can prudently manage right now, given our fiscal situation.

Frankly, to characterize these changes as minor is, I think, almost bizarre. These are dramatic and deep cuts in sectors of the economy. A 50 percent reduction in royalty rates for oil and gas is not enough for the opposition, but the oil and gas sector is already saying how they're going to invest more in British Columbia because we're more competitive than next door.

Interjection.

Hon. G. Clark: No, lower than Alberta by a large margin, member -- and you know that.

There's a film being produced in Prince George now for the first time -- a Hollywood production in Prince George -- dropping thousands of dollars into that community because of our changes to tax law, because of listening to British Columbians and to their concerns.

There are changes now to employment standards to protect workers but to deal with legitimate concerns of businesses; changes to the high marginal tax rate in direct response to the advice that we received from the committee; changes in stumpage -- again, significant; and a 22 percent reduction in small business income taxes, hon. member. But 22 percent is not enough for members opposite. Clearly we are making significant progress. It's 6 percent less income tax for every British Columbian compared to what it was just two years ago. Clearly people would like greater tax relief; clearly I would like greater tax relief, and so would everybody in this chamber and every business in the province. But we have an obligation to balance that with the protection of high-quality public services, particularly in health care and education, and I'm very proud that we are investing more money in health care and education than any province in Canada. That's what's called balance -- not this crazy, pro-right wing corpo

[ Page 10334 ]

G. Campbell: Let's just have the Premier calm down for a minute and remember what's taking place here.

Here is a quote from the president of Electronic Arts about this government's major initiatives and structural change: "Not bold enough or fast enough. Are we still uncompetitive? I fear so." Here is a comment from the board of trade about the Premier's so-called major initiative: "I was looking for a major watershed, a new direction of government in terms of this budget. . . . I go away with. . .disappointment."

Interjection.

G. Campbell: The Premier mutters: "Yeah, yeah, yeah." The problem for the Premier is that he hasn't created a job in his life. The Premier doesn't understand how to create jobs. The fact of the matter is that once again, the Premier has stuck his head in the sand. He trots out all his little statistics and hopes that they will cover over what's taking place in this province. I will tell you what's taking place in this province.

The Premier says: "I've cut back stumpage." First of all, we haven't cut it back yet. We will cut it back. What his minister says is: "You know, we can make these changes because our costs are so high." He looks at regulation in the Forest Practices Code, and he says: "We're going to cut back this regulation." Why? Because this government's regulations have cost the forest industry almost a billion dollars in three years, with no environmental improvement whatsoever. They've added costs. When the Premier talks about what he's done in the last two years, what he's really saying is that he is trying to undo the damage that he did in the first four years of New Democrat government -- and he's not acting fast enough.

When we talk about the young people of this province, we do have to look for major structural change. They've been promised major structural change. I think it's critical for everyone to understand that, to date, that has not taken place. When you lose 15,500 jobs in the forestry industry, that is not taking place. When you have 14,000 fewer young people at work in 1998 than in 1997, that is not taking place. All of the glitzy ad campaigns, all of the brochures that we may put in place, do not cover up the fact that young people in this province are currently having great difficulty finding work. They do not cover up the fact that student unemployment in British Columbia is the second-highest in Canada. The only province in the country that we beat out is Newfoundland. I think that should send a clear message to the government that what they've done doesn't work. When you put in place economic and financial policies and regulatory codes that drive people out of work and, in fact, give people a sense of despair in some communities across this province, where they don't have hope for the future, those are policies that do not work.

Clearly there are substantial root causes of the youth unemployment problem, and they go back to the economy. It's the economy; that's what has happened here. We have gone from being a province where people wanted to invest and they looked forward to investing to the province with the lowest level of investment of any of the six major provinces in Canada. The fact of the matter is that we should be doing far more for the young people in this province. We should be doing far more to encourage the economy, to encourage the private sector to invest and to hire. When we add additional regulatory burdens to small business, and those regulatory burdens are based on employment, guess what happens: fewer young people get hired. When we go out to the small business community. . . . The technology community is another good example of this. They've been very clear that their community requires different regulations than the economy at large. The people who are hired in the technology industry, whether they're at McDonnell Douglas or at Electronic Arts, will say the same thing: the people they employ work far different hours than a traditional retail operation worker or a traditional government bureaucrat. We have to be flexible enough to reflect that.

I'd just like to ask a couple more questions with regard to young people. The Premier has a Youth Options B.C. home page at a British Columbia web site. It features what is called an instant poll, whereby anyone can vote on questions posed and tell the government what region of the province they're from and what age they are. The current question asks: "Would you volunteer in your community if you could earn credit on your post-secondary tuition fees?" A few weeks ago, the question was different. It asked: "Do you feel more optimistic or less optimistic about your future?"

I have a number of questions about this instant poll that appears on the web page. The first one is: where are the poll results published, and why are they not posted on the web site?

Hon. G. Clark: I only want to clarify one thing the member said; even though I could make another speech, I refrain. I just want to look at capital expenditure for British Columbia. This is investment in British Columbia. This year's investment intention is $20.906 billion, which is up. . . .

Interjection.

Hon. G. Clark: No, it's $27 billion in Alberta. That's correct.

It's $21 billion in British Columbia. Last year it was $20 billion, the year before that it was $19 billion, the year before that it was $19 billion, in 1994 it was $20 billion, and in 1993 it was $18 billion. Now, I will grant the members opposite that there is not a spectacular increase in capital investment in British Columbia, if the members opposite will at least acknowledge that there is not even a modest decline in capital investment in British Columbia, in spite of the resource sector's decline. That tells you that we have a more diversified economy, and there are sectors of the economy that are actually making significant investments in British Columbia. The bottom has not dropped out of capital investment in this province -- including on the intentions side, not just the reality. . . .

Interjection.

Hon. G. Clark: And that is without an aluminum plant, hon. member.

I just want to qualify, in terms of private sector investment in British Columbia. . . . It has not declined. It has not increased as fast as other jurisdictions in Canada. That member is correct to say that that is obviously not what we would like.

On the web page, I think the member has a very good point. First of all, I'll try and find the information for the

[ Page 10335 ]

[5:30]

Interjection.

G. Campbell: I'm not going to agree with you one more time; I'll tell you that.

Hon. G. Clark: I apologize. The note has come in, and I want to read it for you. The instant poll is published on the web site. You have to press the button below to get the results of the poll, and once you vote, the results appear. It's not a scientific poll, of course, as we know, but we do provide that information. Like the member opposite, I have been reviewing my web page from time to time, and I haven't taken the opportunity, although I get regular hard-copy updates. . . . So, for the member, I guess you have to click on the button below the poll.

G. Campbell: Well, I haven't had a chance to click on the button below, and I won't be able to do that for a couple of minutes. Maybe the Premier can tell us if he knows what the results were on the question of whether young people feel more optimistic or less optimistic about their future.

Hon. G. Clark: I'm sorry, I don't, but I will undertake to get it after dinner.

G. Campbell: If I can just check with the Premier. . . . He has these hard copies. What I understand is that we have the questions that are brought up -- about 35 questions have been brought into that particular web page. . . . I think there are three separate zones: the job zone, the general zone and the school zone.

Interjection.

G. Campbell: All right. That's what I understood -- that there are three separate zones. And they may have had about 100 questions over the last seven months. Can the Premier confirm that for me as well?

Hon. G. Clark: No, we've had about 57,000 visits to the web site. I'm just getting the number. . . . The visits to the site per month are 3,340 in the last while. There is a kind of spike -- and I know the members will understand this -- when there's advertising with the web URL on it; then the number of hits or visits goes up. So we had a big increase with a little bit of advertising that came after the budget. That will tail off in the summer. But we hope to advertise the availability of the web site again, particularly in high schools and the like. Some schools are using the web site as part of their education, to ask the Premier a question, so I think we do get a big increase -- or we should get a big increase -- in September in the new school year. There's been a pretty dramatic increase in the last couple of months.

There was another big increase when we announced the volunteer in your community for tuition credit initiative, which I'm very proud of and haven't had a chance to talk about yet. Even though there wasn't any real advertising around it -- I don't think there was any advertising around it -- there was a huge increase amongst young people for the volunteer aspect of it, and a real increase in the number of visits to the web site as a result of that. While I've been talking, I've been trying to get not just the number of visitors but the number of actual questions asked. I haven't been able to find it yet.

G. Campbell: Maybe the Premier can just answer some general questions. Are all the questions that are submitted to the web site posted on the web site, and are all the answers posted on the web site?

Hon. G. Clark: No, they're not. All the questions on the web site are answered by my office, but they're not all posted. Partly, that was to give people the sense that they could ask anything they wanted and try to get some kind of answer, and partly it was just for the size of the site. So they just go through, and if there are some common questions or questions of misunderstanding of government intention, then they try to post samples on the site.

We have been considering, in the evolution of the web site, the idea of moving to a much more interactive. . .so that there was a kind of live interaction back and forth with the government. But just in terms of cost and implementation. . . . Right now we've got staff who are literally working full-time just answering e-mail and questions largely posted to the web site. They've been responding to them directly and then just posting samples.

G. Campbell: In terms of the poll that's done, how do you gauge the information you're getting back on the poll? Do you track all of that? Are there any guidelines or protocols for making sure that there is no interference with it from, say, constituency assistants or staff or anything like that?

Hon. G. Clark: That's a good question. No, there are no guidelines. It hasn't been significant enough, I guess, to be organized around it. We're generally not interested in pursuing it politically. While there are questions that are, if I can put it this way, politically loaded, and the member has picked up on one that I guess could be used to attack the government, or that the government could use to praise itself. . . . But you know, generally, we're not trying to do that; we're trying to find the questions which will really help us give a sense of what young people are thinking, as best we can. They're not scientific, but they are a way of getting a bit of interaction and feedback on some of the things we're doing.

G. Campbell: When we look at how we communicate with people. . . . Again, to get back to this issue of feedback, whether it's feedback from young people through the web site, or feedback from the public. . . . From the statistics on how we're doing in terms of the economy, the number of jobs there are and what our position is in terms of economic growth. . . . Can the Premier tell me what feedback he uses to determine whether he is doing well and whether the government is doing well? We hear from people who are investors and job creators in the province that they are not happy; they cannot make ends meet. We watch as bankruptcies increase; we watch as people move their businesses. In the last year, we've watched as literally hundreds of businesses have left

[ Page 10336 ]

Hon. G. Clark: Well, we don't have benchmarks, if that's what you're asking, that you could measure the government against. Clearly I'm not satisfied with the performance of the economy in British Columbia. The jobs and timber accord is a good benchmark; there will be a test against that, and we're pleased with that. We have generally tried to put other benchmarks in some of the initiatives that we've undertaken. But it's pretty clear that no one should be happy with the performance of the B.C. economy, and I, as much as anybody, need to do better. That's not a scientific question; that's obvious to everybody. It is, of course, a big challenge when faced with world market conditions and low commodity prices and the challenges that those cause. Many jurisdictions similar to British Columbia are struggling with answers to that same question, and so we've been responding. But I'm clearly not satisfied with the performance; nobody in British Columbia is. I don't need a poll; I don't need to ask for feedback. That's pretty obvious.

G. Campbell: I think, though, that when the Premier is saying that he wants to turn over a new leaf and that he wants to send out a new message, as we heard in the throne speech this year, it's important to hear whether or not the message that has been sent out has been effective. Let me give you some examples. There was an Angus Reid survey done in the spring following the 1998 budget. It said that over 77 percent of lower mainland businesses have a negative opinion about the budget; 73 percent stated that the budget is on the wrong track for getting B.C.'s economy rolling; 82 percent stated that the budget doesn't pay enough attention to reducing personal income taxes; 85 percent stated that the budget does not pay enough attention to cutting business taxes; 87 percent stated that it's on the wrong track in terms of managing government debt.

I think that those are messages that. . . . We have to understand they're simply a report of how people who create jobs in this province feel about the economic condition in this province. It is reflected in the fact that we have an unemployment rate of almost 10 percent in British Columbia. In a study of the 1998 budget, the Business Council points out that the budget failed to acknowledge the structural nature of the economic difficulties besetting this province. It's not a question of whether that side of the House agrees with businesses or not. Ask yourself: "How do you generate jobs? How do you generate economic activity?" You have to encourage investment; you have to encourage business. By doing that, you create more jobs for people; it's very simple. I know sometimes it goes against the ideology of that side of the government, but it's a very straightforward thing. The rhetoric that's coming from the government today is saying we want to include them.

Well, when you're getting back results that suggest that, literally. . . . I mean overwhelming results, not even close. . . . It's not even 50 or 60 percent. We're talking in the high eighties and low nineties. Ninety-two percent stated that the government's attempts at reducing government spending had been futile. The mounting government debt and the consistent deficits of this government are driving away investment. They're driving away investment confidence in British Columbia.

The Business Council report goes on to say that they were promised tax cuts and regulatory reform, exercises that are not sufficient to change B.C.'s reputation as a high-cost, high-tax jurisdiction in which it is difficult to create jobs and do business. In light of those comments, those opinions and that feeling that it's not just in British Columbia. . . . I'm sure members opposite have read the Wall Street Journal, the Economist and the trade papers with regard to this. But we really have had a. . . . This government has a damning indictment of its economic performance.

You know, again I'm kind of incredulous that members of the government can sit there and somehow take pride in the fact that they've taken the economy of British Columbia from being the first-place economy to the last-place economy in Canada. I can't understand why the government would say: "Well, we're going to stand pat. We don't want to change the direction we're going in. We're going to do these little incremental changes, and maybe they'll work sometime in the future" -- but nothing dramatic that will give anyone a sense of hope.

So my question to the Premier is: why in the last budget, when your government has acknowledged the importance of investment, would you ignore the advice of the business community and of the investment community and carry on down the same track that you've set for the province since 1991, when this government was elected and started piling on taxes, regulation and debt, which have brought our economy to its knees?

Hon. G. Clark: Well, as I've tried to. . . . I'll refrain from making a speech again. But we have been listening very carefully to what people have to say. We've made some significant moves to respond to that.

It's not the government's job to do everything that business wants. Brian Mulroney was very popular right to the very end with the big business community in the province -- got millions of dollars. And the people rejected them, correctly. We are not pursuing necessarily a business agenda.

We're pursuing an agenda which just strives to work with business to create jobs. We've made some significant changes. In some cases, those changes are acknowledged by the business community. In other cases, they have changed their position after the budget and now are calling for things which they were not calling for prior to the budget. So we continue to listen to them. We continue to talk to them. We continue to respond and make changes in order to try to improve the economic health and job health of the province, and we will continue doing that in the coming months and years.

G. Abbott: I want to discuss with the Premier one of the benchmark areas that he mentioned, the jobs and timber accord. I want to get a sense from the Premier as to what he sees as its prospects in terms of fulfilling the goals that are set out in the accord.

Just as a matter of a quick review, people will remember, no doubt, the jobs and timber accord signed on June 19, 1997 -- also something that had been discussed as far back as, I guess, March of 1996, at least publicly. It sets a goal of creating 37,800 new jobs by the end of the term of the accord, which is, I guess, June 19, 2001. The 37,800 goal is made up of 20,400 direct new forest jobs, and I guess the assumption here is that 17,400 indirect jobs will follow as well.

To begin here, would the Premier advise whether, in his view, the government is going to be able to fulfil the promises contained in the jobs and timber accord?

Hon. G. Clark: Well, clearly we're working hard to fulfil them. I believe that we will fulfil the job targets, subject to

[ Page 10337 ]

The statistics are kind of interesting; we're using labour force survey results. In March of 1996, when I announced that we were pursuing the jobs and timber accord initiative, there were 98,000 people working in the industry. When we did the announcement in June of '97, there were 105,700. In June of '98 there were 5,800 fewer than that -- in other words, there were more jobs in June of '98 than in March of '96. However, many of those jobs are not as year-round as they were a few years ago. We're seeing pretty significant shutdowns around the province, but they are temporary shutdowns, by and large. There hasn't been the spectacular decline in permanent employment that the opposition would suggest. In fact, there hasn't really been any decline in permanent employment in the forest sector, but there are clearly a lot of temporary shutdowns, due to market considerations.

[5:45]

The Forest Renewal fund, which, of course, didn't exist a couple of years ago, will now be moved down to the $300 million annual investment level. That is, we believe, a sustainable amount, which is now invested fully in job-producing activities. With New Forest Opportunities, we're entering into full-time jobs -- not contracted but full-time, year-round jobs; or at least, if not year-round, significant jobs -- that employ people who support families. This is a new structural change which leads to permanent, if you will -- permanent in the sense that this $300 million is sustainable -- investment in the sector, which is part of the jobs and timber accord.

In the value-added sector we're making significant progress. We're not seeing the results yet, but we believe we will. We're making significant progress on stable employment, with the New Forest Opportunities initiative. Again, that's new -- new jobs that didn't exist just a few years ago in not basic but intensive silviculture.

We have the initiatives on the innovative forest practices agreements, which we think hold great promise, and those are just beginning. We've just announced another recent one in the Kootenays, I think, which has significant promise for more jobs and more fibre in that sector, and a variety of other things that we're doing to try to meet the job targets.

Now, it all does require a market recovery. If there's no market recovery in Japan, then we will likely not. . . . Well, we won't meet these targets, absolutely; there's no way we can. If you'll note in the jobs and timber accord, it said that it's all predicated on a healthy and profitable industry. That's what it is predicated on, and we've been making some changes to try to ensure that that is the case. It's not the case today.

We think we've made the structural changes that will lead to meeting the job target, but we do require a market recovery to do that. I think that you'll find lots of people in the industry who will corroborate that view and who have been working intensely with the government to try to do that, although they're all obviously in a great deal of financial difficulty right now.

G. Abbott: I think the interesting thing about the jobs and timber accord is that it doesn't contain the self-doubts which appear to be overtaking the Premier today about achieving these targets if market conditions improve. We don't find, at any point in the jobs and timber accord, a statement to the effect that we may create so many jobs, provided that we have a healthy forest industry and provided that market conditions cooperate. What we do find, at every turn in the jobs and timber accord, is the claim that the government will create new forest jobs. I haven't counted up the number of times that "will" is used in the jobs and timber accord, but it is used in virtually every paragraph. It says the government will create so many jobs through job maintenance and creation, so many jobs through initiatives by tenure holders, so many through Forest Renewal, so many through initiatives for small business, and so on. It all suggests that the government "will." I think it's an important point that the government wasn't shy in making its claims around job creation. In fact, the government was very clear that this was something they were going to achieve. There was never any of this sort of self-doubting stuff about "if markets cooperate."

I guess that leads to the next question I have for the Premier. One of the reasons why I and my colleagues on this side of the House were, I think, rightly critical of the jobs and timber accord was that it is based on the very faulty premise that the government can create or cause to be created a certain number of jobs -- in this case, tens of thousands of jobs -- in an industry which for as long as people have been working in it, some 150 to 200 years, has been a cyclical industry. Everyone knows that the forest industry experiences highs and lows.

I want to ask the Premier, because I think it's the first time that we've heard this suggestion that we will only achieve the goals of the accord subject to market conditions: when did the Premier or the NDP government discover that the forest industry was a cyclical industry? Is this a recent discovery? Or did the Premier and the government appreciate this when they set out the very bold claims that are contained in the jobs and timber accord?

Hon. G. Clark: Well, it's explicitly stated in the accord that we recognize market conditions. So that's right there in black and white in the accord.

I just want to make sure that I go on record here, for the members opposite, a saying that right now there are 1,900 more people working in the forest industry than was the case -- according to labour force survey statistics -- in March 1996 when I made the announcement. That's what we're benchmarking to -- March 1996; that's in the accord. There are more people working. Now, they are working significantly fewer hours right now, because there's lots of downtime -- no question about it. But there are more people working, in terms of jobs, according to statistics which we and everybody agreed to, including the industry, when we made the announcement. That's what's been published.

On July 20, 1998 -- what was that, two days ago? -- the Prince George Citizen. . . . Here is what Doman says:

"Recent employment figures for British Columbia's forest sector suggest an industry on the ropes. But a forest company executive claims most job losses cited. . .are temporary. . .there's been zero loss of permanent jobs at Doman Forest Products or related Western Forest Products, said Vic Woods, Western's vice-president and general manager. He suggested. . .the job loss is temporary and market-related. 'We've got nothing permanently down. I think we've logged and sawmilled more than anyone on the coast this year. However, the company has been hit by market conditions. . ."

[ Page 10338 ]

We, the people of British Columbia, own the trees. Public policy does impact on jobs; this is a reality. The member says that we can't create jobs; only the private sector creates jobs. Well, that's not correct in whole or even in part with respect to forestry, in this sense: we're the landlord. We own the trees.

Government policy -- how much you can cut, how fast you can cut, what you can cut -- makes a difference in jobs, absolutely. So it is quite appropriate for the government to establish policy with respect to the ownership, which we the people own, in terms of generating more jobs from the trees that we cut. And we do make an impact, both negatively and positively. I just want the member to be clear about this. It is not just the private sector; it is not just like any other business. We are the owners, and we are, I think, doing the best we can to manage the resource in the public interest, to generate more jobs.

At the end of the accord, there will be more jobs per cubic metre harvested than there were at the beginning, and we're driving hard to meet the jobs agenda that we've set out and the targets we've set out. Clearly the market has a role to play in this as well. It is a dominant role. We have to be able to sell the products, and right now, in Japan, we can't. So it will be unlikely that we will meet the entire job target if Japan stays where it's at today. I am very optimistic that over time, with the policies we've put in place, as owner of the resource, we will drive significantly more jobs in this sector and meet the targets, over time, with the foundation that we have laid with the jobs and timber accord.

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

Motion approved.

The House resumed; the Speaker in the chair.

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 5:57 p.m. to 6:35 p.m.

[The Speaker in the chair.]

Hon. G. Clark: I call Committee of Supply.

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

ESTIMATES: OFFICE OF THE PREMIER AND MINISTRY RESPONSIBLE FOR YOUTH
(continued)

G. Abbott: Where we were, just prior to the dinner break, was in a discussion of the jobs and timber accord. I want to return to the promise that was made in the accord, in June 1997, that 37,800 new jobs would be created as a consequence of the accord. The discussion subsequently was along the lines of whether the government still intended to deliver on the promise. The Premier advised that the promise would be fulfilled. I think the quote from the Premier was that the delivery on that promise would be "subject to market conditions." I think in one of his further statements, the Premier stated that in fact some allowance had been made in the accord to reflect that this initiative was contingent upon favourable market conditions.

I've read the accord, and I may well have missed it, but I would like the Premier to direct me to the page and section of the accord on which the "subject to market conditions" premise is found.

Hon. G. Clark: In the preamble, I think on page 1, it states: "Whereas industry and government recognize that the creation of sustainable jobs by the forest sector will depend on an internationally competitive industry and a healthy and productive land base." Clearly, that implies that the internationally competitive industry, the international marketplace, has to be there. We always said that there has to be a market for the product. We're not pretending that we can create the jobs without any market, and everybody knows the market in Asia, in Japan, is dramatically depressed. People know, or should know, that the majority of our exports are not to China or to Indonesia; they are to Japan and Korea. Japan, of course, is the subject of much media discussion and academic and other discussion around the situation there. We're suffering pretty significant consequences as a result of the problems in Japan.

G. Abbott: I'm not a member of the legal profession, but I suspect that a member of that fraternity would say that that is a specious argument, and I would have to say that that's so.

To quote in full the section that the Premier refers to, it reads: ". . .that the forest industry needs to be globally competitive through having an opportunity to earn an adequate economic return that ensures ongoing and improved capital investments in the B.C. forest sector to allow for expansion and maintenance of jobs, and recognizing the imperatives of a highly competitive marketplace."

I think rather than providing an excuse not to meet the job targets, this in fact further underlines the very poor job which this government has done in terms of forest policy in this province since they took office in 1991. What this government inherited, in 1991, was a very productive, very efficient and highly competitive industry in the international marketplace. Through a combination of excessive regulation, most notably the very process-oriented Forest Practices Code, and through excessive fees and taxes and so on -- the doubling of stumpage fees, the very dramatic rises in taxation, the corporation capital tax -- this government has gone a long way -- they've gone all the way -- toward undermining the forest industry's position in the international market.

As a consequence of this, we see in Japan, for example -- admittedly, there's a down market there -- more cost-

[ Page 10339 ]

The other point I want to raise with the Premier, hon. Chair. . . . From the comments he made earlier, the Premier was suggesting that there have in fact been either no or very few job losses since the accord was put into place, and he cites the labour force survey as the source for that. Well, I want to suggest to the Premier that he may want to get on the same page as his Forests minister with respect to how to read employment surveys. After a lot of toing and froing and debate within the Ministry of Forests, they have resolved there that they are not going to use the labour force survey, because it is not a dependable instrument to measure job swings. They are going with the Statistics Canada survey of employment, payroll and hours, the so-called SEPH report.

I do have a quote here from the Forests minister which says that SEPH is the most reliable: "We talk about SEPH -- the database on which we agree -- and we're going to measure against the 20,400 plus the 2,000 Fisheries Renewal jobs. That's what we'll be looking for." He goes on to say: "The survey data that we're talking about, which is the most scientifically valid, is going to pick up the pluses and minuses. We're not going to blend databases here. But if there's a job lost, it will be picked up by the SEPH data. In the end it will be SEPH that counts how many jobs there are in the industry at any given time." That's from June 15, 1998. I think it was stated, actually, during the Forests estimates. We had a good discussion around that.

If the Premier would like to share with me the Statistics Canada SEPH data, what we see, actually -- from June of 1997, coincidentally -- if we look at forest employment in British Columbia since June of 1997, is something that looks very much like a bobsled run. It's going down, and it's going down in a big hurry. We have by that account lost 15,000 jobs, which StatsCan has been talking about recently and which we certainly are very much concerned about as well.

I'll ask the Premier this: does he accept, as does his Minister of Forests, that the Statistics Canada survey of payroll hours is the most reliable, most scientific measure of jobs created and lost in the province? Does he further accept that we have lost at least 15,000 jobs by that measure since the accord was signed in June of last year?

Hon. G. Clark: No, I absolutely do not accept that. It doesn't really matter what base you use, as long as you use a consistent base. We were using the labour force survey. That was agreed to or discussed with the industry. It has gone up dramatically and then down, but the down is still higher than on the date of the announcement that I made -- only marginally. I've acknowledged already that the hours of work are down. But the number of jobs is not down; in fact, the number of jobs is up. Those are the stats from the labour force survey. If you want to get into a statistical argument, I guess you're free to do so. But from our perspective, that's what we've discussed, and that's what we're working from. It's clearly an accurate statistic; it's not something that government does. It has gone down recently. But it's still higher than when we made the announcement, which was in '96.

[6:45]

The other comment which the Premier made which I certainly found notable was the notion that we really haven't lost that many jobs, but rather that our hours of work are down. Now, that twigged in my mind the 1997 Speech from the Throne, in which the Premier, through the Lieutenant-Governor, stated the following: "Too many people have heavy work schedules with hours that keep them from their families and friends and too many others cannot find enough work to pay the bills. My government believes we must begin a dialogue about these issues, with the goal of securing a shorter work week in British Columbia."

I know the Premier was very much encouraged in this kind of view or vision of a different future by the ideas of Jeremy Rifkin contained in The End of Work. Based on this, I'm curious whether we may have at long last found a promise which the NDP has kept: actually producing a shorter workweek in British Columbia. It seems that as a consequence of the NDP's disastrous forest policies, the Premier is actually admitting that the hours of work are down and that we've shortened the workweek. Regrettably, it seems that for at least 15,000 more forest workers over the past year, their workweek has been terminated, not just shortened. I'm curious to hear from the Premier about the level of affection he continues to nurse for the ideas of Jeremy Rifkin and The End of Work, and whether in fact this really is part of his master plan to shorten the workweek in British Columbia.

Hon. G. Clark: Clearly Jeremy Rifkin is an interesting thinker and someone for whom I have a lot of time, as you know. I brought him up to the NDP convention last year. I think there's a lot to be said for moving in directions that try to acknowledge a shorter workweek and the ability to improve productivity and increase time off for individuals. I think there's a lot to be said around that for families, and I could give the member a long dissertation on the subject.

To save the members from that, we have been looking at practical ways to implement some ideas where they make sense. The most recent one that we've done is the tuition credit for volunteering in your community. If you read the book that I referred to, he talks a lot about the need to engage in the third sector, the community sector, and ways to encourage people to contribute to communities which are non-governmental. So this is a pioneering project in Canada to encourage and to liberate young people, to harness their energies and to get them involved in community service, to make their communities better places in which to live. We decided to couple our objective of increasing enrolment and access with volunteerism. I think that's a kind of exciting and innovative application of elements of Rifkin's philosophy to government practice.

G. Abbott: If we are to use the StatsCan numbers -- which I've agreed with the Minister of Forests should be used

[ Page 10340 ]

Hon. G. Clark: Well, if you canvassed these, you'll know the answer. One is the delivery of Forest Renewal B.C. programs, which is a big part of our commitment. These are real jobs, and they're coming on stream. Second is the small business value-added sector, where we've made some progress but it's not being fully utilized because of market conditions. The third major initiative is closing the gap between major licensees' harvest and the AAC. Again, that is doable -- and we could do it, but unfortunately, we won't be reducing the gap. We'll likely increase the gap between major licensees and the AAC, because they have no place to sell their product. The member talks about Scandinavia and other places. The member will know that devaluation in Canada has not been enough to compensate for the devaluation taking place in some of our competitors. They've been much more significant, and therefore it's tough on our competitiveness.

In addition, we have innovative forest practices agreements and other initiatives by major licence holders which we think will be very significant. In fact, I think they're dramatically understated in our accord document, if we get it right. We've just announced the third pilot project in the Kootenays -- last week, I think. So we're making progress. I see one of the members, the member for Rossland-Trail, recognizing that this is an interesting experiment.

We're confident that we are going to make progress towards the 22,400 jobs we've initiated. We have not seen a decline. In fact, there's a modest increase, according to the statistics that we are using. If we have any kind of decent recovery in Asia, combined with the initiatives we put into place, we will see a pretty significant spike in jobs in the forest sector.

[J. Doyle in the chair.]

G. Abbott: I actually share a portion of what the Premier said. I'm hopeful, as well, that the IFPAs will prove to be a great boon to the forest industry in British Columbia and indeed to the coffers of the government.

One area that has not held the same promise, where I think there are some fundamental problems and some fundamental philosophical objections from this side of the House, is New Forest Opportunities. New Forest Opportunities has, in essence, taken a very efficient, productive, competitive silviculture industry on the coast of British Columbia. . . . As a consequence of government action and Forest Renewal B.C. action, it has taken all the competition, all the productivity and all the efficiency out of that industry and forced people to join the IWA if they wish to work on any FRBC-sponsored silviculture project in the coast region of B.C. Not only is New Forest Opportunities wrong because it takes away people's right to unionize voluntarily, should they choose to do it, but it's also been a dramatic failure in that it has undermined and thrown into upheaval the entire silviculture industry on the coast. I think the situation there is deplorable, and I think the entire philosophical direction that's contained there is wrong as well. I'd be interested in hearing the Premier's defence of that, both from the philosophical perspective of forced unionization of a portion of the forest workforce and the obvious problems that are being experienced in terms of productivity.

Hon. G. Clark: First of all, I have to correct the premise of the question. We have had basic silviculture in this province. We've had it for a few decades but most recently in the last decade and a half -- not in sympathetic administration; some of that disappeared. But we have basic silviculture required by licensees. That's all the silviculture industry was, up until two or three years ago: basic silviculture. That is not affected at all by New Forest Opportunities. All the silviculture workers that existed in this province, that planted trees in this province, that worked for major licensees in this province -- in other words, the status quo prior to Forest Renewal -- continue. They're not unionized or anything. They are part of the existing system. They cut back a little bit, as companies are in trouble now, this year; there's no question about that. But basic silviculture completely exists.

We established Forest Renewal B.C., and part of this jobs and timber accord is to harness Forest Renewal B.C. funds to reinvest, to create permanent jobs for displaced forest workers first and foremost. We had started out, because we were trying to get the thing moving. . . . We started contracting out a lot of little contracts with a lot of money to do not basic silviculture but enhanced silviculture. In the jobs and timber accord, the subsequent negotiations and New Forest Opportunities, it was always contemplated, always part of the discussion, that we would take all of that money that was going to enhanced silviculture activities and reconfigure it in such a way that we had long-term, sustainable jobs first and foremost for displaced forest workers. The best way to do that was to establish a list and establish the kind of criteria by which we could give people year-round or full-time jobs in the industry, as opposed to short-term, contracted services, which was the case for only a couple of years.

That is what New Forest Opportunities is. I'm very proud of it. It means that we have sustainable jobs for people who have been displaced or otherwise by technology or park creation or other initiatives that have taken place. So it is working.

We have not unionized the silviculture industry at all, so people who complain about it are people who feel that they have a lost opportunity for expanding their business into enhanced silviculture -- which for a year or two, while we were getting up and running, some silviculture companies took advantage of. That is the truth; that's the philosophical basis. All the silviculture contractors in the province that existed prior to Forest Renewal are still free to exist. They're all unionized or not unionized, depending on individual circumstances; I think they're predominantly non-union, although I don't know the answer to that. There have clearly been some cuts this year. By the way, if they're displaced by cuts this year, they are eligible for New Forest Opportunities employment, so the individuals are protected as best we can.

The whole purpose of Forest Renewal B.C. was not to set up a whole contracting industry and all of that; it was to rechannel the money into communities, into the forest industry and into the land base, using forestry workers who were displaced as a result of either government policies or private sector policies. That's exactly what we're doing.

G. Abbott: I'm going to take exception to three or four parts of what the Premier said. First of all, Forest Renewal B.C. did not invent enhanced silviculture in the province.

[ Page 10341 ]

G. Abbott: Oh no, it didn't. In fact, at least a decade ago the FRDA program through the federal government was doing work like this, and I expect that enhanced silviculture. . . .

Interjection.

G. Abbott: Here's the revisionist historian at work: FRBC invented everything that was good -- right. You obviously don't know what you're talking about, so listen up for a minute.

This government and FRBC did not invent enhanced silviculture. It's nonsensical for the Premier and some of the neo-Luddites on the other side to be arguing that they did, because they didn't.

[7:00]

Further, there is nothing in New Forest Opportunities that has made those jobs any more sustainable than they were before; in fact, there has been so much bureaucratic upheaval as a consequence of the attempt to move to New Forest Opportunities that no sustainable jobs have been created in NFO. I think the Premier ought to give serious consideration to renaming that particular program "No Forest Opportunities," because I think that most graphically illustrates where we're at.

I want to briefly turn the Premier's attention to the Forest Practices Code. When this government, back in '93-94, was talking about the Forest Practices Code and the wonders that it would produce, it was advertised as having a cost of about $5 a cubic metre. The industry was constantly reassured that they would be looking at five bucks a cubic metre as a cost for the code. In fact, of course, the experience proved to be much different from that. The very process-oriented, very expensive code that this government put in place has in reality cost the industry between, in some cases on the low end, about $12 a cubic metre and, on the high end, particularly on the coast, about $22 a cubic metre. The government has even acknowledged this. The case that the government makes to the Americans about the reduction in stumpage is based on the premise that the code cost a lot more than the government advertised that it would. So even this government and the Premier have implicitly admitted that the code has cost much more than they said it would.

I want to ask the Premier -- and this may be one of my final questions. . . . When the Minister of Environment and the Minister of Forests had their news conference down in the press theatre, they suggested that they would be able to reduce the cost of the code from $750 million a year to $450 million a year, without jeopardizing the environmental goals of the code. I'm curious as to whether or not the Premier agrees with that.

Hon. G. Clark: First of all, just some general comments. The Forest Practices Code was a major initiative designed to stop the disaster which was facing the forest industry as a result of environmental boycotts and pressures in Europe. The industry worked with the government to establish the Forest Practices Code. The amount of cost that we ascribe to implementing the Forest Practices Code was agreed to by industry at the time we made the decisions. We were wrong; so was the industry. It did cost more to implement the Forest Practices Code than we anticipated. So we set about to try to get back to our original cost estimate without jeopardizing environmental standards. That is exactly what we are attempting to do.

We are not there yet, in terms of reducing cost to industry and of the implementation on the ground of the changes that we have made and are making. But it is a critical that we maintain the environmental standards and the environmental commitment of this government and of the people of British Columbia, with respect to forest practices in our province. It's critical to the future of our children, critical to our province, and it's critical to economic health in British Columbia. We cannot jeopardize the work that we have done to protect the environment or jeopardize the industry -- with boycotts and the pressure in Europe by turning back the clock as you, the members of the opposition, would have us do. So we must reform the Forest Practices Code. But we're not going backwards; we're not going to go backwards on standards and go back to the days of sympathetic administration or letting industry do whatever they want on the land base. We will not do that. We must have high environmental standards, and we will maintain them; we are attempting to maintain all of the initiatives on the environment. But we are trying to do it in a more efficient way, to reduce costs.

G. Abbott: I have never, in my time in the provincial government or indeed in local government, ever heard any representative of the opposition or any representative of industry or anyone else saying that they wanted to turn the clock back. In fact, this government says: "Oh, we need to move to a results-based code." In doing so, they're trying to appear to be doing what for some time we have been saying has to be done, and that's to move from a process-oriented code to a results-based code. That's exactly what we will do.

We can't have a situation where our forest industry faces costs of up to 22 bucks a cubic metre for the Forest Practices Code and expect them to be competitive in international markets. It just ain't gonna happen. The government has said that they're going to try to reduce the cost of the code, and they have put the projection of their reforms at, hopefully, a $5-a-cubic-metre saving. In reality, everyone I've talked to in the industry suggests that maybe it'll be three bucks, and maybe that'll be achieved over a couple of years. It's a long way to go -- from 22 bucks a cubic metre at the high end, on the coast, down to the $5 a cubic metre that was advertised by the NDP when they brought this code in. Clearly, more has to be done. Without substantial reform and streamlining of the Forest Practices Code, this industry is not going to be competitive again.

The government has to face up to it. They have to get beyond the illusions and get down to bread and butter -- get away from phony-baloney things like the jobs and timber

[ Page 10342 ]

With that, I just want to say that the extra costs in the code. . . . They now claim that the environmental goals can be achieved for $300 million a year less. That means that the ministry, in reality, has been penalized a billion dollars over the past three years through unnecessary regulation. This government has a long way to go before it can claim to have taken the necessary steps to get the forest industry back on its feet again.

Hon. G. Clark: Well, I can't let what the member said with respect to the code go unchecked. Your leader said to the truck loggers' convention that he would "kill the code." You stand up here and pretend now, at the last minute, to say that you care about the environment. All you've talked about is: "Get rid of the Forest Practices Code. Cut stumpage. Give business their way. Cut, cut, cut. Don't do parks; don't do anything you're doing. All you should do now is kowtow to the big forest companies and let them have their way." Listen to yourself. It's obvious to everybody watching that that is what you want us to do. I know that you get your major funding from the forest companies in the province; I know that's where you're getting most of your money; 50 percent of your revenue comes from that. But isn't it a little bit obscene that you stand up here and take the big companies' position, clearly at the expense of the environment? You can't have it both ways; I know you try to do that.

We are determined. It will cost the industry money, and we are not going to accomplish everything they want -- that's true -- because we are going to maintain the highest environmental standards. British Columbians demand that and the industry needs that, and they know it, if they want to protect those markets in Europe. We're going to make changes, and we're going to streamline the code as best we can. We're not going to jeopardize standards.

I know that you'll be here demanding that we continue to cut; I know that you'll be here demanding that we get rid of all environmental regulations, because that's all you do. That's all the opposition does. For two years that's all you've done: criticize and criticize and criticize -- the code, Forest Renewal, New Forest Opportunities, the jobs and timber accord -- because you just want to take the side of the forest companies. You don't care about workers or the environment; all you care about is the big forest companies. That's why you're in opposition and will stay there.

G. Campbell: You know, it's incredible to hear the Premier do one of his little rants. I like those three-minute rants he does.

The fact is that once again the Premier is not stating the facts; he is not telling the truth. I think that one of the most important things that has happened to this government is that no one in the province thinks that this Premier tells the truth. It is a serious problem we have in British Columbia. The Premier is absolutely wrong when he suggests that we have said we are going to scrap the Forest Practices Code. If the Premier had. . . . He is welcome to come to any of my speeches that he'd like to come to. The Premier would have heard me say that we need to keep the Forest Practices Code and that we need to keep it on the basis of results. We need to have a results-based code. It's what we said two years ago, three years ago and four years ago. This government said: "No. Let's throw as many regulations on the back of the forest industry as we can."

Let's be clear: this certainly has an impact on forest companies, but the real people that it has an impact on are the people that live in this province, that work in the forest industry -- the 15,500 people who have lost their jobs in forestry in British Columbia in the last year alone.

This government is the government that did not listen to the people who were on the front lines. They did not listen to their own staff people. They did not listen to the people who were involved not just in planting but in harvesting and managing the forests of British Columbia -- all of whom wanted a Forest Practices Code, and all of whom wanted one that would work. But this government knew better. By their own admission, by their own Minister of Forests' admission, they've in fact extracted over a billion dollars from the industry. That's a billion dollars that could go to workers, a billion dollars that could go to jobs, a billion dollars that could go to secure the future of communities. This government took it for no reason, and that's according to their own Forests minister, who says we can make all these changes, we can do this, that and the next thing, and it will save everybody hundreds of millions of dollars, and it will have no effect on standards. That's what we've been saying for years, and I'm glad the government has finally got it. I just hope that they get it right this time, because they haven't in the past. I'd like to go back, though, to the fundamental point. When the Premier gets up and gives a description of what's going on over here, he really should understand what the position of the opposition is before he comments on it.

I want to talk for a minute about re-establishing the public's trust in this government, and I want to deal with a couple of specific issues. This NDP government was elected in 1991, and one of the things they said was that they thought it was time that the people of British Columbia had a government that was as honest and hard-working as the people who live here. That's what they said. They replaced a scandal-ridden government, and unfortunately, they replaced it with a second scandal-ridden government.

When we look at some of the situations, I'd just like to get the Premier's sense of what exactly went on. The other day he said that the way the member for Comox Valley acted was entirely appropriate with regard to her constituency assistant who had written two false letters to the newspapers in the middle of a recall campaign. Let me put together for the chamber what we've been able to gather so far.

In early April the member for Comox Valley was informed by her constituency assistant, Dean Schneider, that he'd written a letter under a fake name, attacking the recall campaign. That letter was published in February under the name Joe Rennek. The MLA then sought advice from the Premier's Office. We are told, at least through some reports, that she dealt with Mr. Adrian Dix, who the Premier identified earlier today as his principal secretary. We often hear of Mr. Dix. We're not ever quite sure whether he communicates with the Premier or not, but we often hear about him.

Another name that comes up is Mary O'Donoghue. Now, I have no idea who Mary O'Donoghue is. First let me ask the Premier if there is anyone in his office whose name is Mary O'Donoghue, employed either now or previously.

Hon. G. Clark: No.

G. Campbell: I assume that there is still someone employed in the Premier's Office named Adrian Dix.

Hon. G. Clark: Yes.

[ Page 10343 ]

[7:15]

In a nutshell, what we have been asked to believe is that the decision to cover up the story was Ms. Gillespie's idea alone, that she overrode the advice of the Premier's Office, that Evan Lloyd, a longtime NDP supporter and insider, knew nothing of Mr. Schneider's firing, that it was never discussed with Ms. Gillespie, that the Premier's Office had nothing to do with the cover-up or the FRBC job. I just don't find that a believable explanation. So my first question to the Premier is: when was the Premier's Office informed of Mr. Schneider's phony letter, and who was it that was informed in his office?

The Chair: Before I recognize the Premier, I'd like to remind the Leader of the Opposition that he should not refer to members by name. He should refer to them by riding.

Hon. G. Clark: The facts are pretty straightforward and have been published. I don't think they've been refuted by anybody. Ms. Gillespie -- sorry, the member for Comox Valley -- was informed that her constituency assistant had written a letter which was published and which did not have his name attached to it. She discussed it with my principal secretary, and she immediately took action and fired him. Those are the facts of the matter. That's what's public, and that's the truth.

Now, Ms. Gillespie -- sorry, the member for Comox Valley -- as an employer had the individual pay the ultimate price of being fired, which is a very significant move by an employer. He was not suspended or given a warning or anything else. The man lost his job, and she then chose not to disclose the terms of his departure. That is quite common in employment standards, in employment law, for employers to do. It's quite common that, when someone leaves your employment and you fire them and they're dismissed, you don't necessarily hold a press conference to tell everybody why. I think that while my staff gave that advice, I certainly respect entirely the decision of Ms. Gillespie -- sorry, the member for Comox Valley. Having taken the significant step of firing an individual over this behaviour. . . . I think that is clearly the end of the matter, as far as I'm concerned.

G. Campbell: Hon. Chair, what I understand took place is that the Premier's principal secretary told the member for Comox Valley to fully disclose what took place. The member for Comox Valley did not simply say: "I'm sorry -- I can't comment." The member for Comox Valley actually told a lie to her local media. She did not say that the gentleman had left her employ and she had no comment; she said that he had left to pursue a career in teaching. Then the same member decided that she was going to try and encourage FRBC, and in fact she pushed FRBC, to hire her former constituency assistant.

Let me remind the Premier of the words of the member for Vancouver-Hastings. She said: "Lying is among the worst crimes the public would judge a politician by." Clearly the member for Comox Valley did not tell the truth to her constituents. The Premier's Office in fact let that go by, having told that member to come clean and tell people what took place. I believe -- maybe I should check this with the Premier -- that the Premier's principal secretary is generally in charge of political matters, as opposed to the deputy minister, who, we know, is totally non-partisan.

Interjections.

G. Campbell: Well, perhaps.

At any rate, the Premier's principal secretary is partisan, plain and simple. Does the Premier's principal secretary not follow up advice that he's giving to Members of the Legislative Assembly from the Premier's party? Was he not involved? Was he not paying any attention to what was taking place during a recall campaign for one of the Premier's members?

Hon. G. Clark: I think it's pretty straightforward. There's nothing more to it. My principal secretary recommended that the political course of action was to fire him and to announce to the world why he was fired and to essentially hang him out to dry. That was the political advice my staff gave. She chose, as an employer, to fire him for inappropriate behaviour, but she chose not to publicly, in a small town, have a press conference and attack her staff person -- having had him pay the ultimate price by being fired by the member.

I totally respect her position. She has acknowledged that perhaps, in retrospect, she should have accepted the political advice, but she chose, in good faith. . . . She's a fundamentally decent person. Everybody knows that, and everybody in Comox and Courtenay knows that. She's a very decent individual. Acting as an employer, she took an extraordinary step to fire her political constituency assistant, and she chose not to publicly humiliate, really, and attack her constituency assistant in the course of that, even though the political advice from my staff was to do so.

G. Campbell: I would suggest to the Premier that the member took political action and that the advice, if indeed the advice she received from the Premier's Office was to fully disclose what had taken place, was the ethical action the member should have taken. There are, I think, some ethical standards that should be followed by the people who are elected in this province, and that's one of them. When a member is asked directly, "Why has your constituency assistant left?" it seems to me that it's not just politically viable but

[ Page 10344 ]

J. Sawicki: Point of order.

G. Campbell: . . .had tried to mislead the constituents.

An Hon. Member: Point of order!

The Chair: The Chair recognizes the member for Burnaby-Willingdon.

J. Sawicki: Hon. Chair, the Leader of the Official Opposition should, by now, know the rules of this House and know that what he has said about another hon. member of this House is unparliamentary. I hope that you will bring him to task and ask him to withdraw that.

The Chair: I would remind the Leader of the Opposition that the conduct of a member cannot be canvassed in debate, nor can charges of a personal nature about character be made, save in a substantial motion on notice. I would remind members of that when they're in debate.

I ask the Leader of the Opposition to withdraw the remarks that were found offensive.

G. Campbell: I didn't hear any request for that. Certainly I'll withdraw remarks, if any member found them offensive.

The Chair: I ask the member for a full withdrawal of the charges that the member was lying.

G. Campbell: Hon. Chair, I am glad to withdraw the remarks that any member found offensive.

The Chair: Continue, hon. Leader of the Opposition.

G. Campbell: What I'm trying to deal with here is whether or not the Premier feels that the actions that were taken were appropriate in that particular case -- whether the officer at the Premier's Office, who was responsible for looking at this and who had been informed of this, in fact carried out his duties the way he should have, and whether or not the Premier feels that it was ethical behaviour on behalf of the member and the members of his staff.

Hon. G. Clark: I have complete confidence in the member for Comox Valley. The member acted entirely appropriately by dismissing the individual. That is a significant step which should not be underestimated. The individual did go. He was teaching at the time she answered that question, and I understand that. She was reluctant to expose the individual to the kind of scrutiny which we, unfortunately, have to endure in public office, but which someone who has just lost their job and who has a family in a small town. . . . She was reluctant to expose those reasons for firing specifically. I think that is entirely legitimate.

Having said that, she has acknowledged it in retrospect and has apologized to her constituents. Clearly the politically right thing to do was to shoot him, to hang him, to attack him, to fire him and to take him on. Instead, she simply did what I respect as a human being. She fired the individual, and then she chose to try not to expose that individual to any ridicule, humiliation or criticism that would take place. She has acknowledged an error in that regard to her constituents, and I have complete confidence in and respect for the member for Comox Valley.

G. Campbell: If the Premier's staff felt it was wrong to cover up this situation, then why did they go along with it when the member clearly was trying to cover it up? There is no question that that took place. If the Premier claims that he didn't know, does he support his principal secretary's decision to keep this whole matter hushed up from the public?

Hon. G. Clark: Look, my principal secretary gave political advice. That's what he does. Part of it was accepted, and part of it was rejected -- and for good human reasons. I respect that. I wasn't part of that discussion or decision, and I have no problem.

I want to ask the Leader of the Opposition: has he never fired a staff person? Does he have a press conference to announce why he fires anybody who works for him? I suggest he does not. Staff have been fired from the Liberal caucus office. We understand that. This is a political business. Nobody's had. . . .

Interjection.

Hon. G. Clark: Well, we don't know if it's for unethical conduct or not. They haven't had a press conference to announce why people are fired.

In any employer-employee relations, in any situation where there is an employer and employees and there is an agreement between parties, whether they part ways or there are suspensions or firings -- and these things happen from time to time -- the correct action, the tough action, is to fire a family person, a friend, a political supporter, a constituency assistant. It's extremely difficult to do, and I personally find it very difficult. She fired him, and that is the end of the matter. That was the significant action that had to take place.

G. Campbell: We've now confirmed that the Premier thinks that the way the member handled the matter was appropriate and that his office thinks that the way the member handled it was appropriate. I think it's a shame whenever we say that it's fine for people to deliberately mislead their constituents. I don't think there's much more that needs to be said with regard to that.

I do think it's critical, however, that we get a little bit more information from the Premier about the involvement of his office. I would assume that since this matter came up, the Premier has at least had a chance to converse with the members of his staff about what their involvement was. Can the Premier tell us whether, at any time, anyone in the Premier's Office has met with Mr. Schneider since April?

Hon. G. Clark: Actually, I don't know the answer to that question, but I don't believe so. I have no knowledge of any meeting, if that's the case.

G. Campbell: Would the Premier be willing to get that information for the House -- whether or not any members of his staff have actually met with Mr. Schneider since April?

Hon. G. Clark: I suppose I could try to find that out, if it's information that's available. As far as I know, the individual was dismissed and was looking for work. He worked as a teacher and applied for a job, for which no money was subsequently paid, at Forest Renewal. . . .

[ Page 10345 ]

[7:30]

Hon. G. Clark: He applied and received a contract for which nothing was ultimately paid.

Interjection.

Hon. G. Clark: And nothing was paid.

The Chair: I'd ask the hon. member for Matsqui, if he wishes to speak, to take the floor.

G. Campbell: I would ask the Premier, as well, if he would be willing to canvass his entire staff to ascertain whether any of the Premier's staff contacted Evan Lloyd or any other FRBC official with regard to the awarding of this job or this contract to Mr. Schneider.

Hon. G. Clark: Look, I'm not going to go on some witch-hunt in my office -- or investigation. I am completely comfortable with the information that has come out with respect to this question. It's over, as far as I am concerned. Forest Renewal awarded a contract for which, subsequently, no work was done; no money was paid out. It's a matter of public record that the member for Comox Valley gave a reference -- which, again, is quite a normal thing for an employer to do from time to time, even an employer who has dismissed or fired someone for cause. These things happen. As no money was paid and the individual was fired immediately upon notification, and as the member is dealing with it and has apologized to her constituents for not acting in what I consider to be a more political fashion, then I think the matter has ended.

G. Campbell: Let me just see if I can understand the Premier's values here. Mr. Schneider was sacked because he lied to the constituents; he misled the constituents. Does the Premier believe that it's okay to sack Mr. Schneider for misleading the constituents, but he doesn't feel that the MLA should be fired for misleading her constituents as well? Why is there a double standard there?

Hon. G. Clark: There is no double standard. The member for Comox Valley acted as an employer, as all of us have done from time to time. She took immediate action and dismissed an individual -- with a family; he lost his job; that is not insignificant -- for something that other people might have tried to cover up. She didn't cover it up. As soon as she was notified that there was a letter to the editor -- which was not a particularly offensive letter -- that he had signed with a different name, she dismissed him. That is the essential matter. She has acknowledged that, in retrospect, she could have handled it differently. She has dealt with that with her constituents. I am completely satisfied with her performance in that regard.

G. Campbell: Hon. Chair, what basically happened was that the Premier's Office was complicit in a cover-up of the MLA misleading her constituents. Let me simply ask the Premier. . . .

Interjections.

The Chair: Opposition Leader, I would ask you to take your seat.

We will not have hon. members saying that other hon. members in the House lied. . . .

Interjections.

The Chair: I'd ask the hon. member for Matsqui, if he has a point, to please take the floor. Otherwise, sit in your seat and stay quiet.

G. Campbell: I assume the Premier's Office is made aware when recall campaigns are launched with regard to MLAs on the government side of the House.

Hon. G. Clark: Yes, I believe so.

G. Campbell: Can the Premier tell me if his principal secretary pays any special attention to those issues, or is it something that he is not ever concerned with?

Hon. G. Clark: No, he doesn't pay particular attention to recall campaigns, unless it's in circumstances where there is particular volatility or initiative. Certainly in the case of Comox Valley, there was absolutely no such concern in my office. We paid no attention to the question, and I say that without fear of contradiction. We were not monitoring it the slightest bit or worried about the issues in Comox Valley with respect to this question. Anybody who knows anything about the area would know that that's the case.

G. Campbell: Well, let me ask about the Premier's Office in terms of all of the recall campaigns -- the recall campaigns in Skeena and in Prince George North. Was his office in any way monitoring, keeping track or involved in the recall campaigns?

Hon. G. Clark: Of course my political staff were monitoring them, but in this case there was not a serious recall effort underway at the time. The individual involved had been, I think, largely discredited in many cases, and no one was even slightly worried about it. We have an outstanding MLA who is doing an outstanding job, and we left it to the local riding association to deal with. There was not any special attention given by my office to the facts or the issue surrounding Comox Valley.

G. Campbell: If we can deal with two specific recall campaigns, one in Skeena and one in Prince George, I assume from the Premier's answer that the Premier's staff was involved in those recall campaigns. Can he tell me to what extent and how often Mr. Dix was involved in the recall campaigns in Prince George and Skeena?

Hon. G. Clark: Mr. Dix has a job in Victoria. He was not involved in the recall campaigns in those ridings. We left it to the local riding association. In fact, one of our key concerns was people with special interests being parachuted in from other regions -- those who were concerned about human rights or concerned about the government's commitments to same-sex legislation, and the like. That was the principal motivation behind it. My principal secretary was not organizing in any way. But clearly he was monitoring, I'm sure, as political staff. Political staff was monitoring the progress of the local organizations and their attempt to fight what was clearly an outrageous attempt to circumvent democracy in those two areas.

G. Campbell: So if I can just confirm, then, the principal secretary did have at least regular contact with the anti-recall campaigns in Prince George and Skeena.

[ Page 10346 ]

G. Campbell: Can the Premier tell me if John Pollard had regular contact with the recall campaigns in Prince George and Skeena?

Hon. G. Clark: I have no idea.

G. Campbell: John Pollard works in the Premier's Office, does he not, hon. Chair? I'd refer you to. . . .

Hon. G. Clark: Yes, he does. He works in the liaison and coordination office.

G. Campbell: I assume that means as executive coordinator in the liaison and coordination office. Would he be involved in political activities?

Hon. G. Clark: It depends on what you mean. He's on the political side of the government operations, but generally, actually, no. He is involved in what might be called. . . . A lot of it is small "p" -- it's coordination, outreach, consultation, boards and. . . .

Interjections.

Hon. G. Clark: This is the unit. I'm giving you a description of what the unit does -- liaison and coordination. I'm sorry, I'm not familiar with his duties within that unit, but the duties of that unit. . . . They also collect information with respect to boards and commissions and the like -- I think they do; at least they used to -- and a variety of issues like that. So they're basically often on the ground liaising with interest groups that want access to government. This is the agency that does all of that kind of work. But I don't know specifically what he does.

G. Campbell: Again to the Premier: in terms of the anti-recall campaigns, were there any campaign decisions or communications materials or other materials that would have been vetted by the Premier's Office as part of those campaigns, which the Premier knows of?

Hon. G. Clark: I actually don't know the answer. We were very careful to ensure that there were no people working, paid for by taxpayers, or in any way active in the campaigns or doing that. But there was obviously constant communication from the political side of the Premier's Office with the campaign itself up there. So it may be that they were asking or sharing ideas, or the like, on what they were doing and giving regular updates. Beyond that general thing, I really don't know.

G. Campbell: In terms of the recall, would there be an officer in the Premier's Office or a specific individual to whom campaign information would be sent -- whether it's advertising or brochures or whatever that would go to the Premier's Office for vetting and approval and checking for facts, etc?

Hon. G. Clark: I don't believe so.

G. Campbell: So basically, what the Premier is telling us is that the Premier's Office really dealt with the recall issue only peripherally, with the possible exception of when he went up to the northern summit and got embroiled in it. Basically, the Premier's Office stayed outside of that, and there was virtually no contact whatsoever with any organizers in the. . . . There was no ongoing or professional advice given to the organizers of the anti-recall campaign.

Hon. G. Clark: I don't know what the member is getting at. I mean, there was obviously ongoing communication. I've already acknowledged that, and that's quite appropriate. But we were conscious of ensuring that if there were staff working in that anti-recall campaign, they were not working for the government -- that they took a leave and all that kind of stuff. I know there was some of that -- not from my office, I don't think. But there were people working on the campaign who were on the political staff of government. We tried to ensure that, and the same is true of my office. There was constant communication; I've already acknowledged that. Because of tracking and what was going on in that case, there was probably lots of advice being given back and forth and information-sharing. But we have a large party operation, and we rely on the party to deal with that. In the recall campaigns in fact, we rely much less on the party and more on the local organization, because we feel strongly that it must be locally based.

M. de Jong: Well, it's that time of the year again, when the Premier and I engage in a little dance that I call the NCHS payback tune. It wasn't that long ago, hon. Chair, that I attended a news release that the then aspirant to the leadership of the New Democratic Party held at a hotel on Broadway. I think it was a Holiday Inn, but I wouldn't disparage any firm unwittingly. It was one of those exciting, historic days in the history of the political life of the province of British Columbia, when the soon-to-be leader of the New Democratic Party and Premier said: "Priority one is that we are going to pay back those charities in Nanaimo. That's my first priority."

Well, I guess at some point I should simply ask the Premier to clarify for the thousands of British Columbians watching and who want confirmation in 1998, over two and a half years later, exactly how much money his party, the party he is leader of, has paid back to those charities in Nanaimo.

Hon. G. Clark: Well, first of all, I want to lay out exactly what I said then and what I say now. There were lotteries held by the party in the 1983 period -- '83-84, I think it was -- and a percentage of that was supposed to go to charity. It went to charity and then came back to the NDP. That has been found to be improper, and it's the subject of charges. The amount of money which should have gone to charity, when you count inflation and everything else, is about $100,000 in today's dollars. We're absolutely committed to paying that back, and we have the money in trust. We've been in discussions to see where the appropriate place is to pay, and because of the legal charges, of course, lawyers are trying to deal with it.

I believe, as I said before, that the only area where the party benefited from the NCHS connection was in these lotteries where there was the use of the NCHS as a charity, but the money came back to the party. That's been canvassed at length, and that's where the party appeared to profit from not acting according to the rules. We intend to pay it back. We also intend, as you know, to have a full public inquiry, which I think is struggling with different legal. . . . I won't disparage lawyers here, especially with my friend across the way, but a lot of legal opinions have been doled out. My strong, personal view at the time -- the member was at that announcement; that was also part of the answer -- and my current view right now is that we should have a full public inquiry into all of these activities, including the activities of other political par-

[ Page 10347 ]

So we have the inquiry. It's been called, and they've been working hard. Unfortunately, I think, they're reconsidering whether to proceed. We have the money in trust in terms of paying back anything that shouldn't have come to the party.

[7:45]

Interjection.

M. de Jong: Well, he adds a qualifier today. He adds the qualifier: "Well, we'll pay back all of those moneys if they can be traced to the NDP." I'm not inclined to be as charitable in trying to ascertain where those moneys improperly taken from charities ended up. I know that this is a terrible, painful subject for members of the government benches, but they have brought that pain upon themselves. I don't want to get bogged down in an accounting exercise that I know the Premier has no interest in dealing with. He has arbitrarily selected a figure that, if nothing else, he thinks will be manageable in limiting his party's liability. Hey, isn't that something this government is good at: limiting their liability retroactively and arbitrarily? They've done it with respect to the NCHS; they're doing it with respect to other charities. People think it's reprehensible with respect to the NCHS, and they think it's reprehensible with respect to all of the other charities that this government has sold down the river.

But I'm a bit confused. I think I understand what is motivating the Premier to take the position he has. He wants to distance himself; he can't. He wants to limit his party's liability, their culpability, but I don't think he can. But I am confused about who he believes is responsible for the theft of these moneys, who he believes is responsible for sullying the good name of the New Democratic Party. He made some comments in the past, particularly when we saw some criminal charges laid several months ago. But the Premier has on occasion reminded us that you can't always believe what you read in the media, so I want to hear from him here, in this House: who was responsible for taking those moneys from the charities in Nanaimo? If it wasn't the NDP, if none of his colleagues are responsible, who is?

Hon. G. Clark: Surely this is the subject of the criminal investigation. The prosecutor is dealing with these questions. The charges that were laid allege who benefited, and they aren't the NDP. In fact, they allege that money was stolen from the NDP as well. The NDP is not a beneficiary of any of this. There are no charges laid against the NDP. The charges around Nanaimo Commonwealth involve individuals and the misappropriation of funds for themselves. The only place where the NDP is culpable is with respect to two lotteries that were run, where money was not stolen from the charity but where a percentage of the profits was supposed to be remitted to charity and was not.

So no, we didn't go and steal from a particular charity. A percentage allocation was supposed to go to a charity of the NDP's choice, and it did not do so. That is the subject of the investigation. That is what I have said the party must pay back, because it did not remit money that it should have remitted to any charity -- that money can go to any charity -- of its choosing. Who is responsible is the subject of a two- or three-year criminal investigation. We now have charges laid, and they don't involve anybody in the government. They don't involve the NDP; they don't involve the party; they don't involve any of that. You can make allegations, but they're just your allegations. All of this investigation has, frankly, exonerated the NDP from stealing from charities, with the exception of the two lotteries that were done. Those are the facts of the matter.

Secondly, if you're not satisfied with that, I've called a full public inquiry with inquiry powers -- subpoena powers and the like -- and with high-powered lawyers. We have nothing to hide, because the NDP did not get any money from these charities; nobody in the government benefited from this. We never profited from it or exploited it. We want it all out on the table so that we can ensure that the NDP name is protected and respected. That's what we're doing. I don't know what the member. . . . He wants to try to sling mud, but it's been so exhaustively investigated by the police and by special prosecutors for years that it's all out there now. The NDP will pay back money that should have gone to charity as the result of two lotteries held in the early 1980s.

M. de Jong: This has been enlightening for at least one reason, because we now know what the Premier doesn't consider to be theft. Here's what he doesn't consider to be theft: when an organization is granted a licence, receives money on the condition that a portion of that money be handed off to a third party, doesn't transfer those funds that it is obligated by law to transfer to that third party, but keeps it for themselves. The Premier says that's not theft. Well, the Premier and I have a fundamentally different opinion of what constitutes theft. "But let's not talk about that," says the Premier. "Let's not talk about it; to dwell on such things constitutes mudslinging. . . ." Well, so be it.

As I recall, it wasn't that long ago -- by this I mean a couple of months ago -- that the Premier had some rather disparaging things to say about Mr. Stupich. Mr. Stupich is one of the individuals charged with 60-odd counts, I think, in the information that's been laid before the courts. The Premier can correct me if I'm wrong, but at one point he was reported to have said that Mr. Stupich wronged charities and wronged the NDP. This gets back to what the Premier was saying about the NDP itself being a victim.

I'm not as prepared as the Premier is to exonerate a party whose chief lieutenant, apparently, the Premier believes was involved in this. I think it can be fairly said that, when the secretary or the assistant secretary or the president or the vice-president of an organization, in his capacity as the person managing that agency, concocts a scheme, he is doing so on behalf of the organization. So let me say, again, that I'm just not prepared to be as charitable when it comes to exonerating the New Democratic Party. I understand that's painful for the Premier.

But to get back to what he said about Mr. Stupich, those words of condemnation were reported to have been said by

[ Page 10348 ]

Hon. G. Clark: These are matters before the courts. Maybe I should defer to the member opposite on these questions, although I hesitate to do so. But I don't want to. . . . If there are guilty parties here, I want them found guilty. Charges have been laid, and I want justice to be done; I want people to be found guilty if they're guilty. I don't want to do anything in this chamber -- or to talk about facts before the court -- which could jeopardize a guilty verdict. I think we have to move very carefully on this question. All the facts are in the information sworn by the prosecutors and by the police with respect to this matter, and I would rather it be dealt with in court, where it belongs. I say again, categorically, that I want to see people who are guilty of theft or wrongdoing found guilty in court, and I await that judgment.

M. de Jong: Maybe what the Premier is saying -- and I don't mean to be too cute about this -- with respect to the individuals who have been charged is that the jury is literally still out, and he doesn't want to be drawn into passing judgment prematurely. But that was not the tenor of his comments when he was confronted by the media with these charges two months ago. Those were not the comments of members of the NDP benches, who were rushing all over themselves, publicly, to cast Mr. Stupich as somehow representing an anomaly, as somehow being disconnected from the New Democratic Party, as somehow representing a black chapter, an anomaly, in the history of that party. That's the message we got publicly, and I think I understand that. I think I understand why: for very political reasons. We know, in the debate between what is political and what is ethical, what is inclined to be uppermost in the Premier's mind, based on the discussion he's just had with the Leader of the Opposition.

But I am having some difficulty understanding the difference when you take those public remarks concerning Mr. Stupich and what members of the NDP are apparently saying privately, because someone sent me an article. There was an NDP fundraiser not so long ago, hon. Chair, about a month ago in Coombs, just up-Island. It's interesting that one of those attending. . .

Hon. I. Waddell: Were you there?

M. de Jong: . . .was the Minister of Agriculture.

The Minister of Small Business asked if I was there. I have discovered a certain inhospitality when I arrive at the door of NDP fundraisers, but I will continue to try.

But what I find puzzling is that in spite of the comments we hear publicly from these members of the government benches, who have tried to distance themselves from Mr. Stupich, the report chronicles comments made by the Minister of Agriculture. It reads: "In his remarks [the Minister of Agriculture] paid tribute to the former Agriculture minister, Dave Stupich. . . . Stupich, who attended the fundraiser, has kept a low profile since he was named on 64 of 66 charges filed early last month in connection with the 'Bingogate' affair." It chronicles his occupying the central role in the scandal involving the funnelling of charity bingo proceeds to the NDP. "But," the reporter, Pat Coppard, says, "he received a warm reception from NDP faithful, including Evans, who praised Stupich [for his past activity]."

So I don't know. Maybe it's not as important to me as it is to people in Nanaimo, who are continuing to wait for the Premier to fulfil his promise to pay them back. On the one hand, we hear members of the government benches abhorring the conduct of the NDP that took place in another time and another place. On the other hand, the person who's at the centre of that scandal. . . . I'm prepared to accept the Premier's desire to await the verdict of the courts. But the person who, at a minimum, was one of the leading members of the party at the time this was taking place is being feted.

[8:00]

Maybe I should try to condense this into one simple, straightforward question. Maybe the Premier can answer me this: will he commit today -- not to the opposition, not to members of this House, but to the people of Nanaimo -- that he will ascertain, one, whether Dave Stupich actually bought a ticket to attend the fundraiser, and two, how much he paid for the ticket? Will he commit to at least pay that money back to the charities in Nanaimo? Will he at least pay the 50 bucks he got from Dave Stupich back to the charities that were ripped off in Nanaimo?

G. Campbell: It didn't sound to me like too much to ask, but evidently it was too much to answer.

I want to go back. This issue of ethics in government is clearly one that this government has been struggling with for some time, particularly this government that is currently before the courts in a case of electoral fraud. I have a couple of questions to ask with regard to that. Can the Premier tell us how much money the government has spent to date on defending the electoral fraud case that has been brought forward by Mr. Stockell?

Hon. G. Clark: I'm sorry, I don't know the answer to that. Has the government spent. . . ? I don't know if the government is spending any money defending it. If they are, I'd be happy to provide. . . . Clearly it's public information. But I have no idea.

G. Campbell: I'd appreciate it if we could get that. I understand that the government is in fact involved in that. The taxpayers are involved in it; let me put it that way. The taxpayers are involved in that case, in terms of defending the case.

But let me just talk briefly about the incidents that brought up the electoral fraud case in 1996. As the Premier will know, the auditor general has been working for two full years now on uncovering the truth about the 1996 budget. The Premier campaigned on having a balanced budget for two successive years. The report of the auditor general is sup

[ Page 10349 ]

My question to the Premier is: if the auditor general finds that members of this government knew or hid until after the election the fact that there would be a deficit, will the Premier resign immediately and call an election so the people of British Columbia can make a decision on what the government's actions were?

Hon. G. Clark: It's getting quieter in here.

It's a hypothetical question which I have no intention of indulging in, because it's simply ridiculous. There's no fraud; I don't take this seriously. It's what I consider to be a frivolous court case. I'm not the slightest bit worried about the auditor general's report, because it's quite obvious and transparent how budgets are deliberated. Our gross budget estimates were the same as the Liberal opposition's during the election campaign. We were both wrong. The economy clearly was worse than projected, and that's why we have a fiscal challenge to deal with. So I'm not worried about it, and it will come out in due course. You can debate it at that time. But I'm not going to engage in "What if this, what if that."

G. Campbell: One of the problems we have -- and I think the people in the province have -- is that what took place in 1996 was beyond politics in terms of peoples' interpretation of it. In case the Premier hasn't paid attention to this and his political adviser hasn't told him, 75 percent of the people in this province believe that this government lied about the budget in 1996. That does not establish trust between the people of the province and the government.

If we're trying to build a stronger economy, you have to establish trust. People have to believe both what the Finance ministry and what the government tell them, within constraints. I think for awhile people used to think that when they received budgets from the province. . . . At one time we had a Finance ministry that was considered to be one of the finest in Canada. They used to believe that the numbers or figures they got were in fact the best that people could do.

I'm not discussing the court case here; I'm discussing the auditor general's case. The auditor general feels this is significant enough that it deserves a review. The courts, by the way, believe this is a significant enough thing that the courts are taking time on this. It is not an insignificant and trivial suit.

But if the auditor general finds that any members of the Premier's staff or any political entities knew that there was going to be a substantial deficit and in fact imposed their political will to withhold that information from the public, would the Premier be willing to say that they will at least fire the people who are accountable for that? I believe the Premier should be willing to say: "Yes, of course I will, because we do have to establish trust in the Ministry of Finance." Will he at least fire the people who have been directly involved in covering the true situation with regard to the province's finances in 1996?

Hon. G. Clark: Obviously I don't accept the premise of your question. There's been no cover-up whatsoever. These are normal variations in revenue estimates, which are consistent with past practice. That will be exactly what happens. If the auditor general makes recommendations to improve the accuracy or the range of forecasts, then I'd be delighted, and that's what we'll try to implement. But it's just a ridiculous attempt to undermine the government. The range of difference in that budget and the next budget is consistent with the last ten or 15 years of budget ranges, including the few years previously. So that's the evidence, and I'm not the slightest bit worried about it. If certain things happen when the auditor general's report comes out. . . . Clearly I hope they can shine some light with respect to how we can improve the estimates process and how we can improve the transparency of the process. We will do our best to implement them. If they make recommendations or criticize people, obviously I'll have to deal with it at that time.

G. Campbell: Surely the Premier is not expecting the House or the people of British Columbia to believe that it is standard budgetary procedure to receive reports from people within the Finance ministry saying there is going to be a massive deficit, and discover, within three days of the Premier being elected leader, that $800 million in new dollars have suddenly been discovered out of the blue to cover that deficit up. Surely the government doesn't operate that way today. I would hope the Premier would say it was wrong for them to operate that way in the past.

[P. Calendino in the chair.]

Let me clarify this matter. At that time, a gentleman by the name of Mr. Gunton was acting on behalf of the Premier with regard to the budget preparation process. Is that not correct?

Hon. G. Clark: I'm not sure what the member is talking about. There was a period of time when the budget was being prepared, and I was campaigning to be leader of the NDP and to become Premier of the province. I wasn't even around here, so I don't know. I'm sure Mr. Gunton was acting the way he always acts as a senior person working in the government.

G. Campbell: I guess the question. . . . Let me ask the Premier this: can the Premier stand in the House today and definitely say that Mr. Gunton didn't know that there was going to be a budget deficit and didn't in fact direct Finance officials on how they were supposed to increase revenues for government?

Hon. G. Clark: Mr. Gunton, as I recall, was a Deputy Minister of Environment. There's a budget process that takes place, and I'm sure that he was involved in it.

We've canvassed this in the past, but the truth of the matter is -- and we do expect people to believe this -- that there are various scenarios for future revenue in government, and there are all kinds of estimates and different competing views. The Minister of Finance makes the decision as to what to put in the budget, and it's always wrong, by several hundred million dollars, because that's the nature of forecasts. In fact, in the year prior to calling the election, it was $700 million better than was forecast in the budget. Then in the year of the election, it was few hundred million dollars short of what was forecast in the budget. That is in fact the truth, and that is how budgets work. The budget we've just passed in the House today will be wrong. We do the best we can to come in under budget, and we do the best we can to forecast. It's based on assumptions of economic growth, and they're often wrong by $700-800 million at different ends of the cycle. That's the reality, and that's what I'm sure the auditor general will find out.

That's what happens in every province in Canada. That's what happens in the national government. I do think there are

[ Page 10350 ]

I'm very hopeful that the auditor general will examine that and see if there are ways that we can be more transparent about the range of options that government has to choose and maybe be more explicit in public about them, so people know these are estimates that we pass, and we do the best we can to come in on budget.

G. Campbell: I think the documentation is pretty clear that Mr. Gunton sat with Finance officials and told them that the revenues were not satisfactory and that it was necessary to have a politically balanced budget. That's one of the reasons that these concerns have been generated. Let me just get the Premier clearly. . . . He can give me a one-word answer. Is the Premier denying that Mr. Gunton actually pressured Finance officials to increase revenues so that the government could claim to have a balanced budget in 1996?

Hon. G. Clark: The Ministry of Finance is a highly professional organization. It has a good reputation today, as it had then. I completely respect their professionalism and the advice that came forward. At the end of the day, the person. . . .

Interjection.

Hon. G. Clark: I wasn't party to what the member is talking about. I was running for the leadership of the NDP. I had no knowledge of the inner workings of what was happening at that time with the then Minister of Finance, Elizabeth Cull, and the staff involved.

I can assure you that the Minister of Finance makes the decision as to what forecast is put in the budget. They're transparent; in fact, they're out for public discussion. They were consistent with the growth forecast that we had and consistent with the Liberal Party growth forecasts, and we were all wrong.

G. Campbell: You know, whenever the Premier is dealing with these political things, he claims to have no knowledge about them. I don't think very many people in British Columbia think that this Premier is not political or isn't interested in politics. This was after the Premier was elected leader of his party. This was when Mr. Gunton was clearly identified as one of his chief political advisers. It's been clearly identified that Mr. Gunton sat with Finance officials and told them that their revenue projections were not good enough and that they needed to balance the budget. Again, all I'm asking for is a yes or a no. Is the Premier denying that Tom Gunton pressured Finance ministry officials to inflate the revenue projections for 1996? Just a yes or a no.

Hon. G. Clark: I was elected, I think, in February, and the budget came in, in March -- something like that. If you're suggesting that during this period, my staff was pressuring anybody, the answer is no. In fact, I was getting ready, I think, for an election, if you'll recall. We were busy making announcements every week, I think. We were working pretty hard on it. I'm sure the budget was by and large put to bed before February. That's normally the case. The Minister of Finance had that in hand, and she was managing it. As it turned out, the previous year ended up having a deficit because of an unforeseen revenue drop. The following year was based on the previous numbers, and it turns out that that was overly optimistic because of the growth forecasts.

G. Campbell: I remember the previous year. The previous year the Finance officials said there was going to be a significant deficit and that if the government didn't act, there was going to be an even larger deficit in the 1996 budget. I remember the Finance officials sitting down with Mr. Gunton, after the Premier had been elected leader of the party. The only question I have is whether or not the Premier can deny that Mr. Gunton did that. If the Premier says: "I can't deny it. . . ." I just can't believe he doesn't know; Mr. Gunton was actively involved in his political campaign.

Let me ask the Premier another question. Surely the Premier would be concerned about this. If Mr. Gunton didn't pressure Finance officials, who was it that decided, in the two or three days after the Premier had been elected leader of the party, that they were going to add $800 million to the revenue stream that was supposedly coming into the government, when we already knew that forest revenues were down, other revenues were down and there had been a consistent pattern of Finance officials saying they were going to face a deficit in 1996?

[8:15]

Those numbers went in the budget. We had a whole election on it. Nobody questioned it -- not a business group, not a private sector group, not an economic forecaster. They all looked at the budget and said: "The economic growth numbers upon which they're based seem reasonable." We had a whole campaign on it. They turned out to be wrong. She chose an overly optimistic forecast. That's the fact of the matter. The staff make a range of recommendations. The Minister of Finance uses her or his judgment to decide which one to go with. Sometimes they're more conservative; sometimes they're more optimistic.

M. de Jong: I just have a quick series of questions -- hopefully quick -- that the Premier can assist me with. I was looking at part of the org chart of the office of the Premier that was tabled today. I don't know if I can identify this: "Office of the Premier: paylist 04-034, Ministry of Finance and Corporate Relations." I don't know if that assists. It begins with the Premier, and at the bottom it lists secretary, executive council, director of government ops, executive secretary, and an assistant deputy minister with the name of Brenda Edwards. I think I've had occasion to meet Ms. Edwards, and I'll explain the context of the meeting. She's identified here as assistant deputy minister. When I met with her, she was identified to me as legal counsel to the Premier's Office, I believe. The Premier will know that. . . .

Interjection.

[ Page 10351 ]

My question is: is Ms. Edwards now assistant deputy minister, and does she maintain responsibility as legal counsel to the Premier?

Hon. G. Clark: We've had a position in the Premier's Office for some time, which I'm pretty sure predates my arrival, of legal adviser to the Premier's Office. We have promoted Brenda Edwards to assistant deputy minister. She's still responsible for giving legal advice as well as other related matters or assignments that we might give her. For example, she's been involved in the aboriginal file a little bit. She was involved in the Ministry of Aboriginal Affairs in assisting, not really in negotiations, but in giving advice on legal/aboriginal questions.

M. de Jong: I want to do this as expeditiously as possible. Lest there be any doubt, Ms. Edwards represented herself as extremely competent counsel in her capacity as adviser to the Premier's Office. I am curious about this: I have been the subject of a complaint -- several years ago, before the conflict-of-interest commissioner -- and of other matters that have involved hints of litigation or actual litigation. The irony is that when that happens to me, or if it happens to the member for Shuswap or the member for Vancouver-Little Mountain, we have to get a lawyer. I'm a bit confused as to the criteria by which the taxpayers provide legal counsel to the Premier or to members of the executive council. I'm a bit confused about that.

Hon. G. Clark: First of all, she acts in the capacity not as legal counsel, but as legal adviser, and she's a staff member. Around the cabinet operations office, we often need legal advice on a variety of factors. That's what she does. If there is a conflict allegation or otherwise involving members of the executive council, we ask her advice on conflict-of-interest questions as well. Hopefully, we ask for that advice before there's any conflict, so she's giving advice on conflict questions from time to time, when it's needed.

In this case, when there was an allegation made before me, I asked her not as my lawyer, but as a legal adviser to the executive council and to my office, to act as a staff person to represent my interests.

M. de Jong: At what point, then, does that role change from one of staff representative to one of legal counsel? I think I understand what the Premier is saying. Nonetheless, if I or any member of the opposition were placed in a position where we were obliged by a complaint involving our conduct as private members of this Legislative Assembly -- because that's what the conflict-of-interest act. . . . There could be other circumstances that I can envisage. I think it is important to know at what point the members of cabinet or members of the government back bench are in a position to avail themselves of legal assistance free of charge and at what point the obligation to retain counsel individually kicks in.

Maybe the Premier wants to make the argument that all members should have access in these circumstances to legal counsel at the taxpayers' expense. I'm not sure that's the correct position, but maybe that is the position he is advocating. I think it's a bit convenient for him, however, to try to draw an artificial distinction between her role as an adviser and her role as counsel. It seemed abundantly clear to me that she was acting in her capacity as legal counsel and doing so quite competently.

Hon. G. Clark: I was talking while you were speaking, because I just wanted to make sure I was correct in my understanding of this. There has been a policy in government for decades, and the advice from my deputy and our understanding is that this is consistent really across governments and probably has been for 100 years. For members of the executive council who need a lawyer, the government hires a lawyer on their behalf. The policy of the government of British Columbia, which has existed for many years, is that if you're found guilty of an offence, then you must pay your legal fees. So you have the protection. . . . The Crown engages lawyers to represent members of cabinet and the executive council in any matter, frankly, for which they are sued.

As members may know, Doug Christie is suing me. So we have a lawyer, paid for by the government, defending me. I'm not being sued by Doug Christie. He's the lawyer representing somebody; I don't know who it is now. There are a couple of other legal cases right now where people are, I think, indirectly subpoenaing me or something, so I have legal counsel paid for by the government. That is consistent with all governments across Canada.

With respect to Brenda Edwards, she's not legal counsel. She is a legal adviser and an assistant deputy minister in the Premier's Office. She was representing me not as a lawyer but as a staff person at this level. If the conflict commissioner had ruled that it was required to go to, say, a hearing or something and I needed legal counsel, then the Attorney General's ministry would have hired a lawyer to represent me in that action. That's not a new policy; that's not something we've done. It's the policy that has existed in government for many years.

G. Campbell: One last area I'd like to cover on this is that we know the government has had some difficulty with what is traditionally known as ethical conduct. The government has had a minister direct his lawyer to interfere with a court case and call a judge without other lawyers being involved. We've had ministers and the Premier's Office call quasi-judicial bodies.

The Premier's Office did a report dated December 1996. It was actually prepared by the deputy minister to the Premier. In that report, this is what is said: "Ministers cannot and should not be expected to work in an environment where they can be found guilty of a career-threatening transgression, but for which there is confusion about what actually constitutes such a transgression. This situation must be corrected immediately by developing specific and unambiguous guidelines on this question, and it is my intention to do so on a priority basis." That was written in December 1996; I believe the memorandum was done December 19, 1996. My question to the Premier is: have those specific and unambiguous guidelines on the question been developed?

Hon. G. Clark: Regrettably, the answer is no. Work was done on such guidelines, and then it was set aside when other pressing work took place.

M. de Jong: Why didn't you say that in question period when you were asked?

Hon. G. Clark: I don't know the answer to that; I probably didn't know the answer at the time.

Work is continuing on the guidelines, but we have not produced them at this time. The truth is that in a general sense, common sense prevails on these questions. But it is obviously preferable to have specific guidelines, and they're being worked on.

[ Page 10352 ]

G. Campbell: With all due respect to the House Leader, it was more than two years ago that this was. . . .

It was important at the time. Once again, I guess the Premier's political adviser told them it was important, and I'm sure you weren't sure what was happening: "We just got a report, and it got filed in the waste-paper basket somewhere." But it is important to note that. . . . This was an issue that must have generated a significant amount of concern from the Premier's Office. There is -- I'll just check here -- a 16-page report written by the deputy to the Premier.

Interjection.

G. Campbell: Yeah, but good reports are worth very little if in fact they're not acted on. Good ideas are worth nothing if they're not acted on.

Can the Premier tell us whether this report will be completed in the next month, the next two months, the next year and a half? When will the Premier demand that the deputy to the Premier deliver on his commitment to provide clear, specific, unambiguous guidelines to cabinet ministers?

Hon. G. Clark: As soon as possible. It was a very good report, and it was acted on. But one of the things coming out of the report was specific guidelines, and they have not been completed, but they will be completed as soon as possible.

G. Campbell: I really do think it's important that some of these ethical issues be dealt with and that they be dealt with quickly and -- to use the deputy minister to the Premier's words -- on a priority basis. That means they're not put off for two years because there are other things going on; it means they get dealt with. That, I believe, would clear up a number of concerns.

There's another report that is being prepared today by the auditor general. I guess I would like a commitment from the Premier tonight that he will in fact bring forward and act on the recommendations of the auditor general's report on the problems that took place in 1996 surrounding the budget. Is the Premier willing to give us a commitment today that he will act on the auditor general's recommendations?

Hon. G. Clark: First of all, we have to see the auditor general's recommendations. But in general, I take very seriously all of the auditor general's reports, and we try to respond to them. In this case, I'm quite confident of the facts of the matter, so the question would be: are there useful recommendations that can improve the budgeting estimates process? I think there probably will be, and I certainly commit to implementing them if there are. But we obviously need to see what recommendations they make before we can make such an unequivocal commitment to implement them.

G. Campbell: I'm sure the auditor general's report will only make recommendations which make the reporting and the development of the budget more open, more honest and more straightforward for the public, and I would hope that the Premier would move forward with that.

I want to deal with two other specific reports, specific activities around this, before I move on to my last topic. Two years ago, during our estimates, the Premier pointed out that he knew that the new Auditor General Act was being prepared, and he was ready to move forward with it. That was in 1996. My question to the Premier is: when does the Premier expect to see the new Auditor General Act brought before the Legislature to modernize our Auditor General Act so that the people of British Columbia can have a sense of confidence again that we are reporting and carrying out our financial obligations to them in an appropriate manner?

[8:30]

G. Campbell: Since the Premier agrees that we need to modernize the Auditor General Act and the opposition agrees we need to modernize the Auditor General Act, I have a suggestion for the Premier: why don't we take the conflict, whatever it is, that have meant for the last two years that we don't have a modernized Auditor General Act, and have Finance officials and the auditor general and Public Accounts discuss it, make some decisions and get on with modernizing the Auditor General Act? It certainly shouldn't be taking two years. At some point there has to be a decision made. Let's have the government make a decision, and if the government needs assistance, let's have the Public Accounts Committee make some decisions so we can bring this forward to the next sitting of the Legislature. Would the Premier agree to that kind of a process?

Hon. G. Clark: I gather that Public Accounts has made recommendations for changes to the Auditor General Act, and they're being incorporated into the draft. I will certainly take that under consideration. I think it's a good idea to involve the Public Accounts Committee. They've done good work -- the Chair in particular. I think we clearly will have a target for trying to bring in new legislation for next year.

G. Campbell: Hon. Chair, one last report. When the B.C. Hydro report was done on the debacle with the Raiwind project, the report recommended that guidelines for Crown corporations and senior staff and board members be developed for conflict of interest. That report also was two years ago now. Again, I say to the Premier: isn't it time that we brought forward those guidelines? Will he commit to bringing forward those guidelines so we can change the conflict-of-interest act and we don't have the kinds of problems taking place that we've seen in the last couple of years with B.C. Hydro?

Hon. G. Clark: Yes, and there has been a lot of work done on that. The work is in progress, and the Crown corporations secretariat has it. I have just been advised that they're coming forward in the near future for ratification.

[ Page 10353 ]

G. Campbell: I think, with regard to that, hon. Chair, that it would be a good idea for the public to actually know what those recommendations are and how we're moving forward with them. Again, that's surely something that all members of the House agree on. There should be areas of legislation where we can move forward relatively quickly -- bring those pieces of legislation in early in the next session and get them dealt with.

I'd now like to move to one last issue with the Premier. One of the issues that has come up over the last week. . . . Well, it has been with us for some time, but in the last week we had the announcement of the Nisga'a treaty coming forward. I have some questions for the Premier with regard to the public campaign that he is planning for that.

As I'm sure the Premier knows, 78 percent of the people in British Columbia feel that they have not been included enough in these discussions. They feel that it is important that they all have a say in what's taking place. I would assume, partly in response to that, that the Aboriginal Affairs Committee was charged with going out and holding hearings across the province in dozens of communities. They talked to hundreds of people, getting public feedback on what was known at that point as the agreement-in-principle. Last year during estimates the Premier promised that he would provide a full response to each of the recommendations made in the entire report, including the minority report. He said that the report would be forthcoming last fall.

I can tell the Premier that one of the things I believe is holding things up is that when the Premier says that, it's legitimate for people in the opposition -- and more importantly, the public -- to believe that it's going to happen. Nothing like that happened. The Premier said, and I'll quote directly: "We will produce a formal response to the committee's recommendations, including the minority report, for public discussion."

My first question is: is there going to be an official response? Is the response that the Premier promised going to be prepared on all of the recommendations in the report, including the recommendations in the minority report?

Hon. G. Clark: That's a question which would be better asked of the Aboriginal Affairs ministry during estimates. Clearly the Aboriginal Affairs minister was charged with the responsibility of responding.

Work has been done. I don't know the answer. It's been the intention of the government, as I stated last year, to give a full response, and we've. . . . Again, there's nothing. It's an excellent report. It's not a particularly controversial report except for the minority recommendations -- an excellent report. It's been adopted in principle by the government in a general sense.

So the question is: is there a specific document going through the details? As I said, that has been the intention of the government. But the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs has responsibility for that. You should ask him.

G. Campbell: Two things: first of all, I believe the Premier is responsible for the entire government. I thought we had a relatively open discussion with regard to this last year with the Premier of British Columbia. It was at that time that the Premier committed to having a free vote with regard to the Nisga'a treaty. He didn't say at that time: "Sorry, I don't want to discuss that. Talk to the Aboriginal Affairs minister."

Just to put it in context for the Premier, I've asked the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs questions with regard to the Nisga'a treaty. He stands and says: "I'm sorry. I don't know what's in it." So that doesn't help us very much, which is why we come to the Premier during his estimates and ask: "Will you commit. . . ?"

You know, effectively, what's happened is that the undertaking you gave us last year has not taken place. You basically broke your promise to us with regard to that. I believe it's important that when we do have those commitments, they come forward and we get that information. There may be questions that are still out there in the public that have been answered by that response. It has not taken place. I'm one of those people who thinks that the people of this province want to resolve these issues. They want to move forward on these issues. But they also insist on being included.

If I can go to the Premier's proposed $2.3 million information campaign with regard to the Nisga'a treaty, for us to move forward, for the people of this province to make an open decision and for the members of the Legislature to have the opportunity to have a free vote -- which is, after all, about reflecting the views of their constituents, the views of people in the regions of the province they live in, to be active, open and upfront about it -- isn't it necessary that all the aspects of the treaty, the concerns and disagreements about the treaty, should be fully canvassed through that program? Does the Premier expect the $2.3 million program to be, basically, the government selling the treaty? Will there be opportunity for people with concerns to reflect those concerns so the public can at least consider those? Will there be opportunities for us to have public meetings where those things are fully debated and discussed as we go through the fall of 1998?

Hon. G. Clark: I'm certainly open to any suggestions the Leader of the Opposition might make with regard to ensuring that this is fully canvassed in its detail. We intend for any advertising to be a clear information campaign, you know, with phone numbers to get more information, including the actual treaty, summaries of the treaty and the like. We are obviously supportive of the treaty, so in any information we put out, we'll be trying to dispel what we think are myths or criticisms of the treaty. But we will try to be as balanced and fair as we can with respect to that.

Just to put it sort of more crudely, we're not going to try to have some kind of slick advertising campaign to gloss over this and sell people on this treaty; that's not my intention. That's not what the money's for. The money is to provide detailed information to all British Columbians, including those of goodwill who disagree with elements of the treaty.

If the Leader of the Opposition has suggestions, for example, for funding public hearings or public meetings or things like that, if that's what I'm hearing in his remarks, I'd be more than happy to take them under consideration. We're very proud of the treaty. We know that it's complex and that it requires full discussion. We look forward to that discussion. It's very important for the future of the province.

So I want to make sure that this commitment is not undermined, if you will, by a kind of phony advertising

[ Page 10354 ]

I might just say, while on this subject, that members of the House know, I think, that I have had meetings with religious leaders in the province. I have had a couple of meetings on the Nisga'a treaty with religious leaders of many faiths on this question -- not to ask them to support the Nisga'a treaty, but to ask them to be involved in engaging their congregations in the discussion of documentation. So we're working with several of the religious groups -- and I think a committee formed of religious leaders -- on information kits which they will put out to their congregations. So this must be and needs to be a broad-based discussion and dialogue amongst British Columbians which sheds more light than heat on what could be a very divisive and difficult debate for the province. I'm very open to any suggestions the Leader of the Opposition or members of the opposition have about how we can further engage in the debate.

G. Campbell: One of the things I think is critical is that we don't want this debate to be divisive; we want it to be informative. For it to be informative, I believe the concerns about and criticisms of the treaty have got to be given at least a fair balance in terms of the information that is brought forward. The issue that I would ask the Premier about is this. We have a committee, the Select Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs, which is an all-party committee. Would the Premier be willing to review the information package with the select standing committee so that they can be part of that, so that the issues that have been raised in the minority report and by people across this province are fully canvassed, so that the citizens of this province, who I have a great deal of trust in in terms of looking at the agreement and deciding whether or not this Nisga'a template is in fact what they want to support, have an opportunity to hear both sides of the argument fully canvassed -- in fact, engage people in that debate? I believe that if we don't engage in the debate, we will not create long-term understanding and the necessary approach for a long-term resolution of these aboriginal issues. The last thing we want is for people to say that this was imposed on them -- that they weren't consulted, as the Premier has said.

The question to the Premier is: would the Premier be willing to allow the select standing committee to oversee and control the information campaign so that critics' concerns about the Nisga'a deal can be fairly and equally presented?

Hon. G. Clark: No, I don't think that's the right approach, but I am interested in better answers. I mean, I'd like to take some time to consider that, but my instinct is to say no. Frankly, I would rather give government resources to critics like the Leader of the Opposition, for example, who apparently feel strongly about elements of this, so that they could do advocacy campaigns, if you will. I don't want to have a situation where we're trying to do consensus-model communications. I'd rather ensure that there is advocacy and allow that public debate. I'd be open to suggestions, but I really don't like a kind of cumbersome suggestion that. . . . And I really don't like the government -- or I wouldn't feel comfortable pursuing, even in the interest of fair debate -- being party to advertising which recognizes the legitimacy of some of the critics' views on this matter.

[8:45]

Can the Premier tell us whether he is aware if the federal government is spending any money as part of an information campaign? Or has that been left entirely to the province of British Columbia?

Hon. G. Clark: I don't know the answer as to how much money they'll be spending, but they clearly will be spending some money. We've discussed with the federal government the cost-sharing of publications. We want to make sure that people get access to the treaty, the full treaty and summaries of the treaty. So I think the federal government has agreed to cost-sharing of printing and publication of materials and the like, but I don't know whether they'll be engaging in any advertising or otherwise around it. I do think there will be some. I've talked to the Prime Minister about this. He was initially the Minister of Indian Affairs who began the Nisga'a process. He feels very committed to and very supportive of the treaty. We've been working together, if you will, on this for some time. I have talked to him about ensuring that his voice and the federal government's voice are heard in British Columbia as part of this debate, and I know he's committed to doing that. Will they be spending money? The answer is yes. How much? I don't think it'll be that much, but I don't know the answer.

G. Campbell: I want to be clear that I understand this. The initial part of your response was that they would be helping with printing and presentation material. Is that part of the $2.3 million program, or would that be on top of the $2.3 million program?

Hon. G. Clark: I believe it's on top. The $2.3 million is what we've allocated; that's the provincial government allocation. We may get some cost-recovered funds with joint publications, but we'll probably reallocate them. That's our share; I don't know what their share is.

G. Campbell: There's one last issue that I'd like to quickly canvass with the Premier. That's the whole issue of freedom of information. One of the things that I believe is critical in an open, democratic community is that information that is paid for by the public be made available to the public. One of the things that's happening -- and there's a great amount of concern about it in the general public -- is the closing of the door of openness that was supposedly opened with the Freedom of Information Act back in 1991 or '92.

[W. Hartley in the chair.]

My question to the Premier is: is he willing to roll back the costs that citizens pay for the information that is rightfully theirs and that they've already paid for once? Is he willing to open up government so that we in fact at least provide individuals with the opportunity to understand what's taking place with the information that's generated by their own tax dollars? Surely that is a critical component of allowing an

[ Page 10355 ]

Hon. G. Clark: Well, we are true to the principle of open government. Let's be clear about what happened. We have the broadest freedom-of-information legislation in the country, by a large margin -- the most open of any government in Canada. In 1991, when we brought it in -- I believe it was '91. . . . It is truly landmark legislation across the country.

It has proven to be dramatically more expensive than was anticipated. Whole bureaucracies are being set up to implement the Freedom of Information Act. That was never contemplated. What we want to do is change the structure of government to ensure that everything is open and transparent, as the act implies. There are no onerous charges applied to individuals who seek personal information, but we did find that political parties, media outlets and interest groups were costing the taxpayers millions of dollars -- this is not an exaggeration -- on exhaustive searches involving personnel.

So we try to do two things. One is to move to reasonable cost-recovery for interest groups and very modest fees, if any, for individuals seeking personal information. Secondly, we've dramatically cut the bureaucracy and budgets associated with implementing freedom-of-information legislation. We haven't finished that. I hope we cut more from freedom-of-information implementation budgets. We had a large implementation budget to try to change the systems so they'd be accessible to the public. What's happened is that now it's gotten even larger in order to implement it. We need to get back to a low-cost administration and more open government. That's what we're attempting to do with these changes.

G. Campbell: I believe that when the bill was brought in, it did have the right intent. But let me explain to the Premier what has actually taken place, because it would be hard for him to know since he's in government as opposed to one of the groups that's trying to find out what's taking place in government. What almost happens now is that you can call a ministry official and ask for the day of the week, and they'll say: "Well, submit that request as a freedom-of-information request." It would be very easy to reduce the cost of freedom of information, if information would just start flowing again. In fact, information is not flowing, information is dammed up. It's almost like there's a sort of bunker mentality.

To give the Premier one idea, I know that members of the Chinese media applied for information with regard to gambling. It took one person 35 hours to sever the information that they didn't want the Chinese media to get. Now, that doesn't make any sense to me. Why not just give them the information? In fact, if you were free with the information, I think you'd find that a lot less information got out, because there'd be so much information. The government is generating tons of information every year, and people do have a right to receive it.

It seems to me that the critical thing here is, once again, for the government to understand that this is not about the opposition. The opposition is not behind the campaign for open government; political parties are not behind the campaign for open government. It is citizens in the province of British Columbia that are behind the campaign for open government. I would hope that the Premier will take that into consideration and start reducing costs. Believe it or not -- I'm sure this is hard for the Premier to believe -- I don't like everything the media writes either. But it seems to me that one of the most important things we can do in a democracy is provide those people with information when it's properly requested, without creating barriers, without creating hurdles over which people have to jump. That is what is taking place, and I think it's a trend in the wrong direction. It does not work for the people of British Columbia. It does not work for government, and it doesn't work to really reinvigorate our public institutions.

There are a number of things that I think we do need to do to reinvigorate our public institutions, to re-establish trust in our public institutions. Freedom of information is really one of the easier ones. It's direct; it's simple. It says simply: make information available when people request it, as opposed to trying to stop them and sending them large bills to get the simplest information.

There are a couple of other things, though, that I think we need to do. We have to look at the recall legislation and make it work better for the people that live in this province. We have to make sure that we understand that recall is there for citizens to hold MLAs to account. It seems to me that one of the things we should learn from the recall campaigns is that they are far too onerous. They are far too difficult, and I believe it's critical that we look at improving those. I'm sure the Premier may have some thoughts on that.

I want to talk about two specific issues. One is the issue of referenda, and the other is initiatives. One of the things I found is that people feel less and less connected with government. Instead of the government seemingly acting on behalf of the majority of people and making life better for the majority of people, they feel that it's making life worse. They feel that this place is a sort of opaque institution. It's a place that they can't get into, that they can't find access to. My question to the Premier is: is the Premier going to move forward with new initiatives to improve the initiative legislation and referenda legislation, so people in the province can feel more connected, more actively involved in the government and governance of British Columbia?

Hon. G. Clark: In British Columbia we are pioneering referenda legislation in all quarters, and we are pioneering initiative legislation and recall legislation. So we've been pioneering ahead of everybody on this. The question is: do we need to do more? We're already in the forefront of any Commonwealth country on these questions. I don't know the answer. I think that the hurdle for referendum or initiative should be very high; I don't think you want them sort of willy-nilly. I think the hurdle rate is high, but it does provide the opportunity, and people can pursue opportunity around that.

The same is true for things like referenda. This is the only place in Canada -- at least we were initially -- to have a referendum on constitutional change. We have effectively changed the climate on these questions across the country, because of those decisions taken by this chamber. I think we have a pretty good record on trying to experiment with these kinds of ideas. They've been implemented only for a short time, and I think we should let them play out a little longer before we try to make any radical changes.

G. Campbell: I think it is time not for radical changes but for changes to make sure that initiative, referenda and recall all work for the people of the province of British Columbia, and clearly that is not the case.

Let me close by simply pointing out again a little problem with the Premier's Office. He was just commenting to me,

[ Page 10356 ]

An Hon. Member: We did pay.

G. Campbell: . . .and did pay the $92.50, and we never got the briefing book. Now, that's the kind of service delivery that we have to try and overcome.

The way we can save fully $92.50 is for the Premier to hand over his briefing book to us this evening at the end of his estimates, so that we don't have to go through either the correspondence, the request, the cutting of the cheque or any of those overwhelming administrative costs which are closing down government. So I would simply ask the Premier tonight: will you commit to giving us the copy of your briefing book as you leave the chamber this evening?

Hon. G. Clark: Hon. Chair, I apologize. But I will not commit to giving it as I leave the chamber, only because I've made some nasty notes in the margins which I have to erase. But I will commit to giving my briefing book to the Leader of the Opposition within 48 hours, free of charge. I'll make sure that's the case.

I do want to take this opportunity to apologize and to correct the record. We had a discussion about Brenda Edwards in my office. It may be just a minor distinction, or it may be a real distinction to the member. But I may just advise why Brenda Edwards, when she represented myself and other cabinet ministers characterized her representation as legal counsel on our behalf. I described her fairly carefully as legal adviser. Then, if we went to legal counsel, we would be seeking outside counsel. That's a normal approach. But in this case, I guess, we simply asked her as a lawyer to represent us rather than go to outside counsel. So that is a bit unusual. I don't think it's a very significant point, but it is a bit unusual. I apologize to the members for inadvertently misleading them. I just want to correct the record.

M. Coell: I seek leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

M. Coell: Tonight my wife Corinne is here in the gallery with two very close friends, Barry and Deborah Bowman. Would the House please make them welcome.

[9:00]

That's not all of the story, hon. Chair. I took a look at the most recent Statistics Canada labour force survey. What it indicates is that there were 6,600 fewer young people employed this year in June than there were last year in June. So it's not just the overall unemployment rate, because sometimes percentages can be misleading. But the actual number of young people employed in British Columbia has dropped by approximately 6,600 in a one-year period. That's part of a very worrisome trend. I just put that on the record before we start canvassing again some of the Premier's initiatives, which he hopes will deal with the growing unemployment problem that young people face in British Columbia.

Before we moved off this particular topic, we had been discussing one aspect of the former Guarantee for Youth, and that was employment through the Crown corporations. I want to give the Premier a chance to clarify the remarks he made at that time. I pointed out that since 1996, the number of students supposedly employed by Crown corporations had increased from 3,000 to a projected 4,275 this year. That's a better than 40 percent increase in two years. I'll give the Premier a chance to clarify whether or not that increased number includes volunteers or if that number is exclusive of volunteer positions within Crown corporations -- which, as the Premier pointed out, include the PNE, the Pacific National Exhibition.

Hon. G. Clark: I'm sorry. I don't want to mislead you, so I guess I should confirm this, but I am very confident that it doesn't in any way include volunteers. These are jobs or training positions. It does include the PNE positions. But with Crown corporations, I am completely confident that these are largely jobs, although the duration of them may vary, you know -- whether they're summer jobs or year-round jobs. But we're not trying to pad it with any volunteers in any fashion.

B. Penner: I thank the Premier for that clarification.

He also indicated earlier that the Crown corporations had not had any financial impacts on their budgets as a result of the increased number of young people. Then later he modified his comments somewhat, saying that perhaps they did, but it was all part of their overall budgetary and economic plan and that certainly any work the young people are doing through the Crown corporations would be meaningful work, real tasks, and not simply make-work projects with no real ultimate purpose at the end of the day, aside from creating short-term positions. I'll let the Premier just confirm whether or not there is significant impact on the budgets of Crown corporations due to the 40 percent increase in youth positions in the last two years.

As well, I'll let the Premier comment on the average length of these positions with Crown corporations. Is there any mandated minimum length of time for these positions at Crown corporations, when they hire youth, in order to qualify as a statistic under the Guarantee for Youth, now the Youth Options program?

Hon. G. Clark: First of all, let's be clear. Obviously there are more jobs and they're paid jobs, so they cost money. We're not trying to say that they don't cost money. But what we've asked the Crowns to do is do it within their budget framework. So if you're B.C. Hydro, a $10 billion corporation with 6,000 or 7,000 employees, there'll be budgets for advertising, for consultants and for contractors. What we ask very large corporations to do is find within their very large budgets resources that they can apply to hire or to train youth, and that's what they do. But they cost money, and if you hire youth, then the company would have to either find the money or take it away from somewhere else -- that's correct -- but obviously not from paid employees or otherwise. So it costs

[ Page 10357 ]

Secondly, the question was: how long would it have to be carried there? This has been a source of debate even in my office in terms of how we characterize it. We do mix a little bit training positions and jobs, full-time jobs and part-time jobs. We ended up really just trying as transparently as we could to put them all together. So the PNE jobs are sometimes only three or four weeks, and they count as a number here; whereas there are other jobs which are full-year jobs at very high pay, and they count as only one of these statistics as well. We haven't found a perfect way, and we didn't do an hours-of-work thing. We simply said "positions created" -- whether they are three or four weeks, or three or four months, or year-long. I can say with some confidence that we're not trying to pad the numbers with two-week jobs. The Crowns, other than at Playland or the PNE, have done a good job of largely having, at the very minimum, summer-job kinds of opportunities for young people. I know that the leader of the PDA is very familiar with the excellent work done by the young people at ICBC, and I think that was a four-month job opportunity. Three or four months is probably the average of these. For First Job in Science, I'm pretty sure it's a year-long opportunity. So if you put it all together, we tried to be fairly consistent.

I think the important thing here, just so we're clear, is that it's apples to apples. Whatever we did last year, we're doing this year. We haven't changed the parameters to try to inflate the numbers in any way.

B. Penner: Just to recap what the Premier said, the Premier indicated that there is no minimum number of hours in order for a position to qualify as a job. If I think back to previous years, it may have been the Student Summer Works '97 program where 150 was the required number of hours a young person had to work in order for that position to qualify as one job in the statistics. Is the government imposing that same standard on the Crown corporations -- a minimum of 150 hours in order for that position to qualify as one job?

Hon. G. Clark: I don't believe we are, actually. It's not a bad suggestion. The only ones that are shorter than that would be the PNE jobs, I think. We can't discount that it's a huge employer of young people for a brief period of time in the summer, and it is a Crown corporation, so that's why we put the numbers in there. Perhaps we could do a bit better in terms of making sure we have some kind of breakdown of the average length of job or something. Maybe we do have that, but I'm not familiar with it. I'll try to get it for the member.

B. Penner: In 1997, under the now abandoned slogan of "Guarantee for Youth," I believe there were seven components. This year, under Youth Options, I count 11 different components to the package. I think that excluded from this year's number of components is the new tuition credits volunteer program, where a person can do volunteer work and earn a certain number of credits toward tuition at university or college. I wonder if the Premier could confirm, because it's not in the backgrounder that was provided with his Youth Options press release, whether or not that volunteer program is officially part of Youth Options.

Hon. G. Clark: Yes, it is part of Youth Options. We're just trying to get how we characterize it, but it's definitely part of our new initiative around young people. As you know, it's a really interesting experiment and is one I'm very proud of. I think it tries to marry commitment to the community and harness the creativity of young people with our desire to promote access to post-secondary education. Giving young people the opportunity to have tuition credit in exchange for volunteering in the community is, I think, a very interesting and exciting idea that we're pursuing.

Just so you know, it works out to about minimum wage, or $8 an hour, because the volunteer that's required. . . . With the tuition credit, you do get about $8 per hour -- I think it works out to at the end of the day. You don't get it in cash; you get it in a tuition credit. It's got some very tough things in it -- for example, if you quit halfway through, you don't get anything. You have to stick it out for the duration, and then you get the one-year tuition credit. That's why we can say that it is like a job and can qualify as a position here. It's the equivalent of working for a period of time -- for the summer months, for example -- at a minimum-wage job or a little higher than that.

B. Penner: I believe the volunteer tuition credit program was expected to have a maximum of 1,000 placements this year. I wonder if the Premier could give us a status report as to how that program is doing. How many students have enlisted in the program and are now earning tuition credits through this volunteer program?

Hon. G. Clark: I've just looked to see if I could give you an absolute number, but let me tell you what happened. The phones went crazy; there was a huge interest amongst young people. It shocked everybody. It didn't shock me, but it shocked everybody else that there was that interest amongst young people to volunteer for community service in their areas. So there has been a big flood of applications, far more than the 1,000 -- at least initially. We did a kind of tendering program, the usual Purchasing Commission. . . . So there are host agencies which are all picked through a competitive process, and those agencies are setting it up and administering it.

The truth is that most of the volunteer positions won't be in place until the fall. This was not designed like a summer program. It was designed specifically as a year-long program, so people may volunteer in their communities for a few hours a week and get credit, in addition to more intensive volunteering, say, in the summer months. As I understand it -- and I don't know this from my staff. . . . I actually know from one of the host agencies, which I was privileged enough to have lunch with yesterday, that they have already placed quite a number -- in their case, in East Vancouver. They've got placements for quite a number of their allocations. But the big push will be coming in the fall.

Just so the members know, we've tried not to be partisan, but to say that if there are 1,000 placements and there are 75 MLAs, then there should roughly be 12 or so students placed in volunteer positions per constituency. We won't get that perfectly, of course, for a whole bunch of reasons. But we really want to try to make sure that they don't all get scooped up in one area, even if there's tremendous need. There is always volunteer work that can be done even in the most affluent communities. So we tried to have some rough justice

[ Page 10358 ]

If it works out well and it is oversubscribed. . . . We have to wait and see, because it's a tough program, and it will be interesting to see young people sticking it out and being successful. There is a lot of anticipation, a lot of excitement, both from young people and from the agencies and the volunteer community. We would like to see if we can use this as a bit of a pilot to really look at this model of promoting citizenship and community involvement in volunteerism and at the same time earning credit toward tuition. If the member wants -- it doesn't appear I have it here -- I can give him exactly how many positions have been placed to date and what the anticipated figure is. But I don't think that many have been done yet. It really kicks in in the fall.

[9:15]

To that end, last week a letter was forwarded to me from a man in Surrey who is concerned about his two boys who have applied through this volunteer program. They had heard about it, I suppose, either at school or through the news media, and they were told that they would be eligible to get a position earning tuition credits toward their fees for post-secondary education. This is what he says: ". . .but up to now the boys have received no word from the hiring agency, which told me when I called them that they are still in the process of negotiating contracts." He goes on to say: "The government promised millions of dollars for this project, but I'm afraid that the money is being spent by bureaucrats and self-serving individuals." He notes that he wrote to the Premier but hasn't had a reply. I just received this letter last week myself. This is from a Mr. S. Hosanee in Surrey.

That's what made me concerned about the hiring agencies. It could be that at this stage, they're promising a bit more than they can deliver, as they're attempting to get the program up and running and work some of the bugs out of it. I think it would be useful at this point to have a status report to see where we are in implementing this -- granted, a fairly interesting new program -- and to try to alleviate some of the concerns. Obviously, when this came out, many people, myself included, thought it was mostly for tuition to be earned for September -- and September is all too close at this point. For people who were hoping to get tuition credits for September, this program may not help them. Maybe they were unintentionally misled that the program would help them, when it's not going to help them this year. I'll leave that for the Premier to respond to.

Hon. G. Clark: I just want to respond briefly. First of all, I want to clarify that the host agencies are not volunteers. They are contracted by the government to place volunteers, and there's funding provided to the host agencies to ensure that they can do that and manage it. So we're not imposing a burden on volunteer organizations. In the case of east Vancouver, I think it's Kiwassa Neighbourhood House, or the YMCA or YWCA has elements of it. I'm not sure who has it out in Chilliwack. But the host agencies are service agencies. They are contracted, they hire people, and we pay for them.

I agree with you, in this respect: there was a flood of applications and excitement around the program. Of course, when you're starting a brand-new program, it takes a while to get the volunteer community. . .to make sure they're all placed and everything else. People anticipated that they'd phone in and get immediately placed. We weren't able to do that this year. I was very upfront about that at the time; we were upfront in all our comments. Nevertheless, I think there have been more applications than they've been able to handle. But I'm very confident that once we work the bugs out and once we get the program up and running, there will be 1,000 people placed. I think it will be an exciting program.

This is the unfortunate thing: if it's a very successful program, there may be several thousand people who we have to say no to even if they've met all the criteria, simply because it's oversubscribed. The government's not making that decision; the host agencies are managing it in the region. I would suggest to all members that they should be contacting their host agencies to make sure that they're getting the right treatment and the right placement. There has been, I think, and there was always anticipated to be, a bit of lag time between the announcement and the placements, just because it's a brand-new program. We couldn't do all that work in advance, when the program hadn't been announced.

B. Penner: A program that isn't all that new, that has been around for a couple of years, is the Youth Works program, which, again, formerly fell under the umbrella of the Guarantee for Youth and now falls under the title of Youth Options. If the documents I have are correct, the budget last year for Youth Works was approximately $20 million, and I believe the government is projecting a similar amount for this coming year.

I wonder if the Premier can confirm a couple of things: whether or not the budget has remained essentially the same for Youth Works, which is really another form of. . . . It is welfare, but welfare directed to people of a particular age category -- ages 15 to 24, I believe. I stand to be corrected, but I think it goes to 24. Youth Works, as we all recall, was somewhat controversial when it was first introduced by this government. Some of the social and anti-poverty activists protested that this government was implementing a program that forced young people to work or to receive training in return for social assistance or income assistance benefits. The critics said that that was getting too close to workfare for their liking. I'm sure the Premier will remember some of the controversy around the program.

I just wonder if the Premier can tell us whether the budget remained consistent over the past year or so for this program, how many young people are income assistance recipients under the Youth Works program in 1997 and 1998, and whether he can decipher any type of trend emerging from those statistics, in terms of recipients of the Youth Works program.

Hon. G. Clark: Yes. The budget this year is $69.03 million for Youth Works, the B.C. Benefits welfare-to-work program. So $69 million in that category is a reduction of 12 percent, or $9.43 million. The reason it's a reduction is because caseloads have dropped. This is a remarkable success story, really. We

[ Page 10359 ]

B. Penner: I think the Premier quoted a figure of $69 million. I'm just trying to reconcile that with what's contained in the backgrounder to the news release issued by the Premier's Office on April 6, 1998. In the backgrounder, under the heading "Youth Works," it says: "Funding: $20 million Funded through B.C. Benefits." Below that is: "Number of positions for youth: 27,700 youth assisted." Perhaps the Premier can enlighten me about the difference between the $69 million figure he just mentioned and the $20 million in the backgrounder.

Hon. G. Clark: What I was doing, in looking at these notes, was relating welfare-to-work programs as a whole, which include not just the youth. . . . Just to give you an example from here, there are. . . . I'm just trying to get the rough breakdown. In many of the programs. . . . In the employability skills program, for example, last year there were 5,584 youth and 13,860 adults served. This year we're projecting somewhat of an increase in the youth population to be served. No -- I'm sorry. It's a slight reduction and a slight increase in non-youth to be served. I apologize. We're trying to get apples and apples. The $69 million is the global budget for all of these programs, which include a large youth component and an adult component, because many of them are similar programs. I'm just trying to break out. . . . I think you're right -- there's $20 million for the specific youth programs. The eligibility and the way we treat them, of course, is slightly different, but they're all in the same kind of unit.

B. Penner: One of the differences in the way they're treated is that they have to, I believe, wait seven months. . . .

Interjection.

B. Penner: Pardon me?

The Chair: Through the Chair, members.

B. Penner: My understanding is that young people need to wait seven months before qualifying for benefits and before qualifying for training programs offered through Youth Works. That was the cause of some of the initial criticism.

Hon. G. Clark: I'm sorry -- I'm just trying to follow the chart. First of all, there is a compulsory job search component. That's for youth and for adults. But then the difference between youth and adults is this, and it's a very important distinction: 100 percent of youth get any additional service -- the advanced job search initiative and then workplace-based training and all of that; it's completely demand-driven after the initial seven months; whereas for adults, there isn't the same. . . . We don't provide service for 100 percent; we provide service for less than that. We ration it in some ways, and we try to deal with it in different ways. So for youth, the Youth Works project, it is 100 percent. That's why the budget goes up and down a little bit: it's based on demand. It's easy, whereas with the other one you can fix the amount of money, because it's not an entirely demand-driven program; it's policy-driven.

The question would be: could we, then, not have reduced the budget and reallocated it, for example, to reduce the job search time, etc.? I think the answer to that is yes. But there were two things, we felt. One is that it is true that the majority of welfare recipients are not on for longer than six months. So it seems like it would be expensive, to say the least, for government to be providing services for many, many people, the majority of welfare recipients, who on their own are going to be leaving welfare and going to work. That is the reality of welfare, contrary to some of the myths. Most people are on for a very brief period of time, and they get off and go to work. We want to provide service to those who are on longer than seven months, because those are individuals who, statistically, have not made it back into the workforce that quickly. So we need targeted help to get them back into the workforce. With young people, after that seven months, we try to serve 100 percent of the client population to get them back in the workforce, and it's been quite successful.

B. Penner: Now that we've identified the group that we're talking about, which is just the youth component of those people receiving income assistance, I would ask that the Premier confirm whether (a) the youth component is ages 15 to 24 and (b) the budget for that group of individuals has changed significantly in the past year or two. Noting the backgrounder issued last year, the figure quoted was $20 million, and this year the backgrounder also states $20 million. I'm not trying to ask a tricky question. I'm just trying to confirm that those numbers are accurate and to find out what projections there are in terms of the number of youth enrolled in the Youth Works program last year versus this year and what the trend is.

Hon. G. Clark: The member is correct. First of all, it is 15 to 24, I believe. Second, just to give you an example, in the advanced job search, where the employment outcome is about 30 percent or better, last year -- in '97-98 -- 6,287 youth were served. This year, it's suggested. . . . It seems awfully specific, but it says that in '98-99, they're estimating 6,039. So it's a very small reduction, in which case the budget should be exactly the same, because it's a demand-driven program. These are estimates for '98-99 based on caseload trends, so the caseload is trending down just a hair or is flat; the budget for youth is flat.

It does suggest, based on last year's records, that of the 6,000 young people, about 2,000 should get jobs out of this initiative. We've got a higher-than-30-percent success rate after the seven months, moving into the advanced job search. Then after that, of course, if they're not successful -- the 4,000 who are not successful, I guess -- they are placed in the advanced job search workplace-based training initiative, which, again, gives them real hands-on experience and job experience to try to move forward. In addition to that, there are the employability skills program and a few other initiatives that relate to that. That's just to give you a sense of it. We're anticipating roughly the same number of clientele this year and roughly the same budget.

[9:30]

[ Page 10360 ]

Hon. G. Clark: I'm sorry -- I was trying to give you examples. There are a variety of programs here -- right? There's the initial job search program, which does involve some help in their job search. According to this, there were 52,000 people served in that initial area. The youth is 16,788, so 16,000 were serviced, if you will, in that initial period -- right? Then it moves to. . . . Many of those get jobs, and they move off. Then there are 6,287 youth who go to the advanced job search, and we know that the job placement record now is about 30 percent. Then it moves to advanced job search in workplace-based training, and 1,127 young people received that training program. There's also a more intensive employability skills program, in which here 5,584 youth were served last year, and the employability rate there is also about 30 percent. So the total is 29,786 youth. Is that the number you have?

B. Penner: Pretty close.

Hon. G. Clark: Okay, that's the number that I have. Of those, 27,762 were eligible, it says. Again, what you've got here. . . . This is what's wonderful about this initiative, which is not well understood, and I'm glad the member gives us an opportunity to canvass it. Unlike the old program, where people went on welfare, we now have a series of steps that we take people through as they enter the welfare system. They first move into the job search, with an enhanced and helped job search. If they're unsuccessful after seven months, then they move to a much more intensive program of enhanced job search with government assistance and placements and help. If they're still not placed in a job, then they move into training programs -- workplace-based training programs -- which have a higher degree of success. These are harder-to-employ people. Then there is a further employability skills program, which tries to actually place people in jobs, and it also has a success. . . . It has a training subsidy and a few other things.

Unlike anywhere else in Canada, we've gone from being a welfare-dependent system to an opportunity system, where we provide more resources to the working poor, so that people aren't better off on welfare; you're always better off working. We were tougher on the entry level, and then we have a more intensive management of the cases -- in this case, youth -- to try to get them back into the workforce.

Again, it's a wonderful story, because we're seeing a decline in the caseload in British Columbia after about ten or 12 years of successive increases -- in some cases, dramatic -- even with a strong economy. We're not seeing a decline because we were draconian and kicked people off; we're seeing a decline because these programs are placing people in jobs. It's not perfect, and there are still challenges in the system, but it is a really wonderful success story. This year we anticipate a slight reduction in the overall budget for this initiative -- not the youth component -- because we see a slight reduction in the caseload. Again, that's another success story for the taxpayers.

B. Penner: To recap, there are different tiers of intensity in the Youth Works program. When we see the figure of 27,700 contained in a backgrounder, that doesn't mean that all 27,700 are running the entire gamut and receiving the full intensity of training. I think the large majority of those people receive virtually no training, because according to the Premier, they find some employment in the interim and then no longer need income assistance, and therefore they are no longer required to participate in the mandatory training programs. I think I've got that clear now.

The Premier may recall that we had an exchange approximately two years ago on this very topic. It was my first time debating the Premier on the Youth estimates, and I was asking him questions about this particular program. Last night I dug out Hansard, which I saved from that debate. It was an evening sitting on August 13, 1996. What I said then was that under the Youth Works program, where youth had to wait seven months collecting welfare before they were offered any meaningful training, there was a danger that having to wait seven months before anything happened would discourage our young people. I asked the Premier to enlighten me as to the rationale for picking the number of seven months -- why that particular waiting period. I think it's fair to say that it was getting late in the evening, because the Premier got rather testy, and he didn't appreciate the question.

However, I feel better now about that exchange. Last night, preparing again for these estimates, I read a report of a committee established by the Premier himself. It's called "Working Together, Working Now: Combatting Youth Unemployment -- The Report of the Premier's Business Advisory Committee on Youth Employment." This report was released on January 21, 1998, about a year and a half after my initial clash with the Premier in this chamber on that topic. Here's what the task force appointed by the Premier himself has to say about the seven-month waiting period: "We must remove the waiting period for youth on income assistance who want to access employment training programs. We heard a strong case from training professionals that the waiting period for youth to be eligible for training [programs] is a severe deterrent to move from welfare into the workforce." That's one of the key recommendations of the advisory panel put together by the Premier himself, which reported about six months ago now, in January of this year. I wonder if the Premier has had any more time to consider not only my comments but the recommendations of this panel of very reputable individuals.

Hon. G. Clark: Absolutely. The panel, of course, was set up by myself, and it made some excellent recommendations. First of all, I want to be clear that in the seven-month waiting period, there is soft, if you will, assistance on the job search initiative. There is an initial job search, and I don't think it's fair to characterize it as them not getting access to anything.

Here is the debate. The debate is: will people then stay on deliberately for seven months in order to get access to programs? That is one of the questions which some professionals have asked. I want to acknowledge that I know there is some frustration. We know that a majority of those people will get jobs within the seven months. The frustration is that a large minority do not, and want access to training programs. We don't provide it for them, because we really can't discriminate. We would be in a position of having to dramatically increase the budget to provide training for everybody if we eliminated that waiting period. We would be spending a lot of tax money training people who we know are going to go to work.

How do we find a way to provide more training earlier for those who have difficulty getting work, while at the same time not acting to subsidize or unnecessarily engage people in training initiatives and all the costs involved in that, when we know that many of them are going to go and get a job? We have been grappling with this; that's what my committee was grappling with. They were saying that, really, the government has to give more flexibility -- I think that's really what they

[ Page 10361 ]

This program is working very successfully. There are recommendations to reduce that waiting period. We're sympathetic to it; we're analyzing it. There have been some recommendations. But we have not, to date, moved significantly off that, for the reasons I've just mentioned.

B. Penner: In the literature regarding income assistance and trying to get people to wean themselves of that dependency, there's a term that's used by analysts in that field. The term is "cycles," as in bicycles. It refers to a cyclical pattern of people getting short-term employment, not very stable and perhaps not very meaningful, and then that employment coming to an end and the person going back onto either unemployment insurance or, if the employment wasn't long enough, social assistance.

According to a document produced by B.C. Statistics, some 62 percent of people on income assistance in British Columbia are referred to as cycles -- that is, they have been on social assistance for at least some period of time in the past year. So 62 percent of the new people entering the welfare rolls -- although we've changed the name of it now -- have been previously on those rolls in the past 12 months. Obviously we've got a pattern here. Sixty-two percent -- that's a pretty high rate of repetition or recidivism in a 12-month period. There lies, I suppose, a great part of the challenge.

There is a young individual in my constituency who has done a remarkable job of drawing attention to his plight and, through him, to the plight of other young people in trying to find employment. I held a town hall meeting a few months ago in Chilliwack. The Leader of the Opposition came to that, and it was open to the public. This young man, Ryan Larson, engaged the Leader of the Official Opposition in a meaningful dialogue. I note that it made an impact on the Leader of the Opposition. He made reference to this man, Ryan Larson, in his inaugural speech this session, in his reply to the Speech from the Throne. Since that time, Mr. Larson has also been reported in the local newspapers in terms of his efforts as a young person trying to find employment for himself.

He has come to speak to me and has shown me what the Youth Works program has given him in terms of job assistance. Essentially, it's a little booklet in which he's supposed to keep track of the number of places he goes to look for work. It's like a report card, I guess. He brings that back to his income assistance worker to demonstrate that he has in fact been diligent in searching for work. I took a look at Mr. Larson's notebook, and he has been very busy in contacting local employers in my area, trying to find employment -- to no avail, at least to date. The last time I talked to him was about a month ago.

The point that he made to me was that he wondered why the Youth Works counsellors were requiring him to go through this exercise, when the people didn't want to see his little notebook when he brought it in. His question to me was: is this supposed to be a requirement in order to receive income assistance benefits, demonstrating diligence in looking for work?" If so, then it appears that not all offices are actually requiring the individual to submit that notebook, because he still had it in his hands. They didn't want to take it from him, and he felt slighted and somewhat offended, I guess, that he had gone to the effort of contacting these employers and duly recording the date, time and location in his notebook, as he was told to do. Then when he went to submit it, he was told it really wasn't necessary for him to submit it.

For the benefit of that constituent, I wonder if the Premier could comment on whether it really is necessary for individuals to demonstrate that they're looking for work before they receive income assistance benefits.

Hon. G. Clark: Yes, absolutely. I think the member has described it perfectly. It's a much more rigorous program to try to assist new welfare recipients with a rigorous application of looking for work, because that is in fact the best way to find a job. We wanted to make sure that it was not an entitlement to welfare. We wanted the entitlement to be one which required certain things that included an intensive job search. As I understand it, it's not necessary for individuals to hand in the book, but it is necessary to demonstrate to the Youth Works officers that the book has been filled in and that the job search has taken place. If that didn't happen, then I think that's incorrect. I'll certainly have staff review what's happening in Chilliwack, because that's exactly what it's for -- to have that little bit of compulsion, if I can put it that way, and to require these young people to pursue and learn how to keep records with this. That's why it has a better success rate, because that didn't exist before.

Of course, if your constituent is not successful after seven months, then it moves into another category, where there's much more intensive work with him. Staff try to assist him in placement, and then ultimately, depending on the circumstance, move him into workplace-based training and the like. You've got it right, and I assume and hope that the people working with this constituent of yours did check to ensure the work was done. It's not necessary for it to be handed in.

[9:45]

Hon. G. Clark: Absolutely. There is a lot of tracking, and I can provide that information for the member.

Your description of welfare is an important one that I think many people don't understand, and certainly your party has systematically been attacking the poor, so it's interesting that you would raise it. People who go on welfare are often stigmatized as people who are on welfare forever in a cycle of dependency. Certainly there are people like that, but in fact, the majority of welfare recipients are, in a way, churning through. They are going on welfare for short periods of time, getting minimum-wage jobs, going on welfare, getting minimum-wage jobs, in that kind of cycle. That belies the myth of all right-wingers, like the Leader of the Opposition

[ Page 10362 ]

So there is this churning, and that's a structural change that has taken place in North America. It's profound, and government policies have not caught up with that. We're still in this mythological role of blaming the victim and saying that welfare recipients are bad and stay on welfare forever. That is not the case, no matter how much the Liberals bash the poor and right-wing parties bash them, no matter how badly they attack welfare and government spending.

Interjections.

Hon. G. Clark: And now they're attacking us. They want tax breaks for the rich and big corporations, and they want us to pay for it through cuts in government spending. In spite of all their low-brow, right-wing rhetoric, we know the truth. This member, I'm delighted to say, has actually acknowledged the truth: that welfare recipients are churning around the bottom and working hard to get off.

What we've done is really revolutionary in terms of the changes we've made, without support from the opposition. They opposed it in the last government; they opposed B.C. Benefits; they opposed welfare-to-work; they opposed it all. They said that we were too soft and we should cut welfare rates. Instead of all that, what we've done is made radical changes to recognize the reality that that member is indicating: that we need to completely change the welfare system as we know it to one that provides the kind of assistance that deals with the realities.

We'll give you statistics. About 40 percent of people who go through the program are successful in getting jobs, which is a huge improvement for thousands of people. That's not to say that many. . . . Even the 60 percent that end up getting short-term jobs and coming back through. . . . The churning that exists is still there. We are now tracking -- it's only been in existence for a couple of years -- whether we're being successful in permanently changing that so that people who go through this training stay off welfare for longer periods of time. We have a suspicion that that's the case; we believe that's the case, and the evidence suggests that. But we don't have enough evidence yet -- and it takes time and experience -- to demonstrate that in fact there is more or less permanent employment. So there is still a terrible problem of people bouncing up and down off welfare into minimum-wage jobs. I think that is a challenge for all of us and one we have to keep working on, in these kinds of programs. Even though the opposition opposes all these programs, they are starting to work. Hopefully, now they recognize that.

B. Penner: We were making some progress here, before the Premier fell off his non-partisan wagon. I just hope he didn't hurt himself in the tumble.

What I asked him was a very non-inflammatory question: what percentage of young people completing the Youth Works program are finding meaningful employment and not having to go back on income assistance? I know the program is relatively new; it's been in existence for approximately two years. I know the Premier has indicated that about 40 percent of those people that go through the entire gamut of training ultimately obtain long-term employment -- permanent employment. Certainly that's a good thing. We all support employment, and we all support having people make themselves independent of social assistance when they're able to do so. Who wouldn't support that? That's pretty much a motherhood issue, I would think.

My initial concern, though, in hearing the number of 40 percent, is that it's not that much different than what B.C. Stats reported two years ago, before this program was introduced -- that 62 percent of income assistance recipients were classified as "cycles," to use the jargon. That means that 62 percent had been on income assistance at some point in the previous year before applying again.

I'm not attacking income assistance recipients; there are many reasons why people receive income assistance. I've worked for many years. . . . Well, I'm not old enough to have worked for many years, but I've worked for several years as a legal aid lawyer helping people who were disadvantaged. Those were people that I represented, and I like to think that I'm still representing them here today. That's why I'm asking these questions, that's why I take great interest in this topic, and that's why I take great offence at the Premier's characterization of my remarks, which is simply inaccurate.

It's funny the way things stay the same, even after two years. Looking at Hansard from two years ago, the Premier got upset, got a little tired -- it was late in the evening, like it is now -- and made very much the same remarks. He was wrong then and he's wrong now. Here's what I had to say to the Premier two years ago, referring to Hansard, and I think it applies equally today.

"[It appears] that the Premier is becoming very defensive. Perhaps it's just the late hour and he is growing short of temper. I think I need to make it [very] clear to the Premier -- and perhaps he is deliberately misinterpreting what I'm saying; I hope that's not the case -- that it is an improvement to offer some training to people in receipt of Social Services benefits. That's why our party started calling for that more than a year ago."

That was 1996, so I was referring to 1995.

We put out, far ahead of the Premier's initiatives, a job-preparation contract proposal that before an individual received income assistance, they'd have to agree with their worker that in return for those benefits, they'd have certain obligations. That would be to enlist in certain job-training programs. It doesn't sound that much different from what the Premier has been describing here tonight. So I really do think it's unfair to somehow characterize my questioning about how we can get young people to work as an attack on the poor. I don't think anything could be further from the truth.

I'm trying to proceed here in a fairly non-partisan way, because I think that benefits the people who are paying us to be here, the taxpayers, rather than us engaging in petty political potshots, frankly. I don't think much gets accomplished when we engage in that kind of debate. I hope we can stick to the facts and proceed in a businesslike manner here this evening.

I'm going to move along to the issue of post-secondary education. I have also been receiving letters from a number of students at different universities and colleges. They have asked me on their behalf to ask the following question: what is the global communications budget for the Youth Options program, and how does that compare with the global communications budget last year for the now abandoned Guarantee for Youth?

Hon. G. Clark: I'll try to keep this relatively calm and as non-partisan as I can. I'm not criticizing the member in his

[ Page 10363 ]

That's why I'm puzzled when he asks me questions -- and I take them very seriously; I'm not trying to belittle them -- that belie the positions his party took on these questions. They were key political questions. They were critical, frankly, to the outcome of the election, because of his party's opposition to government spending in these areas. That's the only point I was trying to make. I tried to make it much gentler than that. I'm sure you all agree that that was the campaign we campaigned on, and it was a legitimate debate. It's quite legitimate to say that you should cut welfare rates; that's what his party said. There's nothing wrong with that. When I get these questions from the members opposite on why we don't do more. . . . It's an interesting question. That's all I say. I'm not worried about that; the facts speak for themselves.

Now, on post-secondary education, the Youth Options B.C. advertising budget is, I think, exactly the same -- that's my advice -- as the Guarantee for Youth budget was last year. We have tried to advertise in a fashion which particularly included the URL, the web page. We did see quite an increase in utilization of the web page during the time of the advertisement, which I think was in April and May, maybe June. It's going to tail off now, in the summer, and I hope we'll do a little bit more advertising in September on some of the programs that we have to deal with back-to-school. We hope to see an increase in utilization of the web page and questions around increased advertising.

B. Penner: I'm not sure I heard, in that response -- which, unfortunately, followed a rather lengthy political diatribe -- what the actual number was. What is the global budget for communications for the Youth Options program this year, and what was spent last year for global communications for the Guarantee for Youth?

Hon. G. Clark: I'm sorry. What was the question again?

B. Penner: They say third time lucky, so I'll try the question a third time. What is the global budget for communications for Youth Options this year, and what was spent last year for global communications for the Guarantee for Youth?

Hon. G. Clark: Sorry, hon. Chair. It was $1.2 million. About 3.6 percent of the overall Youth Options B.C. initiative is for the information campaign, which includes the web page as well as any advertising. We have received 14,000 calls in the four months since the program was announced in April, because we have a toll-free line. So all of the communication budget around it was $1.28 million. I'm pretty sure last year's -- let me just check -- was $1.28 million, so the same amount. The percentage, of course, of the overall budget has gone down, because we have increased the program by 50 percent and added new programs and kept the advertising budget the same.

B. Penner: Following up on the communications budget, I wonder if the Premier can provide a further breakdown of spending within the Youth Options budget for communications -- i.e., what percentage of that is going to wages, training, administration, the web site and the phone line. Last year I asked the Premier specifically about the creation of the web site, and I believe the figure he gave me was that it cost approximately $23,000 last year. I would hope that the ongoing maintenance cost of the web site would be less. From my personal experience. . . . I've set up a web site myself, and there was an initial cost to create it and then a $50-per-month maintenance fee, which I understand is pretty low; I'm getting a good deal. But the point is that the maintenance costs should be less. I wonder if the Premier could break down that global communications budget for us by item.

Hon. G. Clark: I'll try as best I can. The original site development cost was $23,000. The following year it cost $17,896 for maintenance. There was a retooling of the site; it was completely changed in April of 1998. That cost approximately $40,000. That's the web site. I have some numbers which I think are roughly similar; I'm just trying to look here. I have last year's breakdown. I wonder if the member would be interested in that. I think it's roughly similar. Last year there were agency fees for a company called Wasserman Creative, $70,000; television production, $80,000; radio production, $7,000 -- I'll give you a sense of this; I don't know how much detail you want -- newspaper production, $32,5000; interior transit, $4,000; transit shelters, $14,000; bus boards, $5,200; booklets and the like, about $50,000; the web site, $40,000; display ads, $10,000; research, $12,500; and the media buy was $730,000 -- or is, this year, projected to be $730,000. Then we had Queen's Printer costs of about $272,000 for material.

Sorry, I did find the 1998-99 figures. So that's roughly right, just so you know. It was $730,000 on the purchase side; $70,800 on the creative side, I guess, and $272,000 on Queen's Printer material -- roughly.

[10:00]

I know this government is particularly proud of its tuition freeze, and it certainly doesn't appear shy about advertising to tell us that. One of the questions I get when I speak to young people on college campuses is: how much is being spent on the advertising blitz promoting the tuition freeze itself? It's somewhat surprising to me just how much response I get from people when I go to campuses. Without me asking them that question, they ask me, and they find it personally offensive.

A number of young people in schools have told me that they have gotten a letter -- in fact, several letters -- signed mechanically by both the Premier and the Minister of Advanced Education. When they talk amongst themselves, some students find that they get the letter and some don't. From anecdotal evidence, at least, it appears that those students getting the letter have done one of two things: (a) signed a petition put forward by the Canadian Federation of Students at some time in the previous few months; or (b) applied for a student loan. It appears that students who have not applied for student loans have not been receiving that mass mailout signed jointly and mechanically by the Premier and the Minister of Advanced Education.

It's not my job to offer political advice, of course, to the government. However, it does seem to be having a somewhat

[ Page 10364 ]

Hon. G. Clark: It's not my area of expertise, so I'll be happy to get it for you. But this is always a debate. I get questions about this, too, in a non-partisan way from individuals. It's always a debate.

You know, we're doing something which nowhere, really. . . . Well, nowhere else in North America is doing it. That's not true in Ireland and other places; they're abolishing tuition fees. We're pursuing a path which is completely contrary to the opposition party's position, the media's position, the business media's position and contrary to every province in Canada. There is nowhere else in North America that has chosen to freeze tuition fees for three years and increase funding by 20 percent to post-secondary student education over the last number of years -- nowhere.

[E. Walsh in the chair.]

So why are we doing that? We're doing that to promote access for young people, regardless of their income or where they live. This is a very important philosophical commitment on the part of the government, a very important principle of open access to quality public education. If it was okay to have free education from kindergarten to grade 12 a hundred years ago or a little less than that, and if this was an important contribution to public education to get a job, it's no longer the case. Public policy and politicians have not caught up with the fact that you need more than high school to get a job. I believe we should be working towards free education beyond grade 12 if we truly want to equip our young people with the opportunity to be competitive in the twenty-first century.

So we have to tell people that we have the lowest tuition fees now in Canada. We have to tell people that we are committed to education and have expanded the system. We have to advertise. In fact, you may know that colleges now, for the first time since the 1960s, are advertising for students, because the expansion of the system is unparalleled anywhere in North America. That's why we've gone from the worst participation rate in Canada to the fourth-best in Canada, and we hope to go to the best in Canada. We want more of our young people than anywhere in the world going to university or college. So we advertise a tuition freeze not for political gain, not to say this, but to let people know that access is more affordable today than it has been since the seventies and that we are committed to bringing it down further, because we want people to take advantage of these frozen tuition fees.

God forbid something should happen -- that an opposition party would come in like their role models in Ontario and Alberta and crank up fees by 50 percent, which is what we'd have to do to catch up. So what we're trying to do is advertise a tuition freeze and advertise our commitment to post-secondary education to encourage young people to come and take advantage of this opportunity.

An Hon. Member: And the answer?

Hon. G. Clark: How much do we spend on. . . ? I'll give you the answer. I don't know the answer to that. I don't believe it's significant, certainly, in a $3 billion Education budget.

But I understand his criticism. We've tried to be fairly careful. You won't see advertising today, for example, on the tuition freeze; it's not like it's all year-round. We try to do it to coincide with the early school area or just before that, so we can, again, give people the information they need so they can make a decision -- hopefully, to go back to take post-secondary education.

B. Penner: If the Premier's not able to answer the question, then I'll leave it on the record. Perhaps he'll get his staff to forward the information, then. For their benefit, the question is: how much is the government spending, on behalf of the taxpayers, promoting the tuition freeze? That was the question which elicited a rather lengthy and, in some ways, unnecessary answer.

The Premier is talking about the importance of participation rates and of increasing the numbers of young people participating in post-secondary education. About four years ago the Harcourt government -- the NDP were being led by the former Premier, Mr. Harcourt -- announced plans to build a new technical university for British Columbia. A stated objective was to increase post-secondary participation rates in the Fraser Valley as one of the key concerns, according to a newsletter issued by Tech B.C. in 1996. According to that document, the Fraser Valley had one of the lowest post-secondary participation rates in the entire country -- not just the province but the entire country. For that reason, the government said, they were hoping to build at some time a technical university, and at that time they said the preferred location was Cloverdale.

A few days ago the government announced that it's not going to be in Cloverdale, but in downtown Surrey or downtown Whalley, a part of Surrey. It appears the government has made this announcement about the location without having a firm budget in place indicating how they're going to pay for the constructions costs, or at least that's what the Minister of Advanced Education told members of the news media, when asked. He wouldn't commit to any specific budget figures and certainly left the impression that he couldn't do that because there was no budget in place to actually build the building. That is the answer he gave me here, too, a couple of months ago in this chamber, when I asked him that specific question.

All of this on my part is a preamble to point out that in this decision, the government at no time conducted a formal, in-depth feasibility study of whether or not they could utilize the existing facilities at the now-closed Canadian Forces Base Chilliwack. As you know, a few years ago the federal government announced that they were closing the only land-based military presence in British Columbia, leaving in its wake a brand-new $13 million engineering school with fibre-optic links, computer modem terminals in all 27 classrooms, and 40 offices for administration. It's 76,000 square feet in total.

That building wasn't even completed when the federal government announced that they were going to close CFB Chilliwack, but I guess that in typical government fashion, even after they announced they were going to close the base, they kept spending taxpayers' money to build this brand-new school. That school is now sitting empty. The base itself closed formally about two and a half weeks or three weeks ago, and

[ Page 10365 ]

The point to all of this is that there are tremendous assets sitting idle at what was CFB Chilliwack. According to the federal government, those assets are estimated at almost $400 million, and for the most part, they're sitting empty and idle. Through community effort, we were able to get the Cheam Centre, a recreational facility, to stay open for at least the next two years. As I said, there are 50 military staff using a small part of a building now, but there are many other facilities sitting empty, such as this $13 million engineering school, which is not being utilized. I wonder what action, if any, the provincial government has taken and plans to take with the federal government to utilize that $400 million asset that used to be CFB Chilliwack.

In February this year I bought my own plane ticket, paid the cost myself and flew to Ottawa. I had a series of meetings with a number of members of the federal government, including the federal Transport minister and staff members of the Ministry of National Defence. Speaking to the staff members of the Ministry of National Defence, the point that I was promoting was, of course, that something has to be done with this tremendous asset that's been left to collect cobwebs and dandelions.

That's all that's happening there now, and it makes taxpayers angry when they realize that all that money has been spent over the years, and nothing is happening with it -- virtually nothing. So I went to Ottawa, and the response I got in February was: "It's nice that an opposition MLA has taken the time and spent his own money to come here and see us. But frankly, where's the provincial government? We're used to dealing with ministers of the Crown." I got the distinct impression that although they were polite to me, they really wanted to hear from somebody who had considerably more authority in terms of speaking on behalf of the cabinet.

I leave it to the Premier for his comments on what his government's plan is to harness some of the potential at CFB Chilliwack. There's a $400 million asset sitting idle and about 400 acres around the base area itself at Vedder Crossing, plus the buildings and facilities that are sitting empty.

Hon. G. Clark: Perhaps there's something we can agree on, although I haven't heard it. The federal Liberal government -- your party -- has done a disgusting service to British Columbia by closing the only military base that we have. It is unbelievable that they could get away. . . . I can't believe they could do this anywhere else in the country. If we had an earthquake or a crisis, there is no military presence now in our province because of your friends in the Liberal government. What a scandal! What an outrage! Perhaps the member and I agree on that. I'd be delighted if we could have a Liberal actually criticize the federal Liberals for this unbelievably bad decision that they've made.

Having said that, we don't make decisions based on what the federal government discards. We're not going to rush around trying to find a use for their mistake, for their outrage to British Columbia. Frankly, they should have a military base there; that's what it's intended for. It should be for civilian protection in this province and for dealing with crises and disasters we might face. I think the member, as a member of the Legislature for Chilliwack, is of course absolutely correct to be trying to find alternative uses for the site. I commend him for travelling to Ottawa; I think that clearly shows initiative.

Clearly there are options for that site. The member may know that Nike is looking at a major facility in British Columbia; that's an initiative which is still underway. We arranged to fly Nike by helicopter, including their senior personnel and their principal owner, to look at CFB Chilliwack, that base, as a possibility for a major new facility. Unfortunately, I want to say categorically that that site was rejected by Nike. Sites in Surrey and other places in British Columbia are still on the list. It was rejected because of its distance from the Vancouver International Airport, which they felt was a key to their success.

Similarly, in terms of post-secondary, Tech U was moved from Cloverdale to the centre of Surrey for good, sound public policy reasons. The mayor of Surrey, who's hardly a supporter of this administration, was at the press conference because it made sense. We want it on a transit line; we want to utilize it to help promote a town centre. It will be a great new addition. Unfortunately -- and I mean this genuinely -- Chilliwack did not qualify under those criteria for that university. That doesn't mean it wouldn't qualify for other potential school uses.

[10:15]

I want to say in conclusion, though, that the former army base is a tremendous asset. It is a large facility. It's not in the agricultural land reserve. Chilliwack has been doing extremely well in terms of the economy. I think there are real opportunities for development. I worry a little bit about cooperation with the federal government -- not a lot, but a little bit -- because even with the Nike proposal, there was some question about selling it; they're reluctant to do that. We're maybe going to have some tough calls later on, but right now in B.C. the government is acting as if that site is available for development. At every opportunity -- whether it's an aluminum smelter or Nike or any other opportunity for a significant investment in B.C. -- we are showing them that site, even though it's not ours. We haven't asked permission, but we're showing them, for purposes of development.

If in conjunction with that there's a public use that we could promote, including the potential for a university or college facility or otherwise, then I'd be delighted to look at that. I'd be delighted to look at that. I'd be delighted to look at alternatives for use of the Chilliwack base. To date, unfortunately, it doesn't fit the plans for a technical university.

B. Penner: I'll conclude my remarks now by just encouraging the Premier to try to work constructively with the

[ Page 10366 ]

G. Wilson: I've found these estimates in the last six or seven hours to be really enlightening. The Premier says that his government isn't going to run around chasing up everything that's discarded by Ottawa. As the member for Richmond East said, they didn't have any hesitation in picking up the member for Vancouver-Fraserview, so I don't know that that's entirely true.

Let me just start by saying that I want to. . . . One of the benefits of coming in at the tail end of estimates is that you can make sure you don't ask questions that have already been asked, and you can be assured that you won't be repetitive. I'm not going to go over ground that has already been gone over; I'm going to go over some new ground.

If the Premier will indulge me, it is interesting to note that in these estimates you often see the minister and an army of staff, and you know that behind those cameras there's another army of staff tucked away in a little room. I think there are a few people tucked away behind there watching a television set, if they're still awake and if they haven't tuned into another channel. I think that's indicative of the style of government that we see from this Premier. This Premier doesn't have an army of staff around his particular ministry. This Premier sits there with one staff member, and it is pretty evident that in fact the power base, the heart that throbs within this government, rests solely and only within the Premier's Office; it is in fact what feeds all of them. I'm going to ask my questions with that in mind, recognizing that this Premier is front stage -- and is usually centre stage -- in most of these agreements.

First of all, I want to talk about a very important issue, the Nisga'a agreement. I want to start off with that. I recognize the fact that this text is only newly available, and I should be on record as saying that I appreciate the fact, partly at my request -- in fact, mostly at my request -- that the government has kept me fully informed and apprised of the negotiations as they've gone on. I've had the opportunity to be constantly updated on the debate, which I found to be most interesting, especially in the last rounds.

It was noted by a number of people, who thought it somewhat passing strange, that when the signing or the handshaking of the agreement took place -- it really isn't a signed agreement yet -- the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs was sitting in this House, telling the members that he really couldn't comment very much about what was in the agreement because he hadn't read it. The Minister of Aboriginal Affairs was here because he claimed he had to defend the labour bill -- although there was no real reason for the labour bill to have been called; the government chose that -- whereas the Premier was up in the Nass involving himself directly in that -- a very hands-on approach.

My first question to the Premier is this. Given the fact that Nisga'a has occurred outside of the Treaty Commission process and given the fact that there has been a long, long debate and intensive negotiations as to how we were going to proceed in the final ratification, especially over the last number of months, maybe the Premier might tell us to what extent he has had a direct, hands-on approach in coming up with final resolutions. I'm particularly interested in three areas, because I don't want to go through the whole negotiation: language uncertainty, a critical question and something that I think is going to be very important; the matter of taxation, which I know and the Premier knows is an impediment to getting some other first nations back to the tables. That's an important one. The third one is the matter of title, in light of Delgamuukw. I wonder to what extent the Premier is directing the provincial position on this, because these are three very, very critical questions.

Hon. G. Clark: I might have to ask for a clarification, so let me start. On the matter of certainty, it is true that I have been very involved in that, as has the entire cabinet and in fact the entire caucus. The language around certainty and the options around certainty, and of how we get there, given the position that we took, which was not to commit to cede, release and surrender. . . . The position that we took, for which we could find alternative language, is a position that predates my term in office but is one we started really grappling with only in the last year as we moved into detailed negotiations.

It was difficult. We had lots of legal teams looking at options. The federal government disagreed with our strategy for some time, and the position that was ultimately arrived at was a position that I approved and the cabinet approved about a month ago, with some minor changes that took place at the federal government's insistence in the last week or so, literally -- but quite consistent with the provincial position, and the Nisga'a agreed to that. There's no question that I've spent a fair amount of time personally, both in the cabinet and in the caucus, discussing that very question. We knew how important it was, and we're very comfortable with the agreement we've reached.

With respect to taxation, this predates my term as Premier, and this was a position that the cabinet took, with Premier Harcourt's involvement, around the mandate we would give our negotiators with respect to the agreement-in-principle they're reaching with the Nisga'a. We decided it was important to challenge aboriginal people to truly join British Columbia. As part of the agreement with respect to the rights that would be codified in a treaty and all the opportunities that would come about as a result of the final settlement, we believed that this would lead to greater economic development and justice for aboriginal people. Therefore they ought to be out from under the Indian Act, out from under all the oppressive language and history that involves, and there should be a quid pro quo -- that they therefore would pay tax.

The Nisga'as' position was ultimately, as you know, that they would agree to that, but only after a fairly long phase-in period -- 12 and eight years, depending on the tax. They argued -- and correctly, in my judgment -- that it would take them some time to sort of get the fruits of their labour and the kinds of economic development opportunities that might arise or will arise out of treaties. So that was agreed to in the AIP, and nothing happened during the final process, or since I've been Premier, that has changed that. I have not been particularly involved, because we haven't revisited the mandate that was given in the previous administration for the Nisga'a settlement -- or for all settlements, but actualized in the Nisga'a settlement. I have not been involved recently in that, other than as a member of cabinet in the previous government.

With respect to title and the definition of title under Delgamuukw, this is where I need more clarification as to what the member means. The response of the government of British Columbia to the Delgamuukw case and how we try to reconcile the facts or the law set out by Delgamuukw with the

[ Page 10367 ]

In fact, it may well be the most important question that we face. It hasn't been asked in the House before, and it hasn't been talked about in the media, but there have been very serious negotiations between the provincial government, the federal government and the summit chiefs -- including more than the summit chiefs: the aboriginal people -- about how to reconfigure and make the treaty process work in light of the reality of Delgamuukw. We have not reached agreement. We're going to be taking another run at it in the very near future, and Tony Penikett has been assigned that task by my office to be the principal spokesperson. The cabinet has had several detailed and lengthy discussions around Delgamuukw and the way in which the government is to respond to it. So that's in the general sense.

With respect to the title question in Delgamuukw, it's really made moot by the Nisga'a treaty. So in a sense, we didn't. . . . It entered into the Nisga'a treaty in that it coloured the perspectives of all participants as to how we would actualize, make real, aboriginal rights and/or title in the treaty. Of course, to that extent, I was somewhat involved, but really the cabinet deliberated with respect to those questions.

G. Wilson: There are two parts to my next question, and I'm going to try to be as clear as I can be. I think most British Columbians want -- and I have no empirical or statistical evidence to prove this, but this is certainly a political gut feeling I have, which is something I trust and is usually pretty good -- to see these treaty negotiations fairly and successfully resolved. I think that's a given. I think most British Columbians want to acknowledge that we as a community of communities within British Columbia can come together and find it within ourselves to sign treaties that will give, in perpetuity, rights to all of us that provide equal opportunity and equality under the law -- recognizing that to be equal under the law does not mean that we all have to be the same. We can be very different; we can have entrenched differences within the framework of agreements that we may sign, of treaties that may exist. There may be all kinds of different provisions for different status within British Columbia, but that does not necessarily mean that we are not equal. I would agree with that.

Where I think the public will become quite concerned -- and I offer this to the Premier in all sincerity, because I believe the responsible approach to take now is for us to adequately, properly and accurately inform British Columbians as to the content of this agreement dispassionately, in an apolitical way. . . . The concern is that in the very, very early hours of this agreement, we are finding that Nisga'a is already becoming politically stamped by the two major opposing parties in this chamber. If that happens, and if that is in fact how this progresses, I think we're going to very quickly lose sight of the tremendous opportunity we have within that agreement and become bogged down in a political debate that will have less to do with Nisga'a and a lot more to do with who prevails in the next provincial election.

[10:30]

Hon. G. Clark: Well, I agree with almost everything the member said. This is an issue which goes far beyond any partisan considerations, and I can't say that strongly enough. It cannot be a political debate -- or at least a partisan debate -- because that would be doing a disservice both to future generations who have to live with this and to the work that has to be done to reach reconciliation with all aboriginal people in the province.

I am worried that a polarization could occur. Not only would that be divisive and difficult politically, if you will, but it would also potentially lead to very destructive kind of debate. Whenever you're dealing with minority rights and reconciliation of historical injustices, then there is always, it seems to me, the danger of the majority or those who seek not to support redress to move the debate in a way which is confrontational, divisive and destructive.

We really are at a historic time about which way we're going to go in British Columbia -- whether we're going to go the way of reconciliation and modern-day treaties to try to resolve this question and bring certainty to investors and also justice for aboriginal people, or whether we are not going to seek that path. Those who say, "Well, we should seek that path but not this way," are really being less than honest. They must know that these negotiations were difficult and have gone on for many years. They're not unique to my government. There's a federal government involved here, and there are governments and generations involved. Significant compromises were made by all parties, including the provincial government, to reach this agreement.

It is sophistry at best for people to argue now that we can renegotiate or that we can do better and that this is somehow open for the kind of divisive debate that they would like. I think it's really a code for being opposed to this kind of model and for being opposed to this kind of reconciliation. I think that it will be profoundly destructive -- not to me or to us over here; there are no aboriginal people on our side. It matters not whether we're elected; it matters whether we're actually going to make progress on this file. That will not lead to progress; that will lead to confrontation. It will potentially lead to violence, and it will lead to destabilizing. So we needed this passionate debate and not a political one.

One could say -- and I guess the member said implicitly -- that my involvement in and of itself automatically, therefore, politicizes the debate. I have to reject that. I recognize that there is some danger in that, but I really do reject that. Were it not for the cabinet's and the caucus's deliberations on this question, as well as historic compromises that we've made -- ones which may well be unpopular in British Columbia. . . . Were it not for the political leadership, in the broadest sense of the word, that the caucus has displayed, we would not be here. We can't say that we weren't involved. We were

[ Page 10368 ]

I will do everything I can to try to dispel that notion and to make sure that that's not the case. I have already been talking to business people. I've been trying to reach out to religious leaders and others -- not to ask them for support particularly, but to ask them to engage in the debate in a manner and fashion which adds to an enlightened discussion of this very big problem that we face in British Columbia. I very much look forward to the participation of the member on this question and his advice on how we can continue to try to do that and not lapse into what I fear -- and I think the member fears -- which is the kind of shrill partisan rhetoric of the last few days that will lead to a difficult debate, no matter what transpires.

We're grappling with this question. We've talked about an information campaign. The cynical media, cynics and critics automatically say, "Well, how much are you going to spend?" and "What's going on?" and there's all that kind of attack. We want to be transparent about it, and we will do everything we can so that the information campaign is as clear and as non-political, if you will, or non-partisan as it possibly can be. We clearly need to have this discussion and briefings. Full information and knowledge for the opposition. . . . That should take place now, and we will obviously make available everything we can in that regard.

I think we're at a tricky time here in terms of how we proceed. Clearly the way it has been going has lent itself, I think, to potentially. . . . At least I fear the worst in this debate, given the way it started out, with the kind of vitriol and hostility that I have seen from certain quarters with respect to elements of this treaty. I would hope -- and I still hope -- that there will at least be a time when, if reasonable people have differences with respect to the treaty, they are conducted in a manner, fashion and tone which reasonable people can disagree on, rather than what we're already seeing are very clear markers in the sand.

Sorry for the long discussion about this, but with great respect to the opposition critics who've raised very important questions, it really is -- all of this discussion today -- the future of the province. This is clearly the most important issue, when you strip it all away in terms of the future -- if you look ahead for any length of time to not the next election but the next generation -- we face as a people, as a province.

G. Wilson: In response, I would say that from my perspective, and I think the perspective of those people in the political party that I represent, this agreement. . . . The people of British Columbia must take ownership of this agreement, not its politicians. It really isn't going to matter eight years down the road when the Nisga'a wake up and find they'll pay tax, or in 12 years, when they find they'll pay tax or whatever. In that length of time down the road, my guess is that most are not going to remember who said what in this debate tonight or tomorrow or the next few weeks.

But what they will remember for generations is the extent to which the people of British Columbia embraced an opportunity to get rid of hundreds of years -- certainly a hundred and some years -- of discrimination. They will remember whether or not the people of British Columbia took ownership of an agreement that provided them the offer to come in as equal partners in this province. They won't remember who as individuals contributed to that debate. They will simply know whether or not we as a society were open enough, big enough, mature enough and able enough to say: "Now is the time for us to resolve these differences."

I don't want to get into too lengthy a debate tonight, because I'm conscious of time. I said I would try to keep my questioning of the Premier to roughly within an hour, and I'm going to try to do that. I think I started about five minutes ago, though.

It seems to me that one of the more contentious issues around this question -- and one I know the Premier's Office and the Premier's deputy have been very directly involved in -- has to do with the extent to which the text of this agreement impacts the constitution of Canada or requires change to the constitution of Canada, which de facto will cause, through the laws of British Columbia, a referendum to be held. I take the view, having read the text to its last set of discussions -- and I don't think it's been changed much since then -- and having read what I saw in a briefing this morning, that this agreement does not change the constitution of Canada and does not require a referendum.

Indeed, I take the position that if we were to hold a referendum on this question, it would require a referendum of every other treaty that's negotiated and would render the treaty process virtually invalid. The reason is that you will never get people to a table to sit down for months and months, and to come out with hard, well-negotiated, finite text on an agreement, if they think that at the end of the day, somebody can pull one line or clause out of that agreement and go to referendum and have it fail.

I know from firsthand experience how to do that, because in constitutional rounds -- the last one, the Charlottetown accord -- where many Canadians were opposed, it was easier, frankly, to argue from the no side than it was from the yes side. It was easier to be able to focus in on those areas that were contentious, and there is no agreement that will not be contentious.

But it seems to me that we have to find a way to have this matter clearly identified, discussed and set aside, because we could get into a long heated debate on whether we should or shouldn't be having a referendum on this question. It isn't going to work for the Premier to simply stand up and say: "Well, I've decided no, and therefore the answer is no." Historically, we've seen in Canada that when you have that kind of decision taken by a first minister, the people get a little antsy about it. Often that becomes the catalyst around which opposition builds, without even any reference to the merits of the text. I happen to think I was on the right side on Charlottetown. I know that many of you on the opposite side think now that I was on the right side on Charlottetown, although you didn't at the time.

What I'm saying to the Premier is that the Premier's Office clearly has a very, very important role to play, but I think that important role has to be seconded by every other leader in British Columbia. I don't mean political leaders; I mean those people who are in positions of authority and leadership. We need to have this question decided definitively. We must have this question decided and set down. The Premier's Office has been involved. That's why I raise this question in these estimates -- because I think this gives an opportunity for the Premier to outline how he intends, through his office, to proceed on this question. It strikes me that this is a matter that we have to set aside definitively without having it slide into a political debate.

[ Page 10369 ]

I took a very clear position, an unequivocal position at that time, as did the leader of the Progressive Democratic Alliance, and as did at the time, interestingly enough, the leader of the Liberal Party, who has now abandoned that position. But that was the position of the Liberal Party during the election campaign. So three parties out of four said no, there would not be a referendum, and one did. You cannot get a much higher test of an issue than if you've gone through an election clearly stating a position and being successful. Of course, that position was successful for not just me, as there were three parties on that side of the debate. So it has been tested.

[10:45]

Having said that, I recognize what the member is saying, and it's not insignificant. Even though that's the case, if people feel that this is illegitimate or that what I am doing doesn't pass the public test of legitimacy -- notwithstanding having gone through the election or my consistent position on this -- then that becomes very difficult, because the public clearly are sovereign over us. We are to serve the people we represent. If we don't meet that test, then, first of all, you don't survive very long, and secondly, demands arise which become inescapable. Clearly we don't want that. There are going to be those -- including, not to be partisan, the Leader of the Opposition -- who. . .have already been trying to foster and fan the flames on this issue and to use it, I believe, as a code to try to oppose the treaty without saying they're opposed, to fan the flames of division in the province. I want to try to give some comfort to the public that this is not a decision that I take lightly or arrogantly on their behalf. It's one which we've been consistent on.

How can we further legitimize that to ensure people do, as the member has said, own this treaty, or at least take ownership of the treaty away from the government or the politicians, even though we have been -- correctly, I think you could say -- instrumental in taking it to this point? It's not ours to bring into this chamber and say: "Well, we have done this, and we're doing it." That's not acceptable. It has to meet that test. It has to at least win that sense of legitimacy through debate and dialogue in British Columbia.

If we are not to have a referendum -- which is my position, just for the record. . . . You cannot have a referendum on minority rights. You can't subject critical minority rights to the will of the majority. It would pass, by the way, in my judgment. I'm actually not afraid of that. But it's a principled position that I think is critical. Further, as the member has said, I think that if you were to say that. . .and to have it for all the other treaties, you would be subjecting the negotiation process to an ultimate test which would doom it to failure and, I think, lead aboriginal people to see alternative courses of action to treaty negotiations -- like court action or militant action or violence -- as their only solution, because the prospects of success would be doubted. After making key trade-offs, someone else would come along and say: "Well, we don't like it, so you need to make more." You would set up a stalemate by definition if you were to choose that path as a way of moving forward.

We're grappling with this question. I think the member is right that we need other voices -- voices in the community, be they religious, business or community leaders or otherwise, or other political party leaders -- to take the position that we can have an informed dialogue and debate on this question without having a referendum. That's what we have to pursue. I think the member and I agree on this question, and I appreciate the tone of his remarks. I would note that there have been no questions on this treaty from the official opposition, which I'm a little bit surprised at -- a lot surprised, actually. I am being a bit lengthy, but I really think that even though we'll have lots of debate on this, these are very, very important questions to grapple with.

G. Wilson: I'm pleased that the Premier has acknowledged that his answers are lengthy. It's probably by necessity, because that would obviously mean that my list of questions may take me slightly past the one hour that. . .which is troubling to me, because I really want to debate the teachers legislation at midnight.

Anyway, let me come back to my questions with respect to this. I want to move somewhat off aboriginal questions, because I have. . . . Oh, excuse me, I have one more. I know I tread a fine line in the Premier's estimates, because the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs would argue, probably successfully, that it should fall into his own.

I want to talk about the taxation side. I didn't really get a chance to hear from the Premier. . . . I question whether or not the federal government has lived up to its obligation and responsibility in the matter of first nations taxation. It is interesting to me, as I travel the province and talk to British Columbians about our involvement in treaty negotiations on the matter of taxation, that the question of taxation of first nations is exclusively federal, as the law is written today. It seems to me that if we're going to be making amendments to taxation law to provide some kind of fairness, the way the federal government could have best assisted us was to introduce, through a federal statutory amendment, the very kind of taxation regulation change that would have provided amendments with respect to aboriginal tax law uniformly across Canada.

Where we were getting into some trouble here. . . . The Premier will know this, because we have met. I don't want to get into the sensitivities of the Sechelt issue, because we have

[ Page 10370 ]

I wonder if the Premier does not see that there's a role to be played by first ministers to start to put pressure on the Prime Minister to live up to their obligations -- their statutory obligation -- with respect to this question. In the Yukon and the Northwest Territories, or what is now becoming the new territories in the north, we now have a number of treaties that have been signed over the last little while, and in every single case we get down to this issue. The solution is for the feds to get off their collective seats in Parliament and do something about it, because that is where we will come up with some kind of commonality on the question. So my question to the Premier is: does the Premier not believe that the first ministers have some role to play here in making the federal government live up to its obligation on this question? That would provide some alleviation for those negotiators who find themselves in a real box on this question.

Hon. G. Clark: I'm not quite sure I understand where the member is coming from. The member is correct that we are in danger of having -- if this is what he's saying -- a crazy quilt or a checkerboard of taxation policies which protect aboriginal people. Clearly it would be desirable to have one rule, if you will, around this question. If that's what he's saying, I don't entirely disagree.

But having said that, where there already are treaties, this is a difficult question. I don't know how they would. . . . The treaties that were signed in the 1890s, of course, which provide for tax-free status, if you will, are ones which. . . . Although there is some debate, and reopening, etc., would provide some opportunity, it would be difficult for the federal government to legislate anything other than the status quo on treaty lands -- not to take their side.

For British Columbia, they could do a great service for us, where there are no treaties, to legislate that this will be the case for those who sign treaties. That would be a great assistance to real hard-cap negotiating, which would allow us to get on, I think, and help to expedite settlements. I would certainly desire that; we would love the federal government to do that. Whether it moves beyond British Columbia, actually, I'm not really competent to answer. I would think the feds would have difficulty doing that, for the reasons I mentioned.

G. Wilson: Let me move on to a different topic. Having done a little research -- very little research, but enough to know -- we have in this Premier the most travelled Premier in the history of British Columbia. This Premier has logged more air miles, travelled to more foreign jurisdictions and got himself into more hot water in the process than I think any other Premier in the history of British Columbia. So I guess my question would be: what are the travel costs associated with his journeys abroad? How much money has he spent on our behalf, and what has been the return for these travels abroad?

Hon. G. Clark: I just happen to have that information here.

First of all, I'm flattered if the member has done sufficient research to say that I've travelled more than anybody else. I'm not sure he's correct. I know that Sir Richard McBride attained the title "Sir" by taking long boat trips back to the old country, which excused him from British Columbia for months, I think, even while he was Premier. So even though I may have travelled more, the frequency or duration of my absence from the chamber is probably less than that of many other Premiers in the past.

This year, fiscal '97-98, the actual expenditures for travel were $99,285.74 for myself. I have a fairly detailed. . . . In terms of breakdown -- for example, the Premiers' conferences and internal travel. . . . I'm just trying to break it down for you. I'm not sure if the member is interested in the American trips or the out-of-province trips. I'm just trying to see if there's a quicker breakdown of those trips for you. Obviously there are so many here; there are pages and pages of receipts. The overall cost is $99,000. There are, of course, if you will, obligatory trips, which are quite expensive. Those are the trips to the Western Premiers' Conference and to other Premiers' conferences, which my family attends as well -- it's tradition. Then there are trips within the province. Just looking at this. . . . It's not entirely accurate, but it looks like about half of it might be called domestic travel and half of it is travelling to promote British Columbia.

[W. Hartley in the chair.]

What are the consequences of that travel? I think we've done a good job of raising the profile of British Columbia. Certainly, Nike. . . . We are on the shortlist now, with two other jurisdictions, for a 5,000-person Nike campus; we're in intensive negotiations with them around that. I don't know what the chances are. Nike's had some difficulty with share price and the like because of Asia, so it may be delayed. But we're still in discussions. The aluminum smelter opportunity is very much alive. It's not common knowledge. . . . We've done a couple of MOUs, but there are actually about nine aluminum companies which have been to British Columbia or are coming here shortly, where we've been in serious, detailed negotiations -- companies like Alcoa and Alumax, now only one company. There are less serious but nevertheless important negotiations with other companies, most recently with a South African company called Billiton, based in London, and with Norsk Hydro, which is Norwegian -- a giant company, a big aluminum company and hydroelectric utility -- as well as with Reynolds Aluminum and Kaiser Aluminum. As the members know, because my itinerary is public, I've now met with most of the major aluminum companies, on that.

[11:00]

[ Page 10371 ]

When I travel, especially in the United States, it's very interesting. Usually there has been a Governor of a state who's been in to see that company, sometimes a month prior, or who will be in within the month coming up. In other words, this is a common 1990s version of promoting your state or your province. I think, frankly, we're going to have to see more travel by the Premier, regardless of who the Premier is, in terms of promoting the activities of the province in these jurisdictions. Frankly, if you don't do that, it's a puzzle, particularly to the Americans. With the Nike trip, they were puzzled why it took so long to get me down there, because they, of course, are used to having American Governors give huge subsidies and other enticements to them. In our system we are not as aggressive, or traditionally we have not been as aggressive, in promoting our province. So I don't make any apologies for the large travel budget, because I think it's very important that we become much more aggressive in selling what we have and the opportunities we have in British Columbia. I think you will see some significant developments as a result of this travel.

G. Wilson: The Premier says that he was flattered that I took the time to sort out his travel budget. The truth is that there were a number of us in my office who were having a bet as to whether or not the province was doing better when he was out of the province or when he was in the province. That's how we came to log the number of miles and travel. Interestingly enough, the jury's still out on that question.

I just wonder, from a purely technical point of view. . . . I guess, from my perspective in looking at the vote -- which is what we're really supposed to be doing here -- I don't know where you come up with your $99,000. Or maybe the Premier has a sort of a credit card that has no spending limit, and you can bill it later. I mean, where did you come up with the money? I look at the Premier's vote, and I don't see that level of dollars available.

Hon. G. Clark: First of all, last year -- just from what I've seen down here -- there was an extraordinary lot of travel as well. I remember the Calgary declaration discussions. There was a special aboriginal first ministers' meeting, coming out of the New Brunswick meeting, that we had in Winnipeg. There was, as well, a special. . . . The Prime Minister called the first ministers' meeting in Ottawa. Especially if we have to charter -- which we try not to do, actually -- that does bring the cost up. So last year we had an extraordinary internal travel year, at least from my recollection.

The money. . . . Usually what happens is. . . . Obviously, if the Prime Minister calls a first ministers' meeting, I go, and it's paid for. So there is a travel budget for. . . . By the way, I believe it's the same for ministers as for the Premier. If you travel outside the province, I believe the budget is in the Ministry of Employment and Investment. So for any travel that's taken by any cabinet minister outside the province, there's a budget for out-of-province travel. Similarly, if you travel inside the province, I think there's an allocation for that as well.

In addition to that, in the case of aluminum, there is a fund that has been. . . . It's probably not in there, because it's not large enough. But there is, I know, a few hundred thousand dollars that's been put aside by Treasury Board in the Ministry of Employment and Investment to handle the very intense and detailed professional negotiations we have to undertake. There's a whole team involved, from economists to corporate lawyers to energy experts, so there's a budget for the aluminum negotiations. In some of the cases, it's possible that the travel costs would be allocated to the overall aluminum promotion budget.

G. Wilson: So the Premier is saying that it's pretty thoroughly spread around and that it's going to be pretty difficult to pull it out trip by trip. We can't get into the Minister of Employment and Investment's estimates, because we've closed them off. But if I'm reading this correctly -- that some $846,000 in travel is sitting there -- I would say that the Premier's not getting his fair share if he's only taking $99,000. That's a huge amount of travel. But in any event, I don't want to get into being very picky about how you fly: do you go first-class, do you go. . . ? You know, those sorts of things. I'm assuming that all that is a matter of public record anyway.

I'm more interested, frankly, because this is a Premier, hon. Chair, who does tend to travel a lot, and he often gets himself in some hot water when he does, as it turns out. . . . I know that the Premier has raised this aluminum issue because he knows that it's dear to my heart -- and we're going to get there. But before we do, I want to ask the Premier to talk a little bit about his most recent travel -- at least, I think it's his most recent, except for the Nass Valley -- when he went down to Washington to talk about softwood and about fish. Now, if the Premier could tell us a little bit about who he met with and what, if any, progress there was -- because we've got a really serious problem on the fishery question. . . .

Hon. G. Clark: First of all, there were three purposes for the trip. One was softwood lumber, one was fish and the other was tobacco.

The primary purpose of the trip was softwood lumber. If it wasn't clear, we took with us on the trip the mayor of Prince George, Ike Barber from Slocan Forest Products, Ron MacDonald, the new head of the Council of Forest Industries, and Dave Haggard from the IWA. So we took a whole team with us.

We met with USTR, which is the United States Trade Representative and which has the file on softwood lumber. That is a formal agency and is the adjudicating agency that made the decision to proceed. It's the administrative arm of the American government which makes the decision whether or not to proceed. He's empowered to negotiate resolution. Like all things in Washington, it's highly political; they are usually political appointments. We -- our whole delegation -- had an excellent meeting with USTR.

We also had a meeting with the so-called Coalition for Fair Lumber Imports, which is actually the first time we've done this. This is the most vociferous voice in opposition to British Columbia exports of lumber. They were the initiators of various countervail actions, and they're viewed, of course, as extremely hostile. So we did something which has never been done: we had a face-to-face meeting at the Canadian embassy, hosted by the ambassador, with all of the major forest companies involved in the coalition who have been attacking us daily. John Ragosta and others who you've read about in the paper were there. We had an excellent, frank exchange of views on that question.

In addition to that, we had a meeting with Sen. Max Baucus from Montana. If you have followed the file, a few years ago he was really the face for the industry down there. It was an excellent meeting; I enjoyed the meeting a lot. He was very frank and very tough, defending the interests of his state,

[ Page 10372 ]

In addition to that, I had three meetings on tobacco -- one with the White House representative. I think his name is Mr. O'Hara. He is taking the President's anti-tobacco plan through; he is the point person for the President on that file. We had a meeting with the Coalition for Tobacco-Free Kids, which is a kind of interest-and-lobby group that has been taking on the tobacco industry in the United States at a central level. They just recently lost a big fight down there. Those were two separate meetings.

Thirdly, I met with Sen. Dianne Feinstein, who is the Senator from California who has been taking an interesting, moderate kind of position on the tobacco question but has been pretty high-profile on the issue.

Then on the fisheries question, which was not the primary purpose of my trip -- because, frankly, the federal government had made some agreements; I disagreed with them, but I was really looking at the future, potentially, because we still need a salmon treaty -- I had some interesting meetings. First, I met with Sen. Gordon Smith from Oregon, a new Senator, and then with Sen. Slade Gorton from Washington State, and then finally with Sen. Ted Stevens from Alaska. I think it's fair to say that the meeting with the Senator from Alaska was cordial, contrary to what some people thought -- or thought would happen. He is a very senior and powerful Senator in the United States. It was a good meeting. He understands British Columbia better than I think people realize, because he is a neighbour and is, in many respects, culturally and otherwise, closer to British Columbia than he is to Washington, D.C. We had a good discussion. I hope it opened up some dialogue. Sen. Slade Gorton was surprisingly. . . . It may be unfair, but he was surprisingly informed on the issue, I thought. I think we opened up some good communications there. Senator Smith is a new Senator from Oregon. In fact, British Columbia has adopted some Oregon legislation on fish protection and the like, or similar legislation. So we have a pretty good relationship.

There's no immediate. . . . It was not intended to be any big breakthrough on fish. It was simply because I was in Washington on these other questions, and to try to engage in a dialogue about how we could work better together, with British Columbia, being partners in bringing about important conservation principles. I think we did have -- and I think the people who were with me will confirm it. . . . The meetings we had on softwood lumber were very productive. I hope they will not lead to an escalation of this dispute, although it's still, I think, a debate.

G. Wilson: I'm going to try to hone in on just a couple of other questions, because I've got four or five other points I'd like to get to. On the matter of softwood lumber. . . . First of all, let's deal with fisheries separately; let's put that aside. Perhaps I should have known -- I didn't read the papers carefully enough -- but it's news to me about the tobacco issues. That's an interesting one. It's one that I'm not prepared to ask you questions on tonight, but it will be interesting to follow up on it.

On the softwood lumber issue, it seems that, as the Premier of the province travelling to Washington to meet with this dispute group. . . . It seems to me that one of the primary areas that the Americans want to see movement on with respect to softwood is the question of the establishment of competitive markets in B.C. and of having a more competitive log market and of having a market-driven stumpage price.

Having had Mr. Barber at our convention. . . . He came and gave an excellent presentation on this issue, and we've been able to spend some time understanding the issue. He was certainly a very welcome addition to the agenda. I think I'm beginning to understand a little bit more about the real complexities we have in British Columbia because of the two quite distinct forest industries: the interior, which has a set of issues and concerns, and the coast, which has a different set of issues and concerns. It seems to me that we get caught up in a real box when we try to negotiate sort of a one-size-fits-all solution.

It's curious that Mr. Barber would have been selected to go down with Mr. MacDonald, who I know from his previous days as a Liberal Member of Parliament when I was the Liberal leader. Ironically, I met him just a couple of days ago and was quite surprised to find out that he is now the president or CEO of COFI, or whatever his title is. But it strikes me as interesting that the people who went down are predominantly interior representatives -- if it's not unfair to characterize. . . .

It strikes me that one of the primary problems we face in British Columbia is in convincing the Americans that we do have some legitimate concerns that need to be addressed with respect to protecting and maintaining the interior lumber industry, whereas the coastal area might in fact be able to accommodate a greater percentage of fibre in a competitive marketplace. We might in fact be able to have a differential with respect to stumpage allocation, and we might be able to make some modifications. I wonder if that was a consideration at all for the Premier, in the team that he took down to Washington. Because it strikes me that Americans generally -- it would appear, certainly from my discussions with the few that I've talked with who are directly involved in it -- paint us all with one brush. They think that somehow we're up here subsidizing this industry like crazy and that we're somehow going to unfairly invade their market -- which, of course, is nonsense. Could the Premier respond to that?

[11:15]

Having said that, I want to be a little bit clearer about what was going on. We have a softwood lumber agreement with the United States. It has three more years left. They have accepted our regime, if you will, and the reason they've accepted it is because we voluntarily put quotas on and limited our exports to the United States. We have a whole agreement on the framework, etc., which lasts three more years. We are making changes to both the Forest Practices Code and stumpage. The change to stumpage will reflect the increased cost imposed by regulation. It's on that narrow point that we had to make the case that this change would not lead to a flood of exports over and above the quota into the United

[ Page 10373 ]

The points you were making, which I think are excellent points, and ones which clearly we should consider in terms of the expiry of the softwood lumber agreement or getting rid of it ahead of time. . . . A more profound one is about how we get more access. The political challenge in British Columbia is that when we go down to Washington, what we're really doing is defending the existing quota system. We know that probably the biggest problem facing the industry is the existing quota system; they want more quota.

We're in there trying to defend the existing quota system from attack, when in fact what we really want to do is open up the market, particularly for coastal producers. So there are two questions. First we have to defend the existing quota system from attack by the Americans because of the change we're making. But the next step, which we clearly want to do -- and which people like Tom Stephens and you are suggesting in some ways, is. . . . Okay, that's fine, and it's a good thing to at least not unravel this agreement on that basis. How do we find a way to go above the quota agreement legitimately and convince the Americans that this makes sense and is part of a change in the way we do business here, and that's market-sensitive and allows us to escape the quota system we've set up? That's a separate question, which was not the subject of the trip but is very legitimate and which we are actually doing some work on and thinking about.

G. Wilson: All right, let's just leave that there. Although I'd love to get into a debate on it, tonight is not the time to do that. Let's leave that and let me move on to Nanoose Bay.

The Premier made a huge fanfare about Nanoose and how he was going to cancel the lease. There was a legal question that arose. There was some animosity -- I think I'm putting it in fair terms -- between the federal and provincial governments with respect to Nanoose. The Premier made a statement that was unequivocal; if they cannot get an agreement, then he's going to pull that licence. But we do not have a satisfactory agreement; I think the Premier would agree. So is he still committed at this point to pull the licence on Nanoose, and if so, when does that come into effect?

Hon. G. Clark: First of all, I'm just trying to cast my mind back on the history here. Canada has a lease with British Columbia for the seabed, and we have initiated a cancellation of that lease. The federal government has taken the position that we are not entitled to do that, and we have gone to court to seek to enforce our right to cancel the agreement. This is what I was just checking. We've given instruction to legal counsel, literally in the last week or two, to proceed to try to expedite the court case and get it onto the court docket so that we can cancel the lease that Canada has with British Columbia and effectively close the torpedo-testing range. We haven't seen the end of this, and we are very close to having another showdown on this question. I think it's actually an important question not just for the fish and to put pressure on the Americans, but also about enforcing our jurisdiction on this land that is between Vancouver Island and the mainland. We'll be in court, I hope, very soon.

G. Wilson: So the status is, as I understand it, that the legal counsel have now been given instruction that there's an anticipation that this court case. . . . Will this court case be heard in the Supreme Court in British Columbia or in Ottawa? What are the time lines and costs tied to this court case?

Hon. G. Clark: Time lines are very hard to predict. We expect the federal government to throw up every legal challenge they can. But we've sort of had this in the works for a while. We do think we can get it on -- at least we're advised -- reasonably soon. What are the costs? I don't know the answer. I'll give you the information as soon as we can. Our legal advice is that we have quite a good chance of success. There are other legal avenues and constitutional questions the federal government could attempt to use, but given the way they've constructed their attempt to block us now, we are going to court, and we have a reasonable prospect of success. It will be, I'm pretty sure, in the British Columbia Supreme Court.

G. Wilson: If this is the Premier's strategy, can the Premier advise us how this. . . ? There's a bit of an assumption here, and if that steps over the rules, hon. Chair, you can rule me out of order. But it strikes me that even if we were to win this court case, what it does is exert a certain level of sovereign power over the seabed -- which British Columbia should have. I quite agree with the Premier that the arrogance of the federal government seems to increase on a daily basis. It's nice once in a while to win a point in court that gives us the authority that is, in fact, properly vested in the province. But even if we win it, and if we cancel the lease, what does that do to help accommodate a fisheries treaty? It seems to me that in chess, if you make a move that threatens the king, that's fine as long as you don't sort of leave yourself vulnerable to a countermove that ultimately puts you in checkmate. It strikes me that we're almost at that point. So maybe the Premier could outline how this strategy is going to help us come up with anything that's going to resolve the fishery question.

Hon. G. Clark: Well, the only thing the Americans understand is whether you've got some leverage in negotiations. The problem we've had with Canada is their inability or reluctance or refusal to apply any pressure on the United States. In fact, they've done the reverse. They took away all the pressure and then tried to get a treaty this last time by agreeing not to fish any of their fish in advance of trying to get a treaty.

I can tell you this, without mentioning names: it was raised in Washington by the Americans. Contrary to what you might read in the newspapers, there's only a couple of things which have actually got the Americans' attention. One is the blockade. I support the blockade. It's a problem; it's not the kind of action we like. But it got the U.S.'s attention.

The second thing that got their attention in Washington, D.C., was the threat to cancel the torpedo-testing range, because -- and I think it's important that you know this -- this is worth hundreds of millions of dollars to them. This was again reflected in my conversations down in the United States. There is no other shallow-seabed torpedo-testing range that they use. We have documented evidence, which I've released to the public, of literally over $1 billion over the life of their testing that they have saved by using this. The Americans understand that if their military wants to use that. . . . They have permanent military personnel in Nanoose, and they save hundreds of millions of dollars by doing it. That is real pressure that we would be applying to the Americans to get a salmon treaty. For a fact, those are the only two things.

The only other thing that got their attention in the past was transit fees. That really got their attention, because the Americans are sitting back catching our fish, and there's no pressure on them in any way. Talking nice to them is not a solution or has not been a solution in the past, and I see no

[ Page 10374 ]

Now, Canada should be doing this, and that's the right approach. They refuse to do that; they refuse to stand up to the Americans. So we are taking some action on their behalf, really, to try to give some leverage to Canada in the negotiations. Canada is fighting us, and that obviously obviates to a great extent the effectiveness, because the Americans sit back and say Canada's going to do their work for them. But we're determined to try to put this pressure on. We're going to proceed as best we can with court action.

G. Wilson: I think part of the problem with that strategy. . . . I don't disagree that Canada is the senior government and should be the government that is fighting on behalf of British Columbians. Our history has demonstrated, since the late 1800s and early 1900s when we joined Confederation, that historically Ottawa has failed British Columbia when it comes to west coast maritime disputes with the Americans. Whether it's disputes over where lines should be established for boundaries or over past fisheries concerns, historically Ottawa has failed us and sold us out. I don't want to get into a long history, because it is getting late, and I am trying to get through this material. I appreciate the fact that the Premier is giving me very exhaustive answers to these questions; I do appreciate that.

Sticking with fisheries, though, it seems to me that British Columbia must have some legal recourse with respect to the high-handed action that the federal government has taken with respect to the prohibition of American ships coming into B.C. dockyards for work. To just outline how contradictory this position is, right now American packers are bringing Canadian-caught fish off American boats into Canadian processing plants in the Prince Rupert area. But those same boats when requiring repair -- which are allowed to come in to off-load fish and put it into a processing plant -- are denied access into our shipyards in Victoria.

This is an outrage. It is absolutely outrageous that the federal government can initiate some law -- in fact, it's not even a law; I believe it to be a regulation, which hasn't been used before and is now enacted -- that puts a prohibition on American ships coming into our dockyards because it is Ottawa's thinking that this is in some way going to advance a movement toward some treaty. The Premier has been well aware of this. I know that the member from Metchosin brought together a meeting of people in the local Victoria area to try and get things going. To his credit I think he tried to get as many people together to fight this. . . . This is an issue that affects all British Columbians, and it certainly affects the B.C. maritime industry.

I haven't heard from the Premier on this question, and I wonder why we haven't seen the same vociferous kind of defence in this matter with respect to the Premier and the Prime Minister. It's the Prime Minister that has to rein in this federal Minister of Fisheries who seems to be running off doing his own thing, thinking that he's the guy that's got the solutions. Surely the Premier and the Prime Minister have to get together, rein this guy in, and say: "Settle down. Don't kill our local ship industry because you've got some weird idea that by blocking American ships coming in here, some of which don't have anything whatsoever to do with fish, somehow that's going to do anything except put dockworkers out of a job."

[11:30]

I have commented on it at some length, and I've been quoted in the paper about it, but the member for Esquimalt-Metchosin -- an outstanding MLA, who's very aggressive on this file -- has been working it, and I've been in close contact with him and am completely supportive of his actions in trying to get them to see sense. There has yet to be any kind of rational explanation for saying that American vessels, even those with nothing to do with the fishing industry, can't be repaired here in Victoria. We are losing hundreds of jobs and thousands of dollars worth of work, both in Vancouver in Victoria, because of this insane policy.

G. Wilson: I didn't hear if the Premier has actually made representation to the Prime Minister to rein in this guy on this question. It strikes me. . . . I don't know. Maybe the problem is that the Premier doesn't play golf. Or maybe he does, and if he does, maybe he needs to set some time aside to play golf with the Prime Minister, because that's a preoccupation these days, I understand. I don't know what venue you need to get together to chat, but surely to goodness the Prime Minister of Canada has to rein in this minister. Without that, it strikes me that we're really not getting very far. Can the Premier tell me, please, if he has actually made representation to the Prime Minister?

Hon. G. Clark: I'll have to check. In my correspondence with the Prime Minister on the fisheries issue, I'm pretty sure that I did reference this. I haven't phoned him personally or had occasion to. My experience with the Prime Minister is that he's been backing his minister, David Anderson, on all these questions, and I've obviously made no progress in having them see reason on this file.

G. Wilson: Okay. As I say, I'm trying very hard to get through this material, but these are important questions, and I think they are questions that need to be answered. It may sound somewhat contradictory that I've talked about the Premier being very much a hands-on Premier, being very much involved in almost all aspects of what's going on in the government. . . . I made reference to that earlier -- about it being sort of the heart, and most of the other body parts as well. The point is that this Premier is very much directly involved in trying to find resolutions to questions.

I want to go specifically now to what is perhaps a little bit more of a touchy issue, and then, hopefully, we'll end on a more positive note. I've only got a few more things here, for those people who are eyeing the clock. The Premier's Office involved itself in a dispute with the BCTF and BCPSEA. My question is: why? Why would the Office of the Premier, and his agent -- Mr. Penikett, I believe -- get involved in direct negotiation with the BCTF, when BCPSEA and the BCTF bargaining agencies couldn't seem to come to an agreement? Why would the Premier not say: "As a labour government, as

[ Page 10375 ]

Hon. G. Clark: First of all, the Premier's Office did not get involved in the dispute. Let's be clear. We have a Public Sector Employers Council, and it's staffed. The head of that is Russ Pratt. He doesn't work for me, but he works for the government. He manages the public sector bargaining. He was asked by both sides to help mediate a settlement, and he got involved. Tony Penikett, it is true, was in the Ministry of Finance initially, but I have no hesitation in saying he is working, on the government's instructions -- and I was involved in that -- to look at the broader social things that we could bring to the table. We knew we had a very difficult mandate for zero-and-zero, no money for a couple of years, and we were looking for ways that we could find other things that were of interest to working people in the public sector which wouldn't necessarily be part of the collective bargaining process. We had him working on that. Both those individuals were involved in negotiations and were initially requested by both parties. Both parties were informed, and there were meetings all the time, back and forth.

Now, it's true that what happened at the end of the day is that those negotiators decided to attempt to negotiate an agreement themselves within the mandate with the teachers union. That's what ended up happening, because the two parties were unable to get together. Of course, as you know, the employers subsequently rejected that agreement, and we now have legislation before us to implement it.

Those are the facts. It wasn't the Premier's Office. The people in charge of all public sector negotiations were in charge, and they intervened to try to help.

G. Wilson: I don't want to slide off into a debate that's better dealt with in second reading of that bill, but I do want to understand the process. I can tell you, hon. Chair, that I think what the government has done offends a bunch of principles that I thought members of that party believed in -- namely, free collective bargaining and no government intervention in the free collective bargaining process. I think that's a really important issue. The Premier has to acknowledge, surely -- because we've got all of the Hansard debate from the estimates on Education -- that he did, through Mr. Penikett, have a fairly direct role in determining what would come to the table that could not otherwise come to the table because BCPSEA, which is the exclusive bargaining agent by law, was not mandated by this government to put it on the table. Surely the Premier isn't telling us that he did not have a role in changing that mandate, through Mr. Penikett, who sat down not with the BCTF negotiating team but with the president, the executive, of the BCTF. It wasn't only the employers who rejected this deal; the BCTF negotiating team rejected this deal.

Maybe the Premier could just clarify exactly what his role was in that.

Hon. G. Clark: It's not quite as large as you suggest. Mr. Pratt was involved. The parties were so far apart that if we were to not intervene, then we were clearly setting it up for a lockout and/or a strike. There were literally hundreds of demands for concessions on the table by the employers, and we had a very tough mandate as it was -- zero-zero-and-2. The employers were seeking to radically change the collective agreement, so we would have had a lockout or a strike. We were determined to try to avoid that and to try to assist the parties in getting an agreement, and so we did that.

It's true: we did provide money to try to achieve the government's educational objectives of reduced class size at the same time. Mr. Pratt was involved. Mr. Penikett was involved, but actually not in the negotiations as much as on the money side, because that was the purview of Mr. Pratt. Mr. Penikett was involved, but Mr. Pratt had the file. Tony Penikett's job was to look for largely non-monetary things that could be part of a package to convince public sector workers generally, in each case, to accept what is a very tough mandate. That's what they did. Those are the facts of the matter.

We would have had a lockout, but we chose to try to find a resolution. We found a wonderful resolution that puts a lot of money into education and reducing class size. Unfortunately, we were forced to impose it on school boards that wanted to play politics, in my view, with this issue.

G. Wilson: I need to hear from the Premier, who is the chief executive officer or the senior minister of this government: is the Premier telling us, then, that the involvement that Mr. Penikett had and the involvement that he ultimately had -- because it was the Premier of this province who sat down with the Minister of Education at a news conference with the president of the BCTF. . . ? Was the Premier aware when he sat down at that news conference that the members of BCPSEA and the school trustees were not even aware of the text of the agreement he was about to announce? Did he know that when he sat down at that press conference?

Hon. G. Clark: What was happening at the time, just so people know, is that we had announced -- and I had made speeches about -- the need to reduce class size and the government's commitment to do so. So it was discussed. I want to be clear. I did discuss with Kit Krieger and the BCTF and anybody involved in the organization who would listen our desire to try to drive some resources down to reduce class size. To that extent, I was involved. The whole caucus made a decision that education was a priority. It was in the throne speech. That's what we were trying to do.

At the same time that we were trying to do that, there was this stalemate in negotiations over here with the zero-zero-and-2 mandate in one hand and the massive concessions that the employer wanted in the other hand. So we did have these kinds of things happening. We tried to put them all together and ultimately achieve all the objectives. We were unable to achieve the objectives set out by the school trustees, because they were determined to make -- and I think they would acknowledge this -- really radical changes to the collective agreement that would have taken away certain things that the unions wanted. They had a very narrow mandate that was not going to lead to settlement, so we chose to intervene to try to help.

G. Wilson: Given that the Premier met with Mr. Kit Krieger of the BCTF to discuss this, did the Premier at any time sit down with BCPSEA or the school trustees to discuss his views on how they might change their mandates at the table?

Hon. G. Clark: No, I didn't.

G. Wilson: Doesn't it seem somewhat odd to the Premier, given that he is the senior minister of the government -- which actually has the purse strings and that puts the money on the table for the employers negotiating. . . ? If the Premier hasn't mandated exactly what he's talking about in terms of lower class size, if he hasn't gone and expressed that point of

[ Page 10376 ]

Hon. G. Clark: First of all, there's Russ Pratt, who works for the Public Sector Employers Council. It is his job to deal with the employers, including the school trustees who are involved in the employers council for education. He talked to them, I'm sure, dozens and dozens of times about what was going on and about the need to help and to try to seek resolution. The government's agenda was being pursued through staff work to the employers.

I guess you can seek refuge here in some abstract theoretical constructs in terms of any criticism, but this is a hugely positive move for education. We're putting $150 million into the classroom to have a dramatic reduction in class size and to increase the number of non-enrolling teachers. This is very positive indeed. It wasn't going to get there the way we were going, so we managed to work hard with the parties to see if we could get a resolution. It's unfortunate, and I would prefer that school trustees were part of the solution. I hope they'll continue to work with us to try to implement it.

G. Wilson: I want to come back to my question to the Premier, because he didn't answer it, and I think it's an important one for people to be aware of. When the Premier sat down at that press conference and made this great announcement, was he aware that BCPSEA and the B.C. school trustees did not know the content of the agreement he was about to announce?

Hon. G. Clark: Well, it was certainly my understanding that the education employers were advised as to the content of what we were negotiating and what was arrived at. As to maybe the exact wording, they may not have been, but they were certainly apprised, prior to the announcement -- at least that's my advice -- as to what in fact was being agreed to.

[11:45]

Hon. G. Clark: Well, that would have been the responsibility of the people assigned in the government to liaise with the employers' council: Russ Pratt and the staff that do that on all these employer councils, all the time.

G. Wilson: Is the Premier then telling us that he's surprised to learn tonight that BCPSEA and the school trustees were not aware of the content of that agreement on the day that the Premier sat down with the Minister of the Education and the president of the BCTF and announced this new agreement?

Hon. G. Clark: Well, I'm not surprised that they didn't know the details of it, but I would be surprised if they weren't aware of the general nature of the negotiations, where we were taking it and the successful conclusion.

G. Wilson: I need to know. . . . I guess perhaps this is my last question on this particular point, and it's an important one. What has been brought down. . . . You know, in these estimates, often members will stand up and wax eloquent about wonderful things the government is doing and so on -- I realize the hour and we're all trying to get through this -- but this is really important. It's certainly important to me, as a member of this chamber, and it's important to me as someone who believes that there has to be fair and open and free collective bargaining in British Columbia.

It seems to me that the Premier was involved to the extent that he's already acknowledged that he met with the president of the BCTF to discuss these provisions. He never took the time to meet with the employer side. There was never any discussion on it. The agreement that came down ultimately came down between the executive of the BCTF, not the negotiating team. . . . Yet this is a Premier of a labour government, a government that is supposed to be protecting public sector workers -- that is supposed to be protecting free collective bargaining. In the ensuing legislation. . . . I know I have to walk a very fine line; in estimates we can't get into talking about legislation. Nevertheless, what the government has done is not only come in and set down a collective agreement by legislative fiat. . . . Is the Premier aware and accepting of the fact that the legislation also allows the minister to override a ruling if it's taken to the labour board?

Hon. G. Clark: Well, first of all, the government of British Columbia pays 100 percent of the costs of education; 100 percent comes from the provincial taxpayer. We have a right and an obligation to be involved. Secondly, we have communications with the employers' council through PSEC. So I met with the union, because there is no such mechanism for constant liaison with the union. We are effectively part of the employer group, so that's why the meetings would take place with the employers. And I met, in this case, with the union.

It is a significant agreement which achieves significant gains: zero-zero-and-2 for the taxpayer, and incremental money going directly into the classroom. To that extent, I'm certainly very proud of it. I think it's a wonderful agreement. I think it will improve education. I'm not the slightest bit worried about the legislation that we are forced to bring in because of the intransigence of school trustees and their determination to get major concessions from the union.

G. Wilson: I'm going to move off this point, because we'll have ample time to debate this in the legislation. However, it really is a sad situation, I think.

Let me conclude on a couple of what might be very positive notes. Noting the hour, we'll then wrap this up. The Premier has announced the jobs and power accord; he's announced on a number of occasions that there are potential aluminum plants coming in. I'm well aware of those aluminum interests that have come forward and have been directly encouraged to do so by meetings the Premier has had with the principals from these various groups. It's no secret that Powell River is very much in the running. It's been very aggressive in trying to recruit an aluminum smelter. There are a number of companies that have visited that community on a number of occasions now. I think, hopefully, we're close to getting an announcement.

But there is a rather concerning point that the Premier alluded to some months ago and that we haven't heard much about since. It had to do with the B.C. Utilities Commission ruling with respect to FERC, which is the federal energy review agency in the United States. The B.C. Utilities Commis-

[ Page 10377 ]

Hon. G. Clark: That's a good question, and I think there's a simple answer: we are not subsidizing the electricity. We will be providing power to aluminum companies at market prices, at the market price for aluminum. We have all that information -- what prices are charged for aluminum companies around the world -- and we will not be lower than that. Hopefully, we'll be at the low end of the cost curve, but we'll be selling at market prices. We anticipate not only getting aluminum smelters but that the government of British Columbia -- the people of British Columbia -- will make a lot of money from the sale of electricity to those aluminum smelters or other energy-intensive industries that we can attract. That is the essentially bulletproof protection from any countervail action or others that could arise.

G. Wilson: I have just two more questions. If the Premier's answers are brief, we can go home. From all of these announced MOUs that we have seen -- and there's been a number, a string of them come forward -- when does the Premier anticipate that we, the people of British Columbia, are likely to see and might enjoy the announcement of a new aluminum smelter in Powell River?

Hon. G. Clark: The companies that we are negotiating with will make the decision on the site for obvious reasons and because I don't want to. They're good sites, and everybody's campaigning for it. It's not a political decision. It can't be; it won't be. The individual companies will have to make that decision.

We can sign power contracts right now with some aluminum companies, and they would make announcements. I think we could likely sign a power contract and an announcement about an aluminum smelter, but we have not done that, because we have been trying to keep the pressure on for an announcement which doesn't linger for several years. The market is soft right now for all worldwide commodities; aluminum is no different. What we're trying to do is get the construction of an aluminum smelter sooner. We don't want to lock up the power with an aluminum company that could then say: "Well, we'd like to delay because of the market." So they will build it, but it might be a few years away.

We're trying to keep the pressure on to lock up the power only when we get much closer to having the construction date nailed down. So we don't just buy into that. These are major multinational corporations. They know exactly what they're doing. We're having good negotiations, and they have every prospect of success. But we have not been able to nail down the kind of start date that we're comfortable with or that both parties are comfortable with, because aluminum smelters are a $1.2 billion-or-so investment. It's not something we can force them to sign. We could give power for free, and they wouldn't build it faster, because it's such a huge capital investment. They have to be confident of the market, and right now, as you know, these are questions which we're debating. We're trying to get some more competition with very aggressive companies to see if we can expedite construction and make an announcement. Clearly that's my objective and that of all of us. We've not been able to do that, but we do still have enormous amounts of interest and some competition taking place. I hope that in the near future we can make some much firmer commitments about aluminum smelters coming to British Columbia.

G. Wilson: My last question, then, to the Premier is. . . .

But just before I ask it, one of the problems with that strategy is that you tend, in trying to develop the competition. . . . One of the tendencies is going to be for people to also be looking elsewhere. I think that a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush, so to speak. I'd be very careful that we don't, by being altogether too clever in trying to get too much investment, lose the potential investment that's sitting on our doorstep. I just put that out as a caution.

I just want to get the Premier's comments -- hon. Chair, I trust that given the wide range in debate, this will be in order -- on a question that sits, actually, as a motion on the order paper now. There has been a large number of people in Parksville-Qualicum who believe that the three parties of this Legislative Assembly and the leaders of those three parties and you in your capacity as Premier and leader of this government should request of the chief electoral officer that he complete the recall count in Parksville-Qualicum, notwithstanding the resignation of the member. I'm curious to know whether or not the Premier, in his capacity as the senior minister of government, has a view on that question.

Hon. G. Clark: Actually, I haven't taken a position on that question. I haven't really heard it, other than from the member. Out of curiosity, it might be kind of interesting to know. I don't know quite how you'd do it. The member has resigned. It would cost quite a few thousand dollars, I think, of tax money to go through all the signatures, and it seems to be kind of a moot point if he's already resigned. I don't quite know how you'd do it, even though I actually, as a politician in British Columbia, might be kind of interested to see how they did. I think one has to assume that they did well; they did well enough that the member resigned. It probably doesn't make a lot of sense to try to get the chief electoral officer to spend a lot of money checking the names to satisfy individual curiosity. I can appreciate how people who campaigned on this question might feel that, and I might even have some sympathy for them, but I just don't think we could quite justify it.

Vote 8 approved.

Hon. J. MacPhail: I move that the committee rise, report resolution and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; the Speaker in the chair.

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

Hon. J. MacPhail moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 11:59 p.m.

[ Return to: Legislative Assembly Home Page ]

Copyright © 1998: Queen's Printer, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada