1998/99 Legislative Session: 3rd Session, 36th Parliament
HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.
The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

THURSDAY, JULY 8, 1999

Volume 16, Number 20

[ Page 14211 ]

The House met at 10:05 a.m.

Prayers.

Orders of the Day

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

ESTIMATES: OFFICE OF THE PREMIER
AND MINISTRY RESPONSIBLE FOR YOUTH

G. Campbell: Once again, we have an opportunity to review with the Premier some of the activities of his government and what's taken place over the last year. This is the fourth opportunity we've had to do that with this Premier. I think that it would be helpful to myself and members opposite if the Premier would introduce the official that's with him -- number one -- and maybe go through some of the changes which have taken place in his office over the last year.

Hon. G. Clark: I apologize. First of all, this is Mr. George Ford, the deputy minister responsible for the public service. Just from memory, in terms of the changes in the office, the most notable one is that Mr. Doug McArthur has left the government's employ. He's working at the University of British Columbia, and George Ford has agreed to come back. Mr. Ford was the head of the civil service in Manitoba for a time, has worked as a senior deputy minister in governments around Canada and was the deputy minister to Premier Mike Harcourt for a time. We've seduced him out of retirement to come back and help us. As I said, he's head of the civil service. On the political side of the operation, as you know, the chief of staff has also left, and Russ Pratt is the new chief of staff. There have been some other changes in my office; those are the two largest ones. I don't know how much detail the member wants me to go into.

In terms of the budget, we've managed to keep the budget the same this year as last year. It is relatively modest, although as the member knows. . . . As the Premier, I have not just influence but really a direct relationship -- although not direct accountability -- with the House for things like the communications shop, CPCS, and other central agencies of government that report through the Minister of Finance. But clearly the Premier is involved in cabinet planning and with the various committees of cabinet.

[1010]

G. Campbell: I'd like to just focus on the two sections of the Premier's Office and how it works so that I understand it. I recollect that Mr. McArthur was very active, really, in terms of executing a number of the government's policies. My understanding was that all deputy ministers actually reported to the deputy minister to the Premier. Is that the reporting relationship that continues with Mr. Ford?

Hon. G. Clark: Yes, essentially.

G. Campbell: There has been a change. When Mr. Pratt was brought in by the Premier, Mr. Dix. . . . We'll talk about Mr. Dix in a minute. Mr. Pratt came in and was appointed as chief of staff, which was a different kind of. . . . I'm not sure if it was a structure, but it was a different title than Mr. Dix had. And Mr. Pratt is the political arm of the Premier's Office. Well, he's not a public servant in the same definition as I think Mr. Ford would be.

In terms of the chief of staff, I notice that we have a number of other people that have been appointed -- that have been brought in. Ms. Fruman has been brought in; Ms. Prescott has been brought in. Ms. Prescott is still referred to as the deputy principal secretary. Is that correct? Is she in fact the deputy principal secretary, but there's no principal secretary? Is that correct?

Hon. G. Clark: I'll just get that correct title. Yeah, that is what is being used. Sharon Prescott, who's worked for the government for some time, has essentially been promoted to the assistant to the chief of staff. You're quite correct: it says deputy principal secretary. Sometimes these are nomenclatures that are not that significant, although I think it's fair to say that Mr. Pratt has essentially the same function as Mr. Dix did previously.

G. Campbell: I believe that Mr. Pratt was brought in, in March. Is that correct -- March of this year?

Hon. G. Clark: Yes.

G. Campbell: When he was brought in, the comment was made that it's time to make a number of changes in the Premier's Office. Mr. Pratt was going to have a free hand to make them. It's now July. Has Mr. Pratt looked at the office? Have there been any changes? Is he effectively playing the same role that Mr. Dix did?

Hon. G. Clark: Well, obviously the individual brings certain strengths and talents to the job. He has made quite a number of changes in terms of the reporting relationship inside the government. I don't think they're particularly germane to the public. As you can tell, he has essentially redefined some of the roles of the people of the office. He's moved Sharon Prescott in, and he's managing various files in a different way. It's essentially the same job, with restructured office and reporting relationships that are a little bit clearer than they were in the past. But it's essentially the same job.

G. Campbell: So would I assume from the Premier, then, that Mr. Pratt sits on various Crown corporation boards and follows those things as Mr. Dix did with regard to a number of projects that Mr. Dix undertook as a principal secretary. Is Mr. Pratt playing that same kind of -- well, these are my words -- personal, political role that Mr. Dix did as a friend and confidant of the Premier?

[ Page 14212 ]

[1015]

Hon. G. Clark: What Mr. Pratt has done is organize, for example, these weekly meetings of ministerial assistants to try and improve the communication between the Premier's Office and the ministers' offices and to improve coordination of government activities and to try to ensure that the government's overall corporate agenda is followed through as directed by cabinet in that side -- the political side -- of government. So he is representing me and the cabinet with the ministers' offices across the piece. In a nutshell, that's the bulk of his responsibilities.

G. Campbell: I would like to talk briefly about Mr. Dix. His departure is something that's taken place in the last year. I understand that Mr. Dix. . . . Well, actually, I would like to know: was Mr. Dix fired? If he was fired, could the Premier tell us why he was fired? And if he wasn't fired, can the Premier explain to us why he received seven months' severance?

Hon. G. Clark: Well, Mr. Dix was terminated -- effectively fired -- and given severance. These were difficult personnel decisions -- difficult for me; I don't mind saying that -- because he'd been associated with me for some time politically and in every other way. I felt that it was time for a change, and so I made a change. We pay severance when that happens.

I might point out, in Mr. Dix's defence or in my defence, that if you look at chiefs of staff of all governments across the country -- and I don't know about the Leader of the Opposition's chief of staff -- very few Premiers' principal secretaries or chiefs of staff last more than two years. In fact, I think that Mr. Dix had been in the job longer than anybody in recent memory in British Columbia in probably the last 15 years. So it's a very difficult job, because there's a lot of pressure but also difficult decisions to make, which often alienate people from time to time as they proceed to try to deliver the government's corporate agenda.

So it was simply time for a change. It's unfortunate, and I feel that way, but I made that decision. That's why severance was paid, as you know. I think the severance was certainly very modest by virtue of court decisions and otherwise, but he got what a public employee in the civil service would have received for the length of time he served.

G. Campbell: So the fact is that Mr. Dix was fired. He was not fired on the basis of performance; he just was fired and let go when the Premier decided it was time to have him leave the office. Is that what I'm led to believe here?

Hon. G. Clark: What happens is that severance is given in lieu of notice. That's the sort of legal rationale for giving severance. I think it's pretty obvious that the government has some political challenges, and the member is acutely aware of them. I am as well. As the chief of staff for the political side of government, I felt it important to try to make a change, and so I did.

G. Campbell: I'm going to just deal with a couple more issues with regard to the Premier's Office. I may come back to these later this afternoon, but I'd like to deal with these now.

I understand that in January of this year Ms. Fruman was hired by the Premier's Office. Can the Premier explain? Was she hired on contract? Was she hired as part of the civil service? If she was hired on contract, could the Premier say both what her responsibilities will be and what her contract amount is?

[1020]

G. Campbell: If we could receive that, that would be excellent. If we could get it this afternoon, that would be even better.

In reviewing that, last year, actually, the Premier undertook to get the briefing notes that he had from last year to us. . . .

Interjection.

G. Campbell: No, we didn't get them. So if we could get them, I'd appreciate it.

Interjection.

G. Campbell: I don't believe we did, but I will check and make sure. If we could get them and make sure that we have Ms. Fruman's contract, as well, that would be beneficial.

[ Page 14213 ]

Hon. G. Clark: Sharon Prescott has been working for the government for some time and had worked for me before in an office outside of the precinct, essentially, or outside of the main building. It was outside of my direct office. She sort of physically moved into the buildings here next to me, and her job is precisely that: working for Mr. Russ Pratt in improving coordination amongst the political staff of government and also improving communications with outside people who wish to communicate with the government.

As you know, there are many demands on the Premier's time -- as I'm sure there are on the Leader of the Opposition's -- from groups who wish, some would say, to lobby the government and, in other cases, to simply seek information or canvass concerns they have. So there are often demands for that. Part of Sharon's job is to do that -- both to go to see people and talk to them about concerns they have and problem solve and to take people. . . . If they sometimes wish to see me, she might meet with them, take information and have people work on responses.

G. Campbell: This is a broader issue with regard to how the government is managing its information, including managing the information within the Premier's Office. I know that the Premier is aware that the government has a responsibility and is required by statute to protect all documents and records. All of those documents, as I understand it, have. . . . There's a holding period that we have to have. It's actually illegal to destroy or dispose of certain kinds of records before a specified period of time. Can the Premier tell us in the House what those statutory obligations are and how the government is managing them -- how they're generally covered by the government with their policies?

Hon. G. Clark: I'm just checking. First of all, cabinet records aren't destroyed at all. We don't follow the Document Disposal Act or anything in terms of after a certain number of months, they're destroyed. So cabinet records, including cabinet minutes, are kept and never destroyed. With respect to other documents, the Document Disposal Act covers those. We have people in our office who manage. . . . The west annex internal operations, which are not cabinet material, are handled differently. They're handled in accordance with the Document Disposal Act. I actually don't know what the rules are around that.

We have a woman working in our office named Maureen Meikle, who is like the senior office manager, who is responsible. . . . She used to work as a freedom-of-information officer. She's a public employee, and a good one. She manages the paper flow in the office and ensures that it sits in correspondence with the act and statutory requirements.

G. Campbell: Are there any special responsibilities with regard to protecting and preserving documents out of the Premier's Office, as distinct from cabinet documents?

[1025]

With respect to other documents, I'm sure they're handled the way they are in other ministries with respect to disposal. As the member can appreciate, I have very few, if any, personal files -- perhaps I do -- kept by secretaries and staff. But I don't keep very much. That's just by virtue of my position, and so I don't take care to either destroy them or file them. I don't have any that I know of in my immediate office.

Anyway, if the member is at all interested in that, I would be happy to give you an actual formal, written answer from staff. I'm sure that's fine.

G. Campbell: I am interested in that. Thank you. I think it's a critical thing, as we move to computerizing and digitizing our communications. It's something that I think we need to know in terms of both openness and accountability in the long term.

I appreciate that the cabinet does maintain its documentation, so I may ask a number of questions here for the record with regard to this. I'm particularly interested. . . . I understand why the Premier would not keep memos to file or notes of meetings; I understand that it's a modus operandi that the Premier has followed. I know that Mr. Dix evidently had memos to file, and one of the critical things with regard to Mr. Dix's memo to file -- I think the Premier will be aware of this -- is that there are concerns about authenticity. I think it's important for us to know whether or not that is in fact authentic.

How will the Premier's Office be able to record that? There are e-mails going back and forth, I'm sure, between the office and ministers, or maybe the Premier and the ministers. Are there any electronic footprints left of that? Is there any record of that? Those are questions that I think are fundamental to both openness and transparency in terms of how government works and, I would expect, are pretty fundamental in terms of freedom of information for the public.

Hon. G. Clark: Actually, I think the member makes a fair point with respect to e-mail. I actually don't know how that's handled.

I have a note from staff that just came in, saying that there are no special handling procedures, but they follow the records management rules as per the Document Disposal Act. Whether that act has actually caught up with the electronic files. . . . I assume it has, but e-mail and the like. . . . This is an evolving field, but I'm quite sure, actually, that it's required to be retained and is formally open to freedom of information. Frankly, I think it should be. I don't think there's any problem there, but if the member knows of any and would be happy to say so. . . .

I don't know if you want to get into the issue with respect to the memo to file from Mr. Dix. All I can say is that the

[ Page 14214 ]

G. Campbell: The point is simply that if there is a question of its authenticity. . . . It's not difficult to type on your computer something that I was supposedly told a year or two years ago. The question is: is there a track of that? If there is a track -- and there would normally be a track; we would normally. . . . In terms of a computer, there would be a place where it would be stored, if we were protecting those records.

I understand why the Premier doesn't have personal records. In fact, in terms of Mr. Dix being a principal secretary, there would be some rationale for him not having personal records on the same basis. Normally there would be some protection of that information; normally there would be some storage of that information. With e-mail, there's often an electronic footprint that's left. It seems to me that the question of the authenticity of that is easily resolved if we have that tracking system. We can say: "Well, we tracked it, and here it is, and you can see it."

So that's an issue that I think is critical. I am interested if the Premier. . . . Perhaps the Premier is not aware of it, but is his office in any way aware of how that takes place -- how that storage is taking place and how it's protected?

[1030]

G. Campbell: I just want to reiterate this so I understand. Is it the Premier's understanding that if it's a government document, it is saved; if it's a political document, it's not saved -- or it's not protected? What is the definition of a political document?

Hon. G. Clark: Under the act, caucus material or constituents' material is not required to be kept, which I assume is the same for the opposition. A note from staff just came in, which says: "Substantial e-mail would be printed and filed. Transitory e-mail is not kept." So that's the rule, I think, in government. It sounds to me as though they still have kind of a. . . . Maybe we're in this bridging period where under the act, the storage of files is kept in a hard copy -- printed out and kept. It must be kept, including e-mail. But the electronic storage of it is not the piece that's required. The electronic storage of it is not required; it's the hard copy that's required. But all e-mail transmissions which are substantial -- policy or otherwise -- have to be kept in hard form.

Again, I think we're in this transition period between paperless and paper. Maybe that's an interesting area for legislative reform. I don't know, but it sounds to me -- again, I'm learning this -- that it's the printing. . . . They have to print out e-mail and keep it in hard form in a file. The act requires that. It can't be disposed of other than in the course of the act. Similarly, memos to file or something, which are kept on computer, are not required. What's required is a hard copy version of that file to be kept on file. In fact, that's what is done.

G. Campbell: Actually, I think this is a more serious thing than perhaps the Premier is recognizing here. In terms of the public, there is a lot of information right now that is computerized and that is digitized, and these answers aren't giving me a great deal of confidence in terms of what's transitory, what's not transitory, what's political, what's not government. Anything a cabinet minister does or any information a cabinet minister exchanges is not political by definition, I would assume. But I don't want to make an assumption.

So is the Premier's understanding, as mine is, that cabinet exchanges and interactions -- whether they're e-mail or memos or whatever -- should be protected for the public, should be open to the public and are available to the public? If that is in fact the case, what are we doing with regard to, for example, a cabinet minister who may have a laptop computer? How do we protect the public in terms of the laptop computer and the exchanges that are taking place with regard to laptops? How are they saved? How is the information on their disks saved and protected for the public?

[1035]

I think the member makes a good point. As I understand it, any correspondence between cabinet ministers, etc., is certainly FOIable and clearly part of the government duties. I think it's more that if a cabinet minister is corresponding with the caucus office or if any of those kinds of personal issues take place, those are not. . . . I think the opposition has the same rules around FOI with respect to that, and the same is true. But you're quite right that all of that information -- e-mails between offices -- is publicly available and must be kept.

G. Campbell: Is there any discretionary authority in the Premier's Office that the Premier knows of, where in fact someone has the discretionary authority to create computer files and to delete them before they're backed up -- especially on laptops -- and saved and protected?

Hon. G. Clark: Inside the government, I'm advised that operations -- e-mail or files or otherwise -- are backed up several times a day. It used to be the old B.C. Systems Corporation; that's gone. But the same system exists. So there is electronic backup of everything that transpires.

If I could jump ahead, I think that the point the member is having to deal with is. . . . And I'm not sure about laptops. I think the member has made a reasonable point that we've got

[ Page 14215 ]

G. Campbell: So for every memo that's done, there is a backup for the memo. Well, I have to go back to this: is there an electronic as well as a paper backup, or not?

Hon. G. Clark: There is a backup for every file, but I can't tell you how long they're kept or if at all. What's required is to keep a hard-copy version of everything that's there. So while there will, as you say, probably be an electronic footprint somewhere, I don't think it's kept as a matter of course as part of the formal records of government. The formal records are kept in a printout, a hard-copy version.

G. Campbell: Actually, what I would like is a. . . . Well, I'll ask the Premier. I think this is a serious matter in terms of how communications take place between government, how they take place within cabinet. I think it's also a serious matter about how they take place within the Premier's Office. I believe we do have to have at least an understanding of how that works, of what the statutory obligations are. If there are not statutory obligations that cover electronic or digitized communications, I'd like to know that, and I'd be interested in the Premier's response as to how we would establish that.

The critical thing for us and, I think, for the public is to know how those electronic communications are kept. Frankly, to be moving into the digitized world and saying, "We're going to move to the digitized world, but we don't want to do that; we're going to keep everything on paper," doesn't make a whole lot of sense either. So I would be interested in hearing from the Premier how he would propose we move forward so that we can resolve these matters and see these matters and understand them and bring them forward expeditiously, because I think they are critical. They're not just critical in terms of the many questions that are revolving around Mr. Dix's memo but also with regard to the many activities that take place in government that should be covered by freedom of information and should include digitized information and services. It is also, I think, critical for us in the long term to recognize that it may be more cost-effective. . . . It will certainly be more cost-effective to store a lot of information digitally for the long term as opposed to on paper. So I'd be interested in hearing the Premier's comments on that.

[1040]

Hon. G. Clark: What I'd like to do, actually -- because I think the member makes a valid point. . . . I haven't turned my mind to it, but perhaps I could offer my senior staff officials in the information technology side of government to meet with you or your designate. We could look at whether we are doing things that are adequate and appropriate, and perhaps what legislative amendments may be. . . . Or it might be a good one for a parliamentary committee to really get our teeth into, because we are moving. . . . I think it is actually simply a function of being in this transition period between paper and electronic, and whether we have adequate or appropriate mechanisms now to deal with digital information storage.

G. Campbell: I would like to pursue that. I think I'll pursue it at the staff level, if it's. . . . We've had promises of committees meeting before, and they've never met, so I think it's critical for us to make sure that we move forward with this in terms of sensible government policy. And I would take the Premier up on that offer. It is a critical issue, and I'm going to move briefly forward and talk about another particular electronic information technology issue, which is something that's come forward. That's with regard to how the MacDonald Dettwiler agreement is working between the province and MacDonald Dettwiler. As I understand it, they have acquired the rights to manage certain government information that's available through B.C. OnLine. Is that correct?

Hon. G. Clark: I'd be happy to try to answer these questions. But it's not my ministerial responsibility or my office's responsibility, so I hope you give me some leeway. Some of the details, of which. . . . Obviously it's not my brief, so I don't know it. But in general, what we did was privatize -- or contract out -- B.C. OnLine. B.C. OnLine was quite a leader in Canada on some of the electronic information. . .using electronic aids to provide service to the public. There was some work done that suggested it had a limited life span, as all these technologies do, and Internet and other access were exploding. It required significant government investment if we wanted to maintain the kind of lead we had and continue to improve the quality service.

MacDonald Dettwiler, among others, came forward and suggested that if that was managed by a private company, they could then merge that information with other information. They could improve service to the public and increase government revenue. They could also then try to support. . . . They could bid on similar applications across the world. MacDonald Dettwiler is a good B.C.-based company that has world leadership in satellite information technology and others. It was, I think, a very good public policy review that we went through.

MacDonald Dettwiler was the successful bidder. They are now managing it. I understand that one of the first things they did was -- and members might appreciate this; the Leader of the Opposition might appreciate this. . . . Of course, it wasn't open 24 hours a day. It shut down from 9 to 5 or from 9 to 7, or something, so they extended the time period, hired more staff and extended the time period in which the information is available. They are now marketing that information, charging a fee for it -- yes -- and integrating it with other information data around so that it's user-friendly and works better for the client and for the customers.

As I understand it, it's going extremely well. But it is early days. The opportunities for the province in this field are quite large, I think, because we do have some leadership in this area, and we have some excellent people in MacDonald Dettwiler.

G. Campbell: One of the issues that we would appreciate following up with the Premier is exactly how this deal was done and how the proposal was put together. I understand that the Premier will say that it was a great deal, etc., and that's fine. My concern is how we value this. In fact, how do the profits get generated? What are we giving up in terms of the taxpayers' potential benefits from this massive amount of information that is brought together by the government? Perhaps the Premier could elaborate on the arrangement -- how the proposal was put out and how the decision was made on coming to a value for the taxpayer.

[ Page 14216 ]

[1045]

Rather than making our own decisions, or making it. . .it might be more prudent to buy. . . . So we essentially abolished B.C. Systems Corporation as part of that and then looked at pieces of it which we could partner with the private sector or do in-house or completely privatize. With respect to the long-distance company owned by B.C. Rail, that was simply completely privatized. That was done for obvious reasons. Why should we be in the competitive long-distance business?

With respect to some of the more in-house things, there was a lot of interest. When we did the electronic highway accord, it was essentially not a request for proposals but sort of a request for information. It said to the private sector: "Here's where the government wants to go. We'd like to partner and look at opportunities. Do you have any interest?" There was a lot of interest in segments of government business. We did in-house analyses as to which made sense in terms of policy and which didn't.

Some pieces are still, I guess, debatable. Voice services, for example, are still run and owned by the government. Many people think that should also be put out to tender and run by the private sector. For data services and B.C. OnLine, which is essentially the data side, it was decided that this made sense.

We then went into a process of requests, essentially a bidding process where several companies bid. We hired outside expertise -- I can't remember the name; I think it was Coopers and Lybrand, or somebody, at the time -- to come in to adjudicate the different bids. I think it's fair to say that these were not easy questions in terms of the adjudication, because everybody's formulation is quite different. Some had money up front; some had money over time; some were more of a partnership; some were more private sector. MacDonald Dettwiler was chosen as a result of an extensive and, some would say, exhaustive process -- an elaborate process of adjudication. The decision was made.

G. Campbell: Obviously information has increasing value, and the more available information is, the more valuable it is to the public. The more restricted that information flow is, the more valuable it is to MacDonald Dettwiler. So I guess my question to the Premier is: how did we manage to evaluate the value of that exclusivity agreement with MacDonald Dettwiler, in terms of what the public value should be?

Hon. G. Clark: Two things. First of all, I think we still own it, in the final analysis. You're quite right: there is an exclusivity agreement for a period of time. But the government of British Columbia still owns it and still has control over the data. Secondly, we had a bidding process, which was the best way to evaluate it. We had a market test as to what it was worth. Then finally we negotiated a royalty agreement, so the taxpayers still receive royalties based on growth in the business.

There is an opportunity at the end of this period to re-evaluate it again. But I think it also has to be weighed against the cost for government that would occur if we had kept it and had to keep it up, and significant investments were required to continue to keep it at the leading edge. Of course, we were really the only government left in Canada, I think, that was still doing it in-house or doing this kind of business. This is true if you want to get to the IBM arrangement, as well, where a third of the business went to IBM.

G. Campbell: Can the Premier explain who will be setting and controlling fees for the information that's available? Is that done through a check, or is it done through MacDonald Dettwiler and Associates -- MDA?

Hon. G. Clark: I'm sorry. As I said, that's not my file, so I don't know the answer to that. But I'd be happy to get it for you.

G. Campbell: Okay. Well, I would like to know, actually. I'm not sure whether the agreement between the government and MacDonald Dettwiler has been made available to the public or not. It seems to me that it would be worthwhile for that document to be available. I understand that it's a signed, completed agreement. Is that correct?

Hon. G. Clark: Yes, that's my understanding. I don't know if there are any commercial problems with releasing it or not. But from my perspective, I don't have any. Certainly this control over the rates set is not completely at MacDonald Dettwiler's discretion. But again, I don't know the mechanism for deciding it.

[1050]

Hon. G. Clark: As I said, I don't know if there are any commercial problems. I'm just being very candid. But I have no hesitation in having the opposition fully briefed and canvassed on it. MacDonald Dettwiler is now pursuing similar opportunities in other provinces and countries. There may be some commercial problems in terms of releasing all the material. But certainly the important material for the consumers and the public taxpayers of British Columbia, with respect to valuation and with respect to costs and fees that could be charged on government information, clearly should be public and clearly will be shared with the Leader of the Opposition.

G. Campbell: Is the Premier aware of whether or not MacDonald Dettwiler will have the right to advertise in their site that includes B.C. OnLine information?

Hon. G. Clark: No, I don't.

G. Campbell: That would also be an important issue, I believe. The advertising on web sites and information sites is really where most Internet activities are generating their revenues. It focuses, it's a targeted market, and it's been a

[ Page 14217 ]

Hon. G. Clark: I don't know the answer. I think it's a reasonable question. Remember, B.C. OnLine -- as I recall, at least -- was an intranet. It wasn't part of the Internet. We were the first to do it -- that's why we were leading -- and it worked well. What really has happened is that the Internet has taken over as business, so this is flipping onto the Internet. And there are these questions that come about as a result of that. But I don't know the answer.

G. Campbell: I'm not in any way critical that the information is on the Internet. I want to know how in fact we are making sure that we're protecting the taxpayers' value, as we take advantage of the opportunities that the Internet presents. It seems to me that if there is not one, there should be a government policy on how those sites will be used, whether advertising is going to be on those sites, what the benefits of that advertising will be, who that advertising will be. . .etc. I think that controls on that, or at least regulations for how taxpayers will be able to benefit from that, will be a significant long-term issue in terms of public policy -- for sure.

So I will assume from that discussion with the Premier that he will provide us with the information with regard to the MDA agreement as soon as possible and that the issues with regard to public policy on web site advertising, controlling of costs, etc., will be explicitly dealt with so that we and the public are aware of how that's actually taking place. I should say to the Premier that I have talked with the people from MDA in the past. They had no specific concerns with regard to the release of the contract agreement, so I don't know what the caveats. . . . I understand the caveats he's presenting, but I think this is something that we should come forward with.

Just so the Premier is aware of it, I'd like to outline some of the issues that I'd like to canvass over the next little while. We will move to youth issues at this point. Depending on how long the youth issues take, we'd like to touch on Crown corporations management -- the Crown Corporations Committee of the House. And if we go beyond that, we will then talk about three significant issues: the establishment of trust; accountability; and openness in government. We believe those are critical, and I'm interested in some of the Premier's suggestions for how he's handled those things and how we can improve on them. That will certainly take us well past the noon hour, but I just want to give the Premier an idea. I'd like to start by asking the member for Chilliwack to raise some of the issues that he's been following with regard to youth.

B. Penner: I'll begin by acknowledging the assistance I had from some of the staff of the Premier's Youth Office, who met with me two days ago and provided me and a staff member from the official opposition with a briefing. We had a useful discussion, and I hope to bring some of that discussion here to the floor of the Legislature in a few moments.

But I'd like to begin by asking the Premier whether he can advise us what this year's budget is for the Premier's Youth Office and how it compares to last year. In providing us with that comparison, I wonder if the Premier could break down the budget as per the normal categories of salaries and benefits, operating costs, asset acquisitions, and grants and contributions.

[1055]

B. Penner: I wonder if the Premier could explain to us why his Youth Office is located within CPCS, otherwise known as Cupcakes, and what the rationale is for it being located there.

Hon. G. Clark: Well, it's part of overall policy. Remember that the Youth Office is not specifically a program delivery office. We house it in the Premier's Office, or in CPCS as a central agency, to in some cases force -- but usually work with -- the ministries to deliver on a priority for youth. So it has to be, must be, needs to be housed in a central agency, or it would not be effective in coordinating ministerial policy.

B. Penner: Were any staff in the Premier's Youth Office seconded to other areas of government in the past year? If so, where were they seconded to and for what reason?

Hon. G. Clark: I don't know the answer to that. I don't think so. Some are seconded from time to time, so there probably are some seconded to other areas. That's unusual for government. . .but there have been no unusual moves in or out that I know of.

B. Penner: Can the Premier confirm whether there was any movement of staff between the Premier's Youth Office and the Nisga'a treaty implementation office that was in operation for much of last year?

Hon. G. Clark: I don't know, but there could have been. The Nisga'a implementation team was temporary and therefore did have all seconded people associated with it. There may well have been one or two -- none that I know of, to be quite honest -- seconded from the Youth Office for a brief period of time, a few months, to the Nisga'a implementation team.

B. Penner: How many people are presently employed by the Premier's Youth Office?

Hon. G. Clark: As I understand it, there are five plus two secondments.

B. Penner: How are searches for employees to fill positions in the Premier's Youth Office conducted? Are advertisements placed? Is it a matter of the typical provincial government job postings, or are there other policies in place in terms of recruitment for the Premier's Youth Office?

Hon. G. Clark: I think that the way it was set up, they are all order-in-council appointments in the Youth Office. But there are definitely competitions that take place. I don't know

[ Page 14218 ]

B. Penner: Are people appointed to these positions by order-in-council, or is it a matter of a competition through the public service employees process?

Hon. G. Clark: I'll just confirm it, but as I said, there are only four or five people working there, and they're all order-in-council appointments as far as I know. Michael Izen, who I may bring in, is excellent. I think he's in communications. He came from the Ministry of Small Business, Tourism and Culture. He was seconded to the Nisga'a treaty implementation team for awhile, and then he was hired by the Premier's Youth Office. That's just an example of a path. Michael Izen is here right now, and I believe he was an order-in-council appointment. I think all the employees there are order-in-council appointments, except probably any secretarial help.

[1100]

Hon. G. Clark: I was just asking about Mr. Izen's record. He worked as an administrative officer for the Ministry of Small Business, Tourism and Culture. He was a union employee, then competed for the job, was successful and is now an order-in-council appointee. How do we know we have the best people for the job? All I can say is that we have an outstanding group of people at the Youth Office, and I think the member probably agrees with that. He's been briefed by them. He knows they are very capable people. We try to go through a very rigorous screening procedure. There are lots of people who want to work at the Youth Office. It's an exciting place in government, which is doing interesting work. We do have lots of interest, and I think the quality of people there is superb.

The decision of whether they should have been order-in-council or public service appointments. . . . In some ways, it's not significant either way. The people working there would probably prefer to be public service appointees. When we started it, I think we just wanted to move fairly quickly and get it up and running as a priority of the government. An order-in-council is sometimes easier to do that. Perhaps we should consider, now that it's up and running, having a competition and converting them to public service appointments. I don't know.

B. Penner: I think the Premier was anticipating my next question. If what the Premier said is true, then why wouldn't we be willing to open up the process and make it subject to a public competitive process so that it's transparent and the people that are hired are hired on the same basis as they are elsewhere in the public service? Is the Premier willing to commit to changing the process by which people are hired for the Premier's Youth Office?

Hon. G. Clark: I'm afraid to commit today, but certainly it's a reasonable suggestion. If the members support converting everybody to public service appointees and then moving from there to competitions, I don't think anybody would be worried about that at all. I certainly wouldn't be.

B. Penner: Can the Premier advise as to the lengths of employment for two individuals formerly employed by the Premier's Youth Office? First of all, Mr. Neil Monckton and, secondly, Brian Gardiner -- can the Premier advise as to the reasons for their leaving their positions? Further, when these individuals left the employ of the Premier's Youth Office, did they receive any severance or other benefits?

Hon. G. Clark: I can check the dates; I'm not sure. It's not Brian Gardiner; it's Michael Gardiner who was the head of the B.C. branch of the Canadian Federation of Students and worked for me. He was there about a year, I think. Neil Monckton was probably there about a year as well. I don't actually know when they left; it was quite a while ago, I think.

B. Penner: The second part of my question, which the Premier didn't answer, was whether or not these individuals received any severance package or other benefits at the time of their termination.

Hon. G. Clark: No, no severance was paid. They both resigned.

B. Penner: It's come to the attention of the official opposition that there's been a fair bit of staff turnover in the Premier's Youth Office. I wonder if the Premier can provide an explanation for that. Is he aware of any systemic concerns stemming from that office?

Hon. G. Clark: No. I was going to say: that's the nature of youth. I guess it's a bit of irony. In some respects, you want turnover at this office. We want young people there, and we want people to work hard and to go into government or into other ventures. I'm really delighted that Michael Gardiner, for example -- who was very active in the student movement -- came over and worked for a year. I think he's now back working with the student movement. I'm delighted that we have Brad Lavigne, who was also active in the student movement, working for us now.

[1105]

I don't think there's been too much turnover. Those people you mentioned. . . . I would have loved it if they'd kept working for the government, but we've replaced them with very good people. Partly the age does lead to more

[ Page 14219 ]

B. Penner: The Premier mentioned that he would like to see people that leave the Premier's Youth Office go on to work in other areas of government. That raises a question in my mind. Can the Premier confirm whether or not Neil Monckton has received any contracts with the Premier's Youth Office or through one of the programs administered by the Premier's Youth Office since leaving his employment?

Hon. G. Clark: No. My understanding is that he has had no contracts with the Premier's Youth Office since he left. But you know what? If he did, it would be great, as far as I'm concerned.

B. Penner: The Premier mentioned in his remarks just a few moments ago, about recruitment, that a number of the staff have come from a position of having been student activists. Can the Premier confirm that many of the people employed in the Premier's Youth Office in times past have actually come from some history of involvement in the Canadian Federation of Students? If so, is that a deliberate policy in terms of hiring by the Premier?

Hon. G. Clark: I'd be delighted to hire leaders of the student movement -- and not just here, but throughout government -- as I think they have shown remarkable leadership abilities. Also I agree, by and large, with their positions -- not all of them, but by and large. As far as I know, there have been just two people over the years from the student movement. One was Michael Gardiner; the other is Brad Lavigne. Is there a policy designed to try to make sure that's the case? No. But I'm constantly recruiting people for government -- looking for good people. There are some just outstanding people in the Canadian Federation of Students, and I'd really like it if we had more of them working for us. From an informal perspective -- although I don't do the hiring at all, and I don't have any say in the hiring for the Youth Office -- I would recommend to management at the Youth Office that they look for more student leaders to hire.

B. Penner: Can the Premier provide us with what the job qualifications are that he asks employees to have, who come to the Premier's Youth Office? Is there a list of qualifications that are required? Is there a job description that has been offered? How are people informed of the openings in the Premier's Youth Office? Is there a well-publicized job postings process, or is it simply word of mouth -- again, through agencies like the Canadian Federation of Students?

Hon. G. Clark: Well, the qualities are clearly intelligence, youthfulness. . . .

Interjection.

Hon. G. Clark: Yes, not oldness. People who want to work hard and have leadership abilities. . . . Of course, there's a variety of ways in which positions are filled. There are not very many positions here, as you can tell. Often there are competitions, as there was prior to Michael Izen. Doni Eve was working in communications there. She was superb. She competed for the job. There was a panel, and she was appointed -- even though it's an order-in-council appointment. But if the member has some concerns about how the office is running or about the people there, then he should raise them. I think we've got an outstanding group of largely young people working there, and I think they're doing a great job. Obviously the hiring process is working fantastically.

B. Penner: Well, the Premier might be satisfied with the outcome, but I'm still interested in the process and how we get to the place that we're at. I would think that the Premier would want his office to have a list of criteria by which they judge potential candidates. If not, that gives me some concern. I don't think hiring should be done on an ad hoc basis for something as important as the Premier's Youth Office.

[1110]

Hon. G. Clark: There aren't very many openings, so it's not like a big operation of government when you're talking about five people. So I actually don't know the answer to that, but it doesn't seem to be earth-shattering. I'm sure they are posted, if they can be, or seconded, or people. . . . We're always looking for good people. Often in government, if it's an internal application, it's an order-in-council appointment, and we can go and recruit the best young people we can find in government and give them the job. I don't think it's always necessary to have an expensive competition and posting and advertising for the very few -- you know, one job at a time -- that come up. Again, I think they've done a good job of recruitment. They obviously have criteria which they use to analyze and hire people. I take no personal role in the hiring for that, and I have confidence in the management there. They do a good job.

B. Penner: Earlier this spring the Minister of Advanced Education, Training and Technology put out a press release dated March 24, 1999, headlined "College, University Students Respond to Survey." This referred to a survey that was apparently conducted between January 5 and February 5 of this year, when a questionnaire was sent to post-secondary students throughout British Columbia. They were asked a number of questions. According to the new release, more than 6,900 full- and part-time students responded to the mail-back survey.

I'm told that members of the official opposition staff, as well as our Advanced Education critic, the member for Okanagan East, have asked for copies of the survey. Yet I'm told that we have not yet received a copy of that survey. I wonder if the Premier could kindly commit to providing us with a copy of the survey questions, the results, as well as the cost of conducting the survey.

Hon. G. Clark: Absolutely; I have it right here. It's dated March 1999, so perhaps it simply wasn't compiled in a format for availability to the public. But it's right here. It's really an outstanding survey supporting the government's initiatives, and I'd be delighted to provide it for the member.

[ Page 14220 ]

I'd like to move to the area of job statistics. Really, in many ways that is the proof of the pudding of what the Premier's Youth Office is attempting to achieve. The overall unemployment statistics for youth have improved somewhat in British Columbia in the last year. However, when compared to the rest of Canada, we see that the youth situation has improved even more in the other provinces.

I'd like to quote from an "Infoline" report dated June 11, 1999. On page 2 there's a quote: "B.C.'s 1998 youth unemployment rate of 17 percent is above the Canadian average." This is, of course, referring to the performance last year. Then it concludes by saying: "In 1998, B.C. students aged 15 to 19 had one of the highest unemployment rates -- 23 percent -- in the country, second only to Newfoundland."

Somewhat more current, there is the labour force survey conducted for May 1999 by Statistics Canada. In an analysis prepared by a staff person working for Human Resources Development Canada, he says as follows:

"Since peaking in 1991, however, the employment rate has been declining. This is the third consecutive year that returning students face an employment rate that is in the same range that prevailed during the early 1980s recession. Further, during the three months of March through May 1999, B.C. has lost 45,000 jobs and accumulated a 2.3 percent drop in total seasonally adjusted employment. There has not been any three-month period when employment fell by more than 2 percent since the recession of 1982."

[1115]

"The sudden and significant weakening of the job market indicates that the coming summer months will likely not see the improvements that had been expected only a few months ago for students and youth generally."

"The unemployment rate" -- as opposed to the employment rate -- "could have been worse had not so many people withdrawn from the labour force and stopped seeking employment."

One of the symptoms of that is a copy of the fax I was just handed. I note that the West Vancouver Chamber of Commerce has cancelled the 1999 Youth Unlimited awards. In the special notice, it states:

"We have not been able to obtain the required corporate sponsorship to support our event. As you are all aware, the British Columbia economy has been sluggish over the last few years, which has affected profits and business. Without that support and the support of the community, it is impossible to hold this event together."

Hon. G. Clark: Of course, there has been a lot of good news in the last six to 12 months. The economy is starting to turn around. Look at the statistics for youth. Youth unemployment is too high -- 15.3 percent in May '99 -- but it's down 2.7 percent from a year ago. So the member is correct: there's been quite a dramatic drop in youth unemployment. Not enough and not as much as we'd like, but it's fairly significant.

Secondly -- and this is a very important statistic -- the number of youth in British Columbia in the nineties has increased by 14 percent. There are 14 percent more young people than there were a few years ago. What has happened in the rest of Canada? Zero. There's no growth in the number of young people anywhere else in Canada. So we have a hugely disproportionate population of young people in British Columbia. In spite of that, we see youth unemployment dropping. We've also seen an increase of 16 percent in the enrolment rate at universities and colleges in the last five years.

We have a dramatic increase in the number of young people in the province, a significant reduction in unemployment and a significant increase in enrolment. Listen to this. Across Canada the enrolment in universities and colleges is up by 0.6 percent but up by 16 percent in British Columbia. It has gone from the second-worst participation rate to the second-highest participation rate in Canada. So this is all good news. But I want to completely acknowledge that the youth unemployment situation is not acceptable to me, and that's why we have these programs which are creating somewhere around 20,000 jobs or training opportunities for young people.

We're making progress. It's a lot better than it was last year, when the member rose. I think he'll acknowledge that. We're seeing some real and positive signs, and we're seeing some overall positive signs in the economy after three sluggish years of growth.

B. Penner: The Premier didn't cite the various component parts of the Youth Options B.C. employment programs, but I'll do it for him. We have: Youth Community Action; Student Summer Works; the E-teams, the environment youth teams; First Job in Science and Technology; Job Start; Bladerunners; YouthZZZBC; Youth Works, which, strictly speaking, maybe doesn't fall under the Premier's Youth Office; the Crown youth employment initiative; and the Youth on Boards initiative.

[1120]

That may be by necessity, and fair enough. But I think that I should put on the record, to clarify for British Colum-

[ Page 14221 ]

In addition, I was looking through an analysis that we were provided with of the environment youth teams project for 1998. Just to focus on this one, by way of an example, we're told that the total provincial contributions to the environment youth teams were $11,204,024.82. That's how much public money was dedicated to that project. We're told that it provided 1,796 jobs. However, the total duration, in terms of weeks, was 5,501. So applying some basic math, it works out that the average job in an environment youth team lasted for three weeks. When you divide the average number of weeks by the total taxpayer cost of the program, it turns out that it cost $2,036.73 for each week that a young person was employed under the environment youth team program. That's a very significant cost for one week of employment: $2,036.73. I'm quite confident that the individual young people working on the projects were not being paid anything near $2,000 a week. Perhaps they wished that they were, but I strongly suspect that they were not. Obviously there's an overhead factor here; there are administration costs. Perhaps that highlights an issue that needs to be addressed.

Can the Premier give us some explanation about that figure -- why it would cost more than $2,000 per week to employ people in the environment youth team initiative?

Hon. G. Clark: Hon. Chair, I'm sorry, but the numbers the member has are different from the numbers I have. My briefing book, my information, suggests $11.2 million; 1,700 positions is the target for this coming year. Last year they created almost 1,800. The average length of employment is 15 weeks. The average wage subsidy is $6,000 per youth for the entire 15 weeks. Those are the environment youth team numbers that I have, and they make sense to me. These are not significantly cost-shared. They are targeted groups, designed to do various environmental work. As you know, we did have some working on flood prevention activities. We do have some working on the campgrounds initiatives. I think that 500 new campgrounds open this year, and a lot of those were built with environment youth teams. The average length of employment is 15 weeks. They are usually in the summer months, but not always. The subsidy per youth is $6,000.

B. Penner: Well, we seem to be quoting from different documents. I have a document obtained via freedom of information, entitled "1998-99 Environment Youth Team Approved Projects, by Sponsor." There are three columns next to the sponsor names. One is entitled "Jobs Provided." The second is "E-team Contribution." The third is "Duration in Weeks." It's a seven-page document, and at the very end there is a total provided -- total of jobs provided; total of E-team contributions provided, which is $11.2 million as the Premier indicated; and then total duration in weeks. The total provided by the FOI document is 5,501. One merely needs to divide the E-team contributions by the number of weeks to find out that the average cost was about $2,000 per week. That doesn't seem to jibe with what the Premier has.

[1125]

Hon. G. Clark: It's a little bit hard to give you that number, because in each case the ministries are usually advertising the programs. The Youth Office is coordinating it and driving a lot of the initiatives, making sure that targets are met, etc. But as you can tell, it's a pretty small coordinating office, so the actual ministries do the advertising for the initiatives. Often that's coordinated by my office. So I can't actually give you a detailed answer. I hope the member has asked that question as the different ministries have come forward. I don't have it. Maybe we can collect it across government. But I hope the member appreciates that the E-teams are the responsibility of the Ministry of Environment. They do some advertising and recruitment and ads in the paper and all that. They handle it, and we don't get involved in that, other than to make sure that they're doing it. So I don't know the answer.

B. Penner: I suspect that the Premier's staff should have some of the answers, if not all. For example, this package of information is entitled "Looking for Job Options? Look to Youth Options B.C." At the bottom it says: "Minister Responsible for Youth, the Premier of British Columbia." Clearly that's a publication coming out of the Premier's Youth Office, and I would think that his staff would know about the cost. If not, I'd be very concerned.

Further, the Premier mentions that his Youth Office staff coordinates the youth programs and presumably would have some awareness about the coordinated advertising that is undertaken by the various ministries and Crown corporations of government. It would concern me, I think, if in fact the Premier's staff were not monitoring what the total expenditures were in promoting Youth Options B.C. I'll let the Premier respond to that.

Hon. G. Clark: I'm not trying to be evasive at all. You're quite correct. A lot of the coordination. . . . I'm sure some of this was written by my office or at least supervised by my office. All I'm saying is that I can't give you a very definitive answer.

What is this booklet worth? I can get that information for you. My guess is that it's $100,000 or something. It's a pretty big package. But if you're asking for the development costs and all of that. . . . In my little operation, probably a lot of it is developed there, including the writing and some. . . . You can tell there was -- I don't know -- $100,000 in contracted services, which. . . . Let me just check, because I think some of that might be for. . . . Yes, for example, one of the contracts is Youth Community Action, media relations, $930. So you have to add it up.

Going from past experience, I think it's probably about, as I recall from previous years, a bit over a million dollars that

[ Page 14222 ]

Again, while we coordinated it, in some cases, like this one -- you're quite correct; we put it together and worked on it -- the Ministry of Advanced Education paid for it, because it was part of their communications budget. In other cases, like the environment youth teams, I don't think we tell them where to place ads to promote it, where to place ads to recruit or how to manage it. They manage it themselves.

[1130]

Hon. G. Clark: I think I do have some numbers here on the central advertising. I'm just looking at it. I think you're right: $1.1 million. I think it was $1 million last year, if I recall. It's $1.1 million now. Or perhaps it was $1.1 million last year. I don't think there's any big increase in the communications allotment from last year. I don't know what it is when you add up all the different programs, etc. But I think there is some sort of central Youth Options B.C. communications plan -- which I've just found -- which is about $1 million.

B. Penner: I spent some time last night perusing the web site that the Premier's Office has established. It's been in operation now for several years. It's undergone a few changes, makeovers. There's certainly a fair bit of information provided there. I noticed that one button you can click on is titled "job postings." I thought, ah, here I'll be able to find a list of available jobs that people can apply for. After clicking on that and going into another section, I was just provided with more background information about various programs. I clicked again and clicked again. Finally, I was able to come up with, I think, six or seven potential public sector job openings with school boards and community centres in various parts of British Columbia. There certainly weren't an overwhelming number of job postings available or listed via the Premier's web site.

But leaving that aside, I'd like to ask the Premier: who has the contract for maintaining the web site? I have a web site that I maintain through my constituency office. I know that it takes a lot of work and effort to stay on top of it and keep it current and interesting for people. Who has the current contract? Was it put out to tender? Was it a competitive bidding process that resulted in the contract being awarded to whoever is looking after the web site? What is the cost annually of maintaining, operating and updating the Premier's web site?

Hon. G. Clark: The management of the web site is handled in-house. There are jobs posted from time to time, but it's not the primary vehicle for posting jobs. I think there are going to be 100 or so E-team jobs posted on the web site shortly, as I understand it.

They've hired a contractor named Lisa Codd, who regularly updates the web site to make sure it's clean and working well. We don't contract out the management of the web site; it's an in-house job. But there is a contractor doing some of the updating.

B. Penner: A couple of years ago, when I asked the Premier essentially the same question, he told me it was costing about $26,000 that year -- I think that was in 1996 or 1997 -- to operate the web site via a contractor. I have a hard time believing that all of the web site can be maintained simply by in-house staff, because it would be just about a full-time job for them to do that. What is the amount that we're paying to the contractor to oversee the web site and keep it functioning and up to date?

Hon. G. Clark: I'm advised that it's $9,000 for maintenance -- that's what we paid last year -- and $23,000 in contracted services to Lisa Codd. So the total is $32,000 to maintain and manage the web site.

[1135]

Hon. G. Clark: We've gone from 30,000 hits to 80,000 hits last year. As I understand it, Lisa Codd does the e-mail, so she's the first responder to e-mail that comes in. I guess we try to not have a full-time job if we can. It's a contractor -- $23,000. That may change if the hits keep growing -- and I think they will, actually -- and more e-mail correspondence comes in. But we've got a pretty good record now, I think, of being on top of responding to e-mails -- not always a perfect response, but getting a quick response back and then working from there.

B. Penner: One of the component parts of the Youth Options program is something called Youth on Boards. There hasn't been much public discussion or debate, even in this chamber, about that aspect of the program. I thought perhaps this year we would delve into that a bit more.

Again, last night I pulled off some information from the Premier's web site. Just for the benefit of people here in the chamber and for those who may be monitoring this debate, the criteria are as follows. The web site says: "We are interested in candidates between the ages of 18 and 29 who wish to make a contribution to their community. We welcome applicants who show leadership, good communication and are active in their communities. If you are willing to learn, have fresh ideas and energy to share and are open to creative collaboration, you just might be right for the Youth on Boards program. The expectations are high, and so are the rewards."

On the web site there's a list of subject areas that a person can apply for. I'll read what those are: education, employment, environmental issues, finance and investment, human rights, law and enforcement, multiculturalism and immigration issues, science and technology, social concerns, tourism and culture, and women's issues. People are invited to provide their qualifications and e-mail those to the site in their quest to get appointed to a board.

I clicked on one of these topics, "Law and Enforcement," to see what type of boards a young person could potentially

[ Page 14223 ]

Is the Premier aware of how many young people have been appointed to various public sector boards through this program since its inception -- or, if that's too broad a question, in the current year?

Hon. G. Clark: I'm very proud of this initiative. Actually, it came out of some of the Premier's Youth Forums, where young people said that they thought they were being shut out. So we established -- for the first time ever in Canada -- a Youth on Boards program where we target and recruit young people to sit on boards. There are now 58 young people -- 29 and under -- appointed by the province to wide-ranging boards -- the B.C. Festival of the Arts, college boards, the B.C. Games Society. In 1998-99, which is the first year of the program, 41 young people were appointed, and we now have another 17 appointed since then.

We've also established a pilot mentorship program, so that those young people and new people can be initiated and evaluated to be capable of sitting on boards. It's important that we not simply appoint young people to the boards for the sake of doing it. We have to make sure that there are some mentorships and training and that they're qualified to do it, and that's what we were trying to work through fairly carefully. The mentorship program matches up some of the youth appointees with established board members for periods of six months during the initial phases.

[1140]

B. Penner: Just to confirm, then, there are presently 58 young people serving on public sector boards?

Hon. G. Clark: Yes, that's my information.

B. Penner: Can the Premier tell us what types of boards they're serving on?

Hon. G. Clark: I don't have all the information, but college boards; the B.C. Festival of the Arts; some hospital boards, I think; and the B.C. Games Society. It's really quite a wide range of issues. . . . I don't think we have any young people on the major Crowns yet. I'm not sure, but I don't think we do. But we have a lot of areas and a lot of interest in those areas, particularly college and university boards and the like.

B. Penner: I take it that there are no young people serving on the board of the fast ferry corporation. Sorry, I couldn't resist that comment. Perhaps there should be.

I'm just about done in terms of my questioning relating to the Premier's Youth Office, but from time to time I get asked by people whether or not -- and perhaps I should have asked this a bit earlier when we were talking about the criteria for people being employed by the Premier's Youth Office -- a criminal record check is required for people hired by the Premier's Youth Office. We know that this government has made it mandatory, for example, for teachers working with young people and for social workers to undergo criminal record checks to make sure that the people being hired aren't a potential threat to our young people. I wonder if the Premier's Office has any policy with respect to criminal records checks for its employees.

Hon. G. Clark: Yeah, we have, of course, a very rigorous policy on criminal records checks. But in the case of the four or five people working in the Youth Options cases, you have to be. . . . The rules are that you should be one-on-one dealing with young people. So, for example, the E-team requires sponsors to provide criminal record checks. YouBET, Youth Mentorship, Visions for the Future -- they all require criminal record checks on trainers and mentors. So there are fairly strict criteria. If you're dealing with young people directly, you have a criminal record check. But not everybody has to, including people in my office who aren't dealing, day to day, one on one with youth.

B. Penner: That concludes my questioning in terms of the Premier's Youth Office. I believe the member for Abbotsford has some questions about Crown corporation accountability.

J. van Dongen: I'm pleased to join in this debate today of the Premier's estimates in July of 1999, mainly with respect to the topic of Crown corporations and specifically the Crown Corporations Committee, which was promised by the government -- a commitment made by the government in the throne speech of June 1996. I'll just read the quote out of the speech. There will also be "a new Crown corporations committee of the Legislature, modelled on the Public Accounts Committee and chaired by a member of the opposition. These are only two of the many measures" -- and there was a reference to an earlier commitment -- "that will enhance the effectiveness and influence of all members."

[1145]

[ Page 14224 ]

So I wonder if the Premier could tell us, first of all, what he had in mind or what the government had in mind when the commitment or the announcement was originally made in June of 1996.

Hon. G. Clark: Well, as you know, we did form a Crown Corporations Committee. It is headed by an opposition member -- that opposition member, I believe. It still is my very strong view that this committee should be meeting and dealing with Crown corporations matters.

Now, what happened is quite simple. We had a Public Accounts Committee for the first time in the history of British Columbia. . . . It's not true in most provinces. . . . We -- the government -- agreed to allow the Public Accounts Committee to sit when the House is not sitting. It was a very significant parliamentary reform initiative. When we did that, I offered to the opposition at the time, "Would you like the Public Accounts Committee or the Crown Corporations Committee to sit?" because there were not sufficient numbers of MLAs either interested or who had the time to sit off session. It was the opposition's position that the Public Accounts Committee would be their preference. So that's why the Public Accounts Committee is sitting, and it's very significant. They also canvass Crown corporation issues from their perspective.

Again, I'd be delighted to interest. . . .

Interjections.

Hon. G. Clark: What are you talking about?

The Chair: Order, members.

Hon. G. Clark: The Public Accounts. . . .

Interjection.

Hon. G. Clark: Because the Public Accounts Committee, for the first time in the history of British Columbia, is sitting off session.

An Hon. Member: So what?

Hon. G. Clark: It's my position that only one committee can sit. . . .

Interjections.

The Chair: Order, members. Members will have the opportunity to rise from their seats if they wish to ask a question.

Hon. G. Clark: My offer was that one committee would sit off session, and the committee that was chosen was the Public Accounts Committee. So that's why the committee has not sat. But I'm still of the view that there should be a Crown Corporations Committee chaired by the opposition, and it should sit regularly to canvass these questions.

J. van Dongen: Well, I have to disagree with the Premier. Certainly those types of discussions took place. But I want to say, first of all, that over the years the government has had a lot of recommendations from a number of bodies -- including the auditor general. There were recommendations originally made in 1990 -- that there needs to be closer scrutiny and oversight of Crown corporations specifically. There were recommendations in the "Crown Corporations Governance Study" that the auditor general completed in 1997. He made those recommendations very clearly in the context of the Public Accounts Committee, which was already operating.

I also want to refer the Premier to the Hansard of 1997, where the former Chair of the Public Accounts Committee -- the member for Delta South -- had a discussion with the Premier about the need to activate the Crown Corporations Committee. He did that in the context of a Public Accounts Committee already operating. We all know that the member for Delta South had a great commitment to, and great energy and drive for, improving accountability within government, and he saw the need for both committees. In fact, the Public Accounts Committee had it in one of their recommendations. Recommendation No. 8 in the report on managing public sector performance done for this House by the Public Accounts Committee said: "Your committee recommends that the short- and long-term plans and annual reports of government ministries and Crown corporations, once tabled in the House, stand referred to the appropriate legislative committee."

All of those discussions -- and we could go through and read in detail the Hansard of 1997 -- involved the member for Delta South, who was clearly committed to both committees operating. I don't think it's good enough for the Premier to say today: "There were some discussions that took place, and we couldn't do them both at once." The government either had a commitment to do it or it didn't. I would like the Premier to revisit the comments that he just made.

[1150]

Interjection.

Hon. G. Clark: Or when the House is sitting. I made the suggestion that at the time, I didn't think that it was. . . . I thought it was very difficult to have both committees sitting when the House was not sitting because of time commitments and the business of the government. So I said that we'd only do one -- that's the difference of view -- and we were having the Public Accounts Committee sit.

I understand the Liberals' position, and I hope you understand mine. We are, for the first time in history, allowing the Public Accounts Committee to sit when the House is not sitting. That is what we are doing, and that is what I'm prepared to do. If the opposition would prefer to have the Crown Corporations Committee sit when the House is not sitting, then I would entertain that view. That's been my position. But I do not support both committees sitting when the House is not sitting.

J. van Dongen: I just don't understand the Premier's response. The government made a commitment, first of all, in June of 1996. It was reinforced on a number of occasions by

[ Page 14225 ]

I think the Premier is simply hiding from the fact that he appears to be unwilling to commission this committee to work. We've certainly seen in the last three or four years some very, very serious examples of why it would have been beneficial to the government. I think that to the government as much as to the public or to the opposition, it would have been beneficial to have an active working committee in session or out of session -- whatever -- reviewing business plans, reviewing mission statements and reviewing financial statements and overall performance of these Crown corporations.

Certainly the Premier is somewhat aware, I think, of the precedence in Saskatchewan, for example, with the NDP government there, where they have an active working Crown Corporations Committee. For every Crown corporation, the business plans, the mission statements and the financial statements go to this committee. It's working well, and it's working to the benefit of the government. So why wouldn't the Premier make an attempt here to make the decision to activate this committee?

Hon. G. Clark: I'm still committed to the concept. I think the member makes an excellent point. But I believe that with the difficulties in the House, with the number of MLAs, we have a limited opportunity for committees to sit. What happened was that my position there was superseded by the decision to allow the Public Accounts Committee to sit off session. So the Public Accounts Committee is sitting off session, and that is a very significant parliamentary reform. It is something which I am very proud of, and it's something that we did. Unfortunately, because of doing that and because of their abilities and the time commitments associated with that, it was my judgment that a second committee sitting off session is not doable at this time. Now, I still think it's a valuable parliamentary reform, and we should do it. But it's difficult to do so with the time commitments that members have at this time. I think the member makes an excellent point that when the House is sitting, we should be referring work to this committee. I think you're quite correct, and we should do that.

J. van Dongen: Certainly that was my next question to the Premier: why hasn't it been considered in session, then? We've seen the implementation of the Select Standing Committee on Agriculture and Fisheries -- again, I think, to the benefit of all members of the House and government. That committee, while I think it's important, has apparently taken priority over a commitment that the government made in 1996. Why has that happened? Why has that committee taken priority over a commitment the government made as far back as 1996, in session?

[1155]

Hon. G. Clark: I think that's a very legitimate question. Maybe it's the wrong decision to have the Public Accounts Committee sit; maybe we should have the Crown Corporations Committee sit. The Public Accounts Committee is spending -- let's be clear -- unprecedented amounts of money, with unprecedented travel throughout British Columbia and around the world. It is unprecedented that it's sitting at all, and it's doing, in my view, very good work -- often critical of the government, but very good work. That has crowded out the ability to do another major committee off session. Both the money and the travel costs, and the time commitments. . . . But perhaps the time has come when we should in fact not have the Public Accounts Committee sit as much and we should activate the Crown Corporations Committee to sit and to travel.

J. van Dongen: I'll just put one more question to the Premier before we wrap up for lunch. I think it's important for the Premier to make an unequivocal commitment today to activate this committee or withdraw the commitment. Be upfront about it. You know, you're committed to doing this or you're not committed to doing this. I would hope that the Premier would give us a clear commitment on that today or withdraw the promise that has been made and reiterated a number of times in the last three years.

Hon. G. Clark: Okay, I'd be happy to do that, and I'll get some work referred to the committee. I will only say, however, that we are not going to have two committees sitting when the House is not sitting and travelling around the province and holding hearings. I simply won't do that.

Interjections.

Hon. G. Clark: Well, other committees may be sitting, but I'm saying that those two committees are not going to sit at the same time.

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

Motion approved.

The House resumed; the Speaker in the chair.

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

Hon. D. Streifel moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 11:58 a.m.

[ Return to: Legislative Assembly Home Page ]

Copyright © 1999: Queen's Printer, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada