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 21

[ Page 14227 ]

The House met at 2:08 p.m.

G. Bowbrick: Joining us in the gallery today are neighbours of mine from New Westminster: James and Marianne Janzen, their daughter Katie, and Katie's friend, Caitlin Mullen. I'd ask all members of this House to join me in making them welcome.

G. Campbell: We in this House all know how important it is to have people that are actively involved in public life as volunteers. I'm very pleased to introduce Dave Pedley, president of our Malahat-Juan de Fuca constituency association, to the House today. Dave has been tireless in his efforts and his work, and I hope we'll all make him welcome.

[1410]

On March 18, 1993, Gary was on duty in the main rotunda for the opening day of the legislative session, and while trying to prevent the forced entry to the building by a large group of protesters, he was assaulted and very badly injured. As a result he spent six months in hospital recovering from a badly broken pelvis. When he returned to work, Gary was assigned to the security desk in the west annex, and he has worked at that post each session until the present. So Gary has served us well in this chamber. He's gone beyond the call of duty; he was even injured on the job and spent six months in the hospital on our behalf. He's retiring from the Sergeant-at-Arms staff on Friday, July 9, 1999, and I ask all members of the House to wish him well in his future endeavours.

Hon. H. Lali: It is my pleasure to introduce to the House a few guests of mine who have come over from Vancouver for the day. Some of you may know Mr. Avtar Singh Dhillon from the B.C. Human Rights Tribunal case regarding his fight as a turbaned Sikh to have the right to ride a motorcycle in British Columbia. It is indeed an honour that he could be here to watch the legislation being introduced in the House today by the hon. Attorney General. With him are Mr. Jasbir Singh Jutti, Preetpal Singh Dhillon, Mota Singh Jheeta, Ajit Singh Badh, Sulchminder Singh Cheema, Col. Pritam Singh Johal, Bhupinder Singh Dhillon and Harbhajan Singh Sangha. I'd like the House to please make these visitors welcome.

Hon. P. Priddy: I want to add to the Minister of Transportation and Highways' greetings, particularly to someone I see who's a friend and constituent and a tireless advocate for freedom and equality and harmony in our community, and that's Mota Singh Jheeta.

Hon. C. McGregor: It's my pleasure to introduce today a visitor named Fran Fredrickson from Manitoba. Fran is chair of her local school board and is here for a national education conference. But more importantly, she's the NDP candidate for the upcoming and much anticipated provincial election. Would the House please make her welcome.

Hon. P. Ramsey: I have a couple of introductions to make today. First I'd like the House to join me in welcoming Gerry Gibeault to the chamber. Mr. Gibeault is a former MLA for the riding of Edmonton-Mill Woods in Alberta. Currently he's serving on the Edmonton public school board and is in Victoria to attend the AGM of the Canadian School Boards Association.

We also have with us in the gallery John and Dawn Powell from Kelowna. John is a former teacher of geography and French in the Okanagan. Currently he remains very active in the arts community in the Okanagan and chairs the Kelowna and District Arts Council. Would the House please join me in making these visitors welcome.

Hon. J. Pullinger: Today I'm delighted to say that we have with us in the gallery Mr. David Lach, who is chair of the Canadian Cooperative Association in British Columbia. Mr. Lach has some experience in co-ops; he's been an activist in the co-op movement in this province for 20 years. He's the past president of the Cooperative Housing Federation of British Columbia and a former director of Credit Union Central of B.C. and of the Cooperators Group of insurance companies. Mr. Lach is currently general manager of Baseline Type and Graphics, which is a workers' co-op. I would ask all members of the House to help me make Mr. Lach very, very welcome indeed.

B. Goodacre: Visiting the Legislature later today is a constituent of mine, Don Ryan, chief negotiator for the office of the hereditary chiefs of the Gitxsan nation and a resident of the historically non-conforming community of Two Mile near Hazelton and Gitanmaax in Bulkley Valley-Stikine. I'd like the House to please make him welcome.

[1415]

Introduction of Bills

MISCELLANEOUS STATUTES AMENDMENT ACT (No. 3), 1999

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

Motion approved.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I'm pleased to introduce Bill 97, the Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (No. 3), 1999 -- the last one of the miscellaneous statutes, I think.

Interjections.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: There are others to come. This is the last miscellaneous one.

This bill amends a number of statutes. They are: the Attorney General Act; College and Institute Act; Coroners Act; Corporation Capital Tax Act; Expropriation Act; Finance and Corporate Relations Statutes Amendment Act, 1998; Forest Renewal Act; Greater Vancouver Transportation Authority

[ Page 14228 ]

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

Motion approved.

Bill 97 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

ELECTORAL DISTRICTS ACT

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I'm pleased to introduce Bill 96, Electoral Districts Act. On June 14, 1999, the Legislative Assembly voted to accept the final report from the Electoral Boundaries Commission as it was submitted. The commission has recommended changes that will affect over 90 percent of the electoral districts in British Columbia and add four new ridings. This bill establishes new electoral districts for the province of British Columbia and makes necessary technical amendments to other statutes.

In summary, the technical amendments will amend the Election Act to remove an unreasonable reporting requirement that will be imposed on constituency associations when current electoral districts are abolished, provide authority for the appointment of district electoral officers and deputy district electoral officers in new districts before they are established, provide for a process to deal with standing and new nominations when current electoral districts are abolished and new districts established, amend the Constitution Act and Electoral Boundaries Commission Act to remove the reference to 75 MLAs and 75 electoral districts, and amend the Recall and Initiative Act to allow for the continuity of legislative initiative petitions currently underway when new boundaries take effect.

[1420]

The Speaker: Attorney General, in all the entertaining words that were going on before, we forgot to move the first reading motion. We better put the proper words. . . .

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Hon. Speaker, I move first reading -- and second at the same time.

The Speaker: We'll do them one at a time. On first reading.

Motion approved.

Bill 96 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

DEFINITION OF SPOUSE AMENDMENT ACT, 1999

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I am pleased to introduce Bill 100, the Definition of Spouse Amendment Act, 1999. I move the bill be introduced and read a first time now.

Motion approved.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: The Definition of Spouse Amendment Act, 1999, contains amendments that will modernize selected provincial legislation by expanding the definition of spouse to include persons in a marriage-like relationship, including a marriage-like relationship between persons of the same sex. The Cemetery and Funeral Services Act, the Coroners Act, the Estate Administration Act, the Family Compensation Act and the Wills Variation Act are amended to include in the definition of "spouse" a relationship between a man or a woman living in a marriage-like relationship with either a member of the opposite sex or the same sex for a period of not less than two years.

This bill is another essential element that forms part of this government's commitment to the elimination of discrimination in British Columbia. This bill demonstrates that once again, all British Columbians will have the benefit of fair and equitable laws. Moreover, this legislation is proof that this government is committed to supporting stable family relationships, whether they involve traditional families, common-law families or same-sex relationships. That support is essential in the healthy, thriving and diverse society that forms British Columbia.

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

Motion approved.

Bill 100 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

FEE STATUTES AMENDMENT ACT, 1999

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

Motion approved.

Hon. J. MacPhail: The Fee Statutes Amendment Act, 1999, clarifies the legal authority of the province to charge certain fees under the Company Act, the Land Title Act, the

[ Page 14229 ]

B.C. is the third province to enact this type of legislation. Alberta and Newfoundland have already enacted similar legislation to confirm their fees, and other provinces are examining how they can do the same. This legislation follows a review of the provincial fee legislation to ensure that it's consistent with the recent Supreme Court of Canada decision regarding Ontario probate fees.

[1425]

Hon. Speaker, I move that the bill be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Motion approved.

Bill 94 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

COOPERATIVE ASSOCIATION ACT

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

Motion approved.

Hon. J. Pullinger: It's my pleasure to introduce Bill 98, the Cooperative Association Act.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members, a little quiet, please.

Hon. J. Pullinger: This bill replaces an outdated and limited piece of legislation which was first passed in 1896; it was last amended 11 years ago. This new legislation will update the principles of cooperative activity to reflect changes in the international principles of cooperative associations as well as in current methods of doing business. The new act will reflect the new international understandings and definitions of memberships, meetings and voting rules. It will allow co-ops to create membership classes and attach membership rights and restrictions to those classes. This new act will enable cooperatives to expand their access to capital by allowing them to issue investment shares to members and non-members. Further, as part of the cross-government initiative to cut red tape the new act will create the framework for cooperatives to self-regulate in a number of areas that were previously prescribed in legislation. The act will complement and reflect key provisions of the new Company Act introduced in the House recently, as well as recent changes to federal legislation governing cooperatives.

The Cooperative Association Act reflects two years of discussions and consultations with cooperatives of all sizes in all parts of British Columbia, and I want to particularly thank the Canadian Cooperative Association and the staff who have worked so very, very hard to bring this act to fruition.

Hon. Speaker, I move the bill be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Motion approved.

Bill 98 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Oral Questions

TAXATION POLICY ON EDUCATIONAL MATERIALS

Hon. J. MacPhail: Actually, I think the question is a thoughtful one, and I appreciate my colleague's contribution to the thoughtful discussion as well.

Taxation policy is set on a regular basis to review what exemptions there may or may not be from the application of tax. Each and every government does that, and the exemption from or the application of taxation usually accompanies budget documents. In this particular case, the exemption for the application of PST applies to materials that contribute to education and educational outcomes. There has been a policy application that adventure playgrounds do not come under that policy.

[1430]

Interjections.

Hon. J. MacPhail: No, I think this is an interesting discussion. I'd be more than happy to talk to parents about whether they wish to have us examine, on a provincewide basis, an exemption.

The Speaker: First supplementary, the member for Surrey-White Rock.

G. Hogg: I can assure the minister that parents and families want you to review that. Last year alone, $30 million

[ Page 14230 ]

Hon. J. MacPhail: Perhaps, because it was such a thoughtful, low-key answer, he didn't hear it. But, hon. Speaker, I said that there is a process by which these. . .

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order!

Hon. J. MacPhail: . . .issues can come forward, and I welcome it. It's interesting, because parents are organized into organizations -- the parent advisory groups, etc. -- that can examine this issue. I meet with my own parent advisory groups on a regular basis, and this issue has not been raised with me directly, either as an MLA or as the Minister of Finance. I welcome it. It will be a thoughtful discussion. Of course, any exemption from the application of taxation has an effect on expenditures, including those on health care and education.

M. de Jong: I thought I heard the minister say that these lists of exemptions are reviewed on an annual basis -- on a regular basis. So let's have a look at that list. Presumably these are some of the things that slipped through on the last review. It is difficult to reconcile some of these things.

Chalk is exempt; chalkboards aren't. The pens you use to write on a white board are exempt; the erasers you use on those white boards are not. Scotch tape is; presumably red tape isn't. The question to the Minister of Finance is: what possible rationale can there be for charging parent advisory councils PST on a CD player when there is an exemption in place for the CDs themselves?

Hon. J. MacPhail: Actually, I would far rather engage in this kind of tax exemption than give $1.5 billion of tax exemptions to the large corporations. But what I would also advise the opposition is that they can't have it both ways -- unlike what they would have the public believe, including parents. I'd be more than happy to receive a representation, and I know, based on his earlier comments and his particular advocacy around this issue, that the Minister of Education will join me in those discussions.

The Speaker: First supplementary, the member for Matsqui.

M. de Jong: Well, I'm thrilled more than the minister will ever know, Madam Speaker, to hear her appreciation for the level and demeanour of debate. But I want to get specific again with her, because I am interested in hearing the rationale for why maps and charts are exempt from the PST but globes aren't. Is that a Flat Earth Society thing?

Clarinet reeds are exempt, but guitar picks aren't -- shame!

[1435]

Look, the issue is a serious one. Schools and parent advisory councils are collecting $30 million. My question for the Finance minister is: when is the government going to take action and stop penalizing those parents who are dedicated to the highest possible calling: raising money to give their kids a proper education?

Hon. J. MacPhail: I am advised, through a series of inputs from my own colleagues about -- and I would say this advisedly -- the same level of response to the same level of question -- the level at which this hon. member puts forward an issue. . . . He's making light of an issue that's very important, and that's about how we use our tax system to raise revenues to support health care and education.

The real issue here is not about the silliness of erasers versus chalk versus CDs; the real issue here is who they would collect taxes from. They would collect it from students in promoting the highest tuition fees in the country. They would transfer that revenue that they collect from students to the richest corporations in the country -- give them the breaks. That's what they would do. They have no thoughtful process about supporting education through proper taxation at all. The education system, in their books -- their taxation books -- is at risk.

It's not about chalk, it's not about CDs; it's about them giving taxes away to the richest to destroy the education system.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members, members. Come to order.

K. Whittred: The minister is right. It's about choices.

I've been a history teacher for a number of years, and I've heard of a historical artifact called a pen nib, and here it is on the list of exempted items. For the enlightenment of the House, I might point out that after pen nibs came fountain pens and then came ballpoint pens, and finally typewriters and computers. Will the Minister of Education tell us why, as we enter the twenty-first century, pen nibs are exempt from taxation but computers are not?

Interjections.

The Speaker: Come to order, members.

Hon. J. MacPhail: I expect that the Liberal opposition regrets the introduction of bills today because it means that they actually are going to have to come up with some questions that are meaningful to British Columbians, unlike today.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, members. Come to order.

First supplementary, the member for North Vancouver-Lonsdale.

K. Whittred: I suggest to the minister that these questions are in fact meaningful. People who actually work in the

[ Page 14231 ]

This question is for the Minister of Education. Under the ministry's rules, modelling clay is exempt, but Plasticine, which is defined as an educational toy, is not. Will the Education minister please enlighten this House on the criterion he uses to distinguish between modelling clay and Plasticine?

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, members.

[1440]

What doesn't make sense, frankly, is this Liberal opposition standing up in defence of education, when in the last election they presented a budget that would have cut education. What doesn't make sense is this opposition standing up pretending to be a friend of education when. . .

Interjection.

The Speaker: Member for West Vancouver-Garibaldi, no way.

Hon. P. Ramsey: . . .they vote against smaller classes in their schools, when they vote against reducing portables and when they vote for, or propose, a taxation reduction for the rich and the large corporations, which our students will pay for in reduced services in our schools.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, members.

C. Clark: There must be a formula by which the government decides what is going to be taxed and what's not going to be taxed. I mean, maybe the formula that the government uses is paper-scissors-rock, because paper's exempt, but the government decides it wants to tax scissors and rocks in the classroom. Can the minister explain for us what bizarre thinking led her bureaucrats to conclude that somehow, if you use a rock in the classroom, the government should tax it?

Hon. P. Ramsey: While we're on the subject of bizarre thinking. . .

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members. . . .

Hon. P. Ramsey: . . .maybe this Liberal opposition will stand up and explain to the people of British Columbia the bizarre thinking that leads them to say that, on the one hand, they're in favour of improving education and that, on the other hand, smaller classes for our children from kindergarten to grade 3 are a bad idea and should be opposed. They voted against it. Will they explain that bizarre thinking? Will they explain to the people of British Columbia why, on the one hand, every member over there gets up and says, "We want more new schools; we want fewer portables," and on the other hand, they get up and speak against borrowing money to build those schools and get rid of those portables. That's the bizarre thinking in this chamber.

C. Clark: The thing that British Columbians want to know is why this government decides it's okay to spend $250 million extra of taxpayers' dollars on things like fast ferries and on bailing out pulp mills -- spending hundreds of millions of dollars of our money while students go without. People want to know why the government spends its time and its taxpayers' dollars deciding that pins are exempt from tax, but needles should be taxed. Wood is exempt, but minerals should be taxed. Dead animals are exempt, but if they've been dead a really, really long time and become a fossil, like some of the government backbenchers, they get taxed. Is it any wonder that British Columbians are curious about this government's priorities, when government bureaucrats are spending their time policing bizarre tax regulations instead of making schools better for our children?

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, members. Members, come to order. Peace River North, come to order.

Hon. P. Ramsey: I must say that here again we have these pseudo-defenders of education: the ones that forgot all about advanced education in the 1996 election and the ones that refuse to acknowledge that we're leading the way in freezing tuition and opening up post-secondary education. You know, when it comes down to it. . .

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members, come to order.

Hon. P. Ramsey: . . .I think that the people of British Columbia are going to be asking from which other provincial government that they admire are they going to import education policies to British Columbia. Is it going to be (a) Frank McKenna's government in New Brunswick?

Interjection.

Hon. P. Ramsey: Yes, member for Matsqui, it's multiple-choice time.

Is it (a) New Brunswick, where Frank McKenna showed his respect for education by slashing the budget and then abolishing school boards? Is it (b) Mike Harris's Ontario, where they ran for re-election saying that they were going to slash another billion dollars from education on top of the cuts they'd already made?

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members. . . .

Hon. P. Ramsey: Or is it (c) Ralph Klein's Alberta, whose idea of a class size initiative is to fire 700 teachers and increase class sizes?

[ Page 14232 ]

The Speaker: Members, members.

Hon. P. Ramsey: The answer is clear: (d) all of the above.

[1445]

Tabling Documents

Reports from Committees

Motion approved.

R. Thorpe: I ask leave of the House to suspend the rules to permit the moving of a motion to adopt the report.

Leave granted.

R. Thorpe: I move that the report be adopted. I'd like to thank all of those on the committee, all of the witnesses and all of the British Columbians that worked so hard in preparing this report. Thank you.

Motion approved.

Petitions

Orders of the Day

[1450]

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

G. Campbell: I would just like to sum up quickly, if I can, some of the issues that we dealt with this morning and be sure that I have understood them. First, as I understand it, the Premier has agreed that his information technology staff will be in touch with my office so that we can get together and discover how in fact digital information is being saved and protected in accordance with the legislative requirements that we have.

I understand that the Premier is going to get me the specific contractual arrangement between the Premier's Office or the communication office and Ms. Fruman with regard to what she is doing and what her responsibilities are, as well as her remuneration. I understand that the Premier will be looking into providing me with the MDA agreement, and if not the full agreement, then he will respond on the government's policy with regard to how revenues are generated, what's taking place with regard to web site advertising and what controls or containment we have on fees and costs that will be associated to the taxpayer for what MDA is providing. Could the Premier confirm that that's what his understanding is from this morning as well?

Hon. G. Clark: Absolutely.

G. Campbell: I would like to just quickly revisit the issue that we touched on briefly this morning with regard to the Premier's former principal secretary, Mr. Dix. It is my understanding that Mr. Dix's memo is not considered a transitory document and therefore should have been logged in the permanent file. Can the Premier confirm if Mr. Dix's memo is logged in the Legislature computer backup system, as should have been done to comply with the freedom-of-information legislation?

Hon. G. Clark: I'm sorry, I don't know the answer to that, but my understanding -- given my previous answers and my advice here -- is that the hard copy is what's required, not electronic backup. Of course, hard copy has been provided.

G. Campbell: I have followed this up since this morning, and I understand that Mr. Dix's memo was done using a word processing program known as Microsoft Word -- a fairly ubiquitous program in terms of what's available. The memo should be on the system if in fact it was carried out with a computer, whether it's a laptop computer or his at-desk computer. What I would like -- what I'm asking -- the Premier to do is: will he commit to tabling the computer backup file which would provide the memo Mr. Dix created and would show that it was authentic and that Mr. Dix wrote it when he said he wrote it?

Hon. G. Clark: I'm sorry. I think I said earlier, in answer to the question, that I have no idea if there's any computer backup file. My advice was that there's no computer file required either, nor is there any information. It's the hard copy which the law requires and which was filed and which has been presented.

G. Campbell: What I understand is that if Mr. Dix in fact did type this memo on an office computer and he saved it to a common drive, which is where it would have to be saved, there should be a permanent record of that memo and when it was created. Records are updated, as I understand it, every Friday. If it was saved on a common drive and it's not in the records, then someone actually authorized its deletion.

Hon. G. Clark: I think I've been clear on this. There is no requirement to save to the hard drive. This was your point

[ Page 14233 ]

[1455]

G. Campbell: Well, my understanding is that records are actually backed up or updated every Friday, that they go to a backup system. If it in fact is carried out on the computer system, there is a record of the backup. The question is not whether it is required by law or not; the question is that if it is there, it is there.

My question to the Premier is: will he undertake to review whether it is there or not -- whether in fact it was done on an office system, whether it was saved to the hard drive, whether it was saved through backup on the Friday after that memo was put in place? And if in fact it took place, will he make that information available to the public and to the opposition?

Hon. G. Clark: I'm sorry, but no, I won't. I have no idea what is on any hard drive. My guess is that there's nothing on any hard drives. What is required is the physical copies of files. It's not just required; that is the formal record of the government in law and in reality and in FOI. When you request FOI, that's what you get: you get the hard copies. You don't get what's in the hard drive. I have no idea if anything is in the hard drive, and I don't intend to look.

G. Campbell: Well, frankly, I find that an incredible answer. "I have no intention of looking." We have a document that's been put together. We have an investigation that's taking place -- an investigation into how this actually took place. We have the Premier coming forward and saying to the public: "Look, here's what my principal secretary said." The Premier's principal secretary is claiming to have written a memo.

There is a way we can determine whether that's authentic or not. It is in the Premier's interest -- it is in the public's interest -- to make that determination, not to say: "I don't care about it." It is in the Premier's interest to say: "Yes, I will go, and I will look, and if it is there, I will make it available." How on earth is the public's interest being served by the Premier trying to stonewall this small part of an investigation which is currently ongoing, which took place in his office, with his political appointment, with the chief of his political apparatus in government?

Hon. G. Clark: Well, I'm not stonewalling anything. If I write a handwritten note, and it goes in a file, that's the record, and that's publicly accountable. How they write the note, where the note is written, is not a significant factor. There is, clearly, a memo to file, and clearly it's an accurate description of what took place. It could be a handwritten note to file, and that's totally legitimate as well. So which computer it's done on, where it's done, is of no consequence. What is done is that there is a hard copy in a file, and that is the record, and that's what has been exposed.

G. Campbell: The question is: is this memo real? We don't know whether it was made up after the fact or whether it was actually what the principal secretary claims it to be. The principal secretary has now left; the Premier's Office remains. Here we have a Premier that said to the people of B.C.: "I'm going to be open, aboveboard, and let everyone know what took place."

We are asking a simple question. The simple question is. . . . If in fact Mr. Dix followed protocol, there should be a backup, if he used any kind of computer equipment for that memo, which will allow the Premier to authenticate it. If indeed the Premier is saying, "Well, I'm not willing to authenticate it," then I think the question remains: why are you not willing to authenticate it?

[1500]

G. Campbell: But again, the fact of the matter is this document. . . . It is claimed by the Premier, by the Premier's Office and by the Premier's staff that this document was done on a computer. It wasn't done by printing; it wasn't done in a colouring book; it was done on a computer, and there are protocols which are in place which say that when something is put on a computer, it is saved to the disk, and the disk is saved in a backup system.

My question to the Premier. . . . And I don't understand why there's any concern with this from the perspective of the Premier. If in fact it is authentic, he can prove it's authentic. You can prove it's authentic. It's not a question of whether it was done in Prince George or Chilliwack. It's a question of: it was done, but what we have been told is that it was done on a government computer. . . .

Interjection.

[ Page 14234 ]

Hon. G. Clark: You've made certain assertions here. I have no idea whether they're true or not. There is. . . .

Interjection.

Hon. G. Clark: I have no obligation. The obligation is absolutely clear. The obligation is clear, and it's in the law. The hard copy -- the paper copy -- is the copy that is kept on file. Whether there is a hard drive, what happened to the hard drive, where it is, I have no idea, nor do I care. The government operates. . . .

Interjections.

Hon. G. Clark: Yes, they back up, and yes, they routinely get rid of it, as I understand it. There's no requirement to keep all the electronic data. There's no requirement to keep the hard drives, and the government apparatus works. The whole protocol is to keep a hard copy on paper on file, and that's what we've done.

I'm not going to go back and look through Mr. Dix's various computers he had access to and all of that. I'm not dealing with that. Who cares? The issue is that there's. . . .

Interjections.

Hon. G. Clark: Well, you can care all you want, and you can make allegations all you want. The copy is absolutely crystal-clear, and there's an investigation underway about which I've no worries whatsoever, as you know.

G. Campbell: The public cares. I don't know if this Premier noticed it, but the government was basically paralyzed for a couple of months because of this scandal. The government is in fact in chaos because of this scandal. There are questions in the Premier's caucus because of this scandal. And what the public wants -- not what the opposition wants, but what the public wants -- is to know whether Mr. Dix's memo was authentic or not. And there is a way the Premier can find out. There is a way the Premier can find out. He can at least ask. He can at least go and try to find out. What the Premier's saying is: "I don't care. It doesn't bother me." Well, it bothers the public.

I would again ask the Premier to undertake that he will go and ascertain which computer Mr. Dix did his memo on, where it was backed up to and whether or not indeed it was a memo that was prepared at the time that Mr. Dix said it was prepared.

Hon. G. Clark: The member's making an allegation by inference, it appears, and then he says that if I don't provide proof, somehow I'm guilty. The issue is being fully investigated. The memo is accurate. It's the date at which I canvassed this issue -- or around about the date I canvassed the issue. I know that because of the time with respect to a cabinet meeting, and it's all the subject of a full review. And the content is completely accurate, so. . . .

Interjections.

Hon. G. Clark: Well, I'm just telling you. If the content's accurate, the rest is immaterial as far as I'm concerned, and I'm not going to go through all an ex-employee's old hard drives to find out or ask people to find out. . . . It's all been completely cleared, I'm sure -- expunged -- as it is all the time, because the government does not store the material for any length of time.

An Hon. Member: How do you know that?

Hon. G. Clark: I was advised this morning that the electronic material is not stored for any length of time, nor is it required to be. In fact, what's required is the opposite. It has to be printed out on hard copy, and that is then stored.

G. Campbell: The hard drives. . . . As I understand it, the files are kept for one year in storage. One year from the date that this memo was supposedly written -- was allegedly written -- is July 17, 1999. That's one week from this Saturday. Now, the Premier can stall, and the Premier can put it off, and he can say, "Oh gee, what a surprise; suddenly it's disappeared," because the Premier will know, if the Premier has asked -- and I would assume the Premier has asked by now -- exactly how those things are carried out.

[1505]

Hon. G. Clark: I think I said that not everything is required to be stored or backed up for a year. What happens is that they're routinely expunged. Some things are backed up electronically for a year. What is required and what happens is that you must print out a hard copy, and that is what is FOIable and what is clear and on the record.

If we had to go back and try to check everything in government. . . . You couldn't do it. I don't intend to do it. I have no idea where this was typed or where it was done, and I don't intend to go on some wild goose chase. It's clear and unequivocal. The substance of it is clear, and there is a full investigation into this matter, as the member well knows, and all that will be dealt with.

G. Campbell: I'm not saying that the words aren't clear. The question is -- and there is a great deal of question -- around whether this is an authentic memo or not. There is a great deal of question with regard to that. The issue is that the Premier can clear that up with the click of his fingers. He can simply direct his staff to go, produce the memo from the backup file, prove to the public, from the backup file, that in fact it was done on time. That's what I am requesting the Premier to do before July 17, 1999. I'll ask him again: is he willing to do it?

[ Page 14235 ]

Hon. G. Clark: My staff has just advised me that all the backup tapes are deleted after 90 days, not one year. So there are no backup tapes available. . . .

Interjection.

Hon. G. Clark: Of all of government. I'm not saying it was done for my office. This is how government operates. We had this discussion this morning. It's not the electronic disk or the data which is stored; it is the hard copy. That is worth reconsidering perhaps, but that's the way we operate. We haven't done anything for my office that's different from everybody else. If there's a backup tape, it's all deleted after 90 days.

You're the only one that's concerned about this. It's very clear. The memo is clear, and the substance is clear, and it's being dealt with, with a series of investigations.

G. Campbell: Obviously the Premier and I don't agree. I don't believe that I am the only one. There are many people that are concerned about this, and there are many people, I believe, throughout public life in British Columbia who are concerned about this: how this happened, what took place and how decisions were made.

To touch back on one of the other issues we dealt with this morning, I think one of the critical things. . . . You know, it really is unfortunate for all of us that we had to have a discussion like that, because it shows, I think, that there is a concern about what is being said by the government and whether people agree with it. . . . Well, it's not whether they agree with it, but whether they believe it or not -- whether or not it's believable. The government has a huge problem with public trust. I think the government knows that. And one of the reasons that I believe we have to start opening up the way government works, being free with the way government works, is that it is important for the public to see what is taking place.

So I want to go back and touch. . . .

Interjections.

The Chair: The member has the floor.

G. Campbell: I think that one of the critical things is that the public has stopped believing what this government says, almost regardless of who says it. But the Premier has a real problem with this.

This morning we had a discussion about the Select Standing Committee on Crown Corporations. The Premier was clear; the Premier was unequivocal with regard to the Committee on Crown Corporations in 1996. He was clear about it and he was unequivocal about it because he knew about the concerns that had been raised with regards to the B.C. Hydro debacle -- and it was a debacle, and it was a scandal. Everyone in the public knows it was. Even most members of government know that it was a scandal. It was a scandal because the people of British Columbia were taken to the cleaners. It was a scandal because this government decided to try and play it a little fast and loose with the rules. That's clear. We've seen the bodies to reflect that.

[1510]

We may have been able to prevent the kind of financial debacle we're seeing with the convention centre. There are a number of areas where we could have, I think, protected the taxpayer -- in the interests of everyone in this House, in the interests of everyone in the province of British Columbia, regardless of political stripe. There's no one on that side of the House that says: "Isn't this great. We're $215 million over budget on fast ferries." There's no one on that side of the House that's cheering about the fact that a convention centre project that was supposed to cost the taxpayer zero is now $900 million and continues to mount in costs, and the public's contribution continues to mount. There's no one that's encouraged by that.

So again I go to the Premier, and I want to ask the Premier directly. . . . Everyone on this side of the House is ready to move forward with the Crown corporations standing committee. We're willing to do it in the House, in session; we're willing to do it out of session. Members of the Premier's own party -- his own caucus -- believe that it's critical that we do that. So instead of making a unilateral, one-person decision that that committee will not meet, I ask the Premier to go along with the recommendation of the Legislature, to go along with the recommendations of MLAs who want to work, who want to contribute. I ask the Premier: is he willing to allow the Crown corporations standing committee to meet so we can look at these Crown corporations, hold them publicly accountable and hopefully avoid the kind of financial disasters which we've seen time after time after time when there was no scrutiny of the activities of the Crown corporations?

Hon. G. Clark: First of all, the member knows that in estimates these questions can and are canvassed every time. The Minister Responsible for B.C. Ferries was questioned at length on the ferry projects, with staff there all the time.

Interjection.

Hon. G. Clark: Yes, he did tell you the truth, but the information he was given was wrong -- and you know that.

Hon. D. Miller: Who?

Hon. G. Clark: He said you didn't tell the truth.

The Chair: The Minister of Northern Development on a point of order.

Hon. D. Miller: I heard the member, who is not in his seat, from Vancouver -- whatever it is -- say that I didn't tell the truth, and I'd like an unequivocal withdrawal right now.

[ Page 14236 ]

G. Farrell-Collins: I said that the minister didn't tell us the truth, because he says he didn't know the truth, so therefore we didn't get the truth. He didn't tell us the truth. There's nothing to withdraw whatsoever.

The Chair: Member, you know the rules around language. . . .

G. Farrell-Collins: I'm not going to withdraw it.

Hon. D. Miller: It's easy to weasel your way around, but it takes a bit of guts, I guess, to stand up and. . . .

Interjections.

The Chair: Order, members. I remind members about. . . .

Interjections.

The Chair: Members, order. I must remind all members about the type of language that is used in this chamber. Both sides are guilty of using language that is unparliamentary. I would ask everyone to reconsider and carry on in a moderate temper as we proceed.

[1515]

I guess what I would say is that I have offered to discuss with the member for Abbotsford, who is the Chair of the committee, what we might do to kick this off, with some canvassing of Crown corporations, but in a limited schedule, given my concerns about conflicting committee meetings, etc. Again, I stand by my position. I agree with the member that a Crown corporations committee canvassing Crown corporations is a good idea. Hopefully, this year, if we can get some agreement, we will begin that process.

G. Campbell: We will certainly strive to work towards an agreement with regard to this. I think that the Premier should understand that when we get an opportunity to ask questions in the House, we get opportunities to ask questions of ministers. A standing committee would have an opportunity to ask questions of staff. Clearly a number of those staff members were not in a situation where they were being asked the questions they should have been asked. With the staff and the minister there, it is clear that we can direct a question through the minister to the staff, and the minister will be able to think about the questions he may want to ask.

Clearly there were no questions asked with regard to the fast ferries. Regardless of what the minister may wish had happened, he didn't pay attention. If we believe everything the minister who was responsible has told us, he was not paying attention. He wasn't paying attention to it. So the issue with regard to. . . .

Interjection.

G. Campbell: Hon. Chair, with respect, if this minister wants to heckle, he can sit in his chair and he can heckle. Otherwise he should be quiet.

The Chair: Member, I was waiting until you had completed your remarks to remind all members that they must be in their chairs to make remarks and that they should be on their feet to make remarks.

G. Campbell: I am looking forward to working with the Premier. I should point out that there are a number of committees that have met outside of the Legislature, which are not nearly as significant as the Select Standing Committee on Crown Corporations should be. I am sure we can come to a resolution so that we can move forward and ask the kinds of questions which are critical to the people of B.C.

The member for Richmond East would like to ask the Premier a couple of questions, hon. Chair.

L. Reid: My questions relate to the Premier's responsibility for youth. He will know that this government has engaged in a 1.5 percent clawback across the sector. The people who meet with me have some serious difficulty, Mr. Premier -- through the Chair -- reconciling the 1.5 percent clawback with your stated commitment to youth programs in the province. If you can give us some guidance as to how that came to pass and whether or not you're on side with that. . . . I mean, the individuals I met with today cannot accept the notion that you would indeed see taking away services from the front line as being something helpful to young people in this province.

Hon. G. Clark: Obviously it's a very difficult decision. As you know, the Ministry for Children and Families -- I'm not administratively responsible for that ministry, but obviously I am accountable for the actions of government -- had a quite significant budget increase both last year and this year. That money has gone towards more social workers and more front-line workers and some significant improvements in care for young people. At the same time as we've tried to reallocate and save money, the government itself has cut quite substantially on the administrative overhead of government. It became clear that while we were cutting our overhead, there were at least some delivery organizations that had not made commensurate cuts in their administrative overhead. So 1.5 percent is less than the government itself in terms of the cuts to administration

The government decided that it would be a good idea to work with the community organizations, where possible, to make cuts to administration overhead and not cuts to front-line services. I remain quite confident -- at least, given the

[ Page 14237 ]

[1520]

I fully acknowledge, as I've said, that many of them don't accept that and certainly don't look forward to it. But many of them, as well, do believe that there are cost savings. What I will commit to you is that we want to work this through with the agencies and not have unilateral impositions on them. We're trying to work with them to find the savings necessary to achieve the 1.5 percent target, which is really quite modest indeed given the cuts that have existed elsewhere in government, including in the head office administration of this ministry.

L. Reid: I appreciate the Premier's comments, but I don't want him to leave this discussion with the impression that this process is actually a partnership process. There was no suggestion that the ministry would work in concert with the service providers. It was not a request; it was a demand that those dollars would be returned. Just so the record reflects this, this is $10 million clawback. Just so the record reflects this, a number of these agencies have spent those dollars. There is no ability for them to return those moneys to this government. In terms of just basic respect for contracts, most aspects of government would not go back to Transportation and Highways or to Employment and Investment and ask for money after a contract has been let -- and has been completed in many, many cases.

So if it's not appropriate for Highways, if it's not appropriate for building construction, why in the world is it appropriate with children? I mean, these are the young people of this province, which this Premier has stated are his priority. He has taken responsibility for that, hon. Chair, when it comes to being the minister responsible for young people. That $10 million is $10 million less for young people on the front line. That's a fact.

The Premier can make the case that it's 1.5 percent and that in fact they were invited to participate. They weren't invited to participate. The government demanded those dollars back after those dollars had, in some cases, been expended. So the B.C. Association for Community Living, the Developmental Disabilities Association, the Federation of Child and Family Services of B.C., the Association of Neighbourhood Houses -- all of those folks deal day to day on the front line. It seems to me that this Premier would want to be the champion of young people. That's what he campaigned on. So to take those dollars away from kids can't be something that he would wish to defend today. I await his comment.

Hon. G. Clark: I acknowledge that it's difficult and painful, and every time you try to deal with these efficiencies, it's hard. But we have cut essentially 10 percent of the civil service -- FTEs in government -- and it's been very difficult. We've made significant cuts in administration, and we've tried to reallocate. In a sense of fairness, we have to look now at contracted agencies, who can no longer expect just to get the same amount or more money every year. The auditor general has been clear on this. We have to follow the money and go in and try to find efficiencies.

Now, how do you do that? By announcing at the beginning of the fiscal year that we want a 1.5 percent savings from that contracted-service sector. They should not have spent the money; it's the beginning of the fiscal year. We've asked for 1.5 percent back, and we're prepared to work with them to get there. But we're not prepared to say: "Well, let's just work and look at it." We want savings so that we can reallocate it to the front line, and we want to protect front-line workers. As I said, you can tell that the overall budget is significantly increased, so there's lots of money going into front-line services.

We're doing the best we can. I appreciate that it's difficult; I appreciate that it's not popular. But we think that we should be able to do this and protect front-line services. There should be savings in administration in these organizations -- the same kind of savings, much less, than we've got from our own government management.

[1525]

Hon. G. Clark: I've talked with the minister about this, and I know there's great sensitivity. I'm quite worried about it as well, but we're determined to try to find some efficiency gains right now so that we can reallocate to the front line. We'll try to do that as best we can, in cooperation and with sensitivity. But I know there's a compulsion there, because the money has been allocated and booked in our budget. The budget we passed here requires a 1.5 percent cut from those contracted agencies. We're going to try and find that without any disruption for front-line services.

L. Reid: The Premier has to know that the disruption is evident today. There is absolutely no way to prevent disruption in terms of a clawback in month 10 of a contract. He has to know that. In terms of children's advocate Joyce Preston's report, her recommendation was that this is the sector, the young people of this province -- children -- that should not be impacted by across-the-board cuts by government when there is basically an inability of the government to balance its books, and that somehow that inability is borne by the children of this province is not appropriate. Joyce Preston makes that recommendation very strongly. My question to the Premier would simply be: why is this Premier ignoring the recommendation of the children's advocate?

[ Page 14238 ]

I think people know that we're working very hard to provide those services for young people as we reform the system. We've got lots of work to do. The ministry has only been in existence for two years. I think they're making good progress. I know this is disruptive, but we're going to try to get it to work the best we can. I have to say that when we look out to the future, we still are running a deficit, so we have to constantly look for ways to save money and protect front-line services.

L. Reid: Again, for the Premier's clarification on that question, the increase in this budget was by special warrant. It was around the overspending in the ministry last year. It is not a new commitment to this area of government. Again, the Premier suggested that the ministry is two years old; it's in fact three years old. It's time that this ministry delivered on its promise.

I appreciate that the Premier talks about appreciating the advocate's stance. My question was very specific. Beyond appreciating the stance of the advocate, you're ignoring the recommendation. My question is, simply: why?

Hon. G. Clark: We're not ignoring the recommendations. We're trying to implement as many as we can, but we have to do it within the fiscal realities we find ourselves in. The list of things that she's demanded would cost several hundred million dollars. They're all valid. I don't mean to criticize it at all, but we simply can't do it all. We have to do it in a way which is manageable.

These increases are significant, and if you're suggesting that they're not enough, I'll agree with you. But I think they're better than most places. We're working hard to try to fulfil the commitments that she's outlined. I think she's a useful advocate, and she's made very good points. I agree with many of them, but we simply can't do them all at this time.

P. Nettleton: It's been a year and a half since the Premier held a northern economic summit in Prince George, something which -- to date at least -- has proved to be little more than a public relations exercise. As evidence of that, I would point to the northern resource-based economy, which has continued to plummet; the unemployment rate in Prince George, which is consistently in the 18 percent range; almost 600 forest workers in the city who have lost their jobs under the present government. More than $1.7 million in employment insurance benefits are paid out in Prince George each week. Worst of all -- and one gets a sense of this, I can tell you, from spending any time in Prince George or in that region -- workers, families and residents of the Prince George region have lost hope. The northern development commissioner has suggested that it may take years to begin to turn things around and to address the economic woes of the north. On behalf of northerners, I would say that that's simply not good enough.

[1530]

Hon. G. Clark: Well, obviously I disagree with the member. We had a conference one and a half years ago, and there has been a lot of action coming out of that conference. It wasn't a PR exercise. We did create the position of northern development commissioner, filled by Mr. Backhouse, a former mayor and prominent British Columbian. We then went on to major changes for the oil and gas industry; we set up the Oil and Gas Commission and made a significant reduction in royalties. We allocated a fair share of millions of dollars going to communities like Fort St. John and Dawson Creek and Chetwynd. Very significant changes were made coming out of the northern summit. The oil and gas industry is doing extremely well. I might say that I've just come back from Calgary recently, and they're very pleased with the changes we've made since the northern development forum.

I think there's going to be significantly more action. I'm sure the member for Peace River North would agree that there's a lot of exciting development that is taking place or is going to take place in the north, in part as a result of the changes we've made both to royalties and to the Oil and Gas Commission. The Fair Share program, I think, is paying dividends for citizens who live there, and there's very significant investment taking place there. The Nisga'a treaty, although members opposite may not agree with it, is a very significant commitment to the north and to dealing with the very serious problem of land claims. And even Skeena Cellulose -- which I know members opposite don't agree with -- is a significant commitment to the north, coming through the northern development commissioner and coming out of the northern summit. Finally, Louisiana-Pacific's major investment in British Columbia is a very significant investment in jobs coming into the north. And there are several others. So I think we've been working extremely hard to respond to the very legitimate concerns people had at that Premier's summit on northern development.

I think we made some very significant changes which are really working well in parts of the north. I want to fully acknowledge that the resource prices and commodity issues have really hurt Prince George and the forest industry. We have cut stumpage and changed the Forest Practices Code in a way which has resulted in significant savings. I'm very pleased -- and I hope the member agrees with me -- that things are really turning up in the forest industry, in part because of the changes we've made. Every company in B.C. is profitable. Commodity prices are coming back. Japan is slowly starting to recover. And we're seeing some real employment growth in the forest sector in the Prince George region.

So I understand that people are concerned and even unhappy. There have been really tough issues in Prince

[ Page 14239 ]

With respect to a plan, the northern development commissioner has been touring around the north, and I think he's getting quite good feedback. He's charged, along with the minister responsible, with developing a plan for the north to flesh out the changes that we have made as a result of the Premier's economic summit. But again, a report card on the summit would show that we really made tremendous progress on concerns raised at that meeting.

[1535]

The Premier has pointed to the northern commissioner. The northern commissioner has been touring the province for one and a half years after having been the mayor of Prince George for many, many years; and if he hasn't got it figured out by now, my guess is that he never will get it figured out.

I see the member for North Coast is laughing and enjoying. . . . I'm not sure what he's laughing at, but in any event. . . .

The Chair: Order, member. We don't make comments about other members in the House.

P. Nettleton: No? Well, perhaps we should start.

In any event, I can tell you that the people of Prince George, the people of the north, are not laughing. The people of the north are hurting, and families are hurting. This economic downturn has hurt people, and I represent those people. I care about those people; I listen to those people.

My question is to the Premier. Mr. Premier, the people of the north know when they're being stroked and they know when they're getting screwed. I challenge you, on their behalf, to deliver on your promises even if it's initially only to provide a plan of action for economic recovery for northerners.

Hon. G. Clark: Well, first of all, let me correct the record. There are no vast sums of money in Louisiana-Pacific. That's a major private sector investment. There is some work done on Louisiana-Pacific's existing pulp mill -- to work with the employees and the company to save it, which I would assume the member opposite would support; but perhaps he doesn't. But these are significant private sector investments.

With respect to oil and gas, it is a private sector investment which is stimulated by changes we've made to the regulatory structure and to the tax system based on the work coming out of the northern summit. There's a northern development fund. And the commissioner did not come from the government. That came from a recommendation of the people at the Premier's summit. Similarly, when we had the summit in Kamloops and when we had a summit in the Kootenays, they did not recommend a commissioner. It came from the group in Prince George, and anybody there knows that. There is significant work being done, and it's not all public money. But yes, I'm proud to say there's some public money in things like the Hart Bridge, and I'm surprised the member opposite would oppose that. I'm surprised he would oppose the investment in Louisiana-Pacific's pulp mill -- working with them to save that.

I think we have done a series of things coming out of the plan that arose out of the Premier's summit. And yes, as I said, the commissioner who has been around a long time in Prince George is developing, in concert with local people. . . . We're not imposing a plan of action on the north; we are listening to local people. We're responding, and responding significantly in their area.

G. Campbell: Just to follow up on Louisiana-Pacific, because this is an agreement that was made with the government, I understand that it will, hopefully, create some new jobs. We often have promises for jobs that don't develop. But I understand from the government's press release that there was a special arrangement made between Louisiana-Pacific and the government and B.C. Rail. There was a special arrangement made between Louisiana-Pacific, the government and B.C. Hydro.

My question to the Premier: is he willing to make available to the public and to the opposition the details of the business arrangements that were made between the government, B.C. Rail and Louisiana-Pacific and the government, B.C. Hydro and Louisiana-Pacific?

Hon. G. Clark: The Job Protection Commission was set up, and it developed a plan of action to save the pulp mill. That involved some changes with B.C. Rail, etc. You're quite correct. But routinely the job protection commissioner. . . . There are some commercial elements to it which are not made public -- and which we will not make public -- as we work to save different industries in British Columbia through the job protection commissioner and the plan that's developed out of it. The legislation is very clear on that, and we've made changes.

[1540]

G. Campbell: There are times, actually, when there is agreement in the House. The agreement, I think, in the House would be that we don't want to have pulp workers or millworkers losing their jobs. What we're doing right now is sending the job protection commissioner around the province

[ Page 14240 ]

My question to the Premier is simply this. . . . His answer may be no, and if his answer is no, then I guess it's no. But it seems to me that it would be worthwhile for people to know what the agreement was between Louisiana-Pacific and B.C. Rail, what the reduced costs were -- and the same thing with B.C. Hydro. The fact is that if it works for Louisiana-Pacific, it's going to have a big impact on other mills as well. It's going to make a big impact on other jobs as well. It's not just about trying to save 576 jobs or pretending we're adding them; it's about protecting the jobs we have in British Columbia right now. What happens is that we push these mills and we push these people to the brink of crisis, then we run to the job protection commissioner and say: "Oh, we better do a special deal with B.C. Rail. We better do a special deal with B.C. Hydro."

So the question to the Premier is: will he make available to the public the information on what arrangements were made between B.C. Rail and Louisiana-Pacific? What arrangements were made between B.C. Hydro and Louisiana-Pacific? Then we can look at those things and ask: is that something we may be able to do across the province to protect more people's jobs and maybe start encouraging more investment in the province and in job creation in the province?

Hon. G. Clark: First of all, the job protection commissioner does not run around just propping up industries. In some cases, like Gold River, there was not a viable business plan which could see the long-term sustainability of that pulp mill. The job protection commissioner only works with industries that are in trouble, to try to restructure them so that they have long-term viability. That's what they did with Louisiana-Pacific.

B.C. Rail -- and the member should know this -- just like the private sector. . . . It is a commercial Crown that routinely negotiates different freight rates and different opportunities with private companies. That's what they do, and as a commercial Crown, that is not public information. We expect them to do that, and that happens all the time.

The job protection commissioner will work with the parties where it makes sense for B.C. Rail, for the employees and for the company to restructure to try to put them on a collective footing. That is not something which I am prepared to make public for the obvious commercial reasons, because B.C. Rail is in negotiation with many companies or, from time to time, with other companies -- well, all the time -- on freight rates. In this case they have made a specific deal, which is part of the job protection plan, to assist in the viability of this pulp mill. They do that all the time, and it does not make any sense to reveal that to the public, if we expect B.C. Rail to act like a private company and a commercial Crown.

R. Thorpe: In May of 1996 in Penticton and again one year later in Kelowna, the Premier acknowledged that the government had erred and had been part of the reason for the difficulties with respect to the residents of Naramata and the irrigation district and government ministries. The Premier committed to helping those folks, but he also said that he couldn't do anything while it was in proceedings. Those proceedings have now come to an end. Can the Premier tell me today what instructions he's given the minister responsible to resolve and come up with the government's share of the cost that had been committed to the residents of Naramata by the Premier?

Hon. G. Clark: The minister has advised me that there was an arbitration award. I discussed with her in the last few days -- I can't remember when -- how she will proceed. She will be proceeding to the appropriate cabinet committees to seek government assistance for the people of Naramata. I did give a commitment, and there will be assistance, but I'm not prepared to make any announcement at this time. I'm not familiar with the details of the arbitration. It's been a terrible and trying time for the people of Naramata, and I know that it's been very difficult. You're quite correct: I said that we'd have to wait till the proceedings were finished. They are now finished. Clearly we have an onus to act, and we will.

[1545]

Hon. G. Clark: The member has made a good point. Very shortly, as I've just discussed with him. If I could be safe, I hope that September will be sufficient. Hopefully, we can do it sooner than that, but sometime before the fall we should be in a position to assist.

R. Thorpe: Since the minister responsible is close at hand, I hope that both the Premier and the minister will recognize that I have attempted to make this a non-partisan issue and that I have offered to do whatever I can to help in this situation. I hope that the government will realize that and accept that offer.

On April 30 of this year the Premier was in Penticton. For some reason, he likes Penticton.

An Hon. Member: New decks.

R. Thorpe: That's in Twin Lakes.

He was touring the dikes and some flooding situations. But he also met Mrs. Leslie Gibbenhuck on the trail by the canal. The Premier undertook to ask the Health minister to meet with Mrs. Gibbenhuck quickly -- as soon as possible -- with respect to hepatitis C and the victims of hepatitis C. Can the Premier advise me and Mrs. Gibbenhuck: has that instruction to meet with Mrs. Gibbenhuck been given to the Minister of Health?

Hon. G. Clark: First of all, I apologize to the member. I don't remember that conversation, so I'll have to check and see whether instructions were given. Clearly people routinely approach me, and we try to organize meetings. Hepatitis C is an issue which is a very serious concern to many, many people, including. . . . I sort of recall meeting somebody in Penticton at that time. I don't know whether any correspondence was forthcoming. Obviously, if the member is saying or is about to say that there hasn't been any meeting or something like that, then clearly I've been remiss. I'll try to organize something, or I'll meet personally with the constituent.

[ Page 14241 ]

Hon. G. Clark: Certainly I'll make arrangements for the Health ministry to meet with her.

G. Campbell: One of the things that the Premier and I have had discussions about in the past during these estimates sessions has been parliamentary reform. We've touched briefly on that this morning, with regard to the Select Standing Committee on Crown Corporations. I think it's fair to say that we have not really shown any kind of consistent pattern in terms of how the Legislature has worked. I think that works to the detriment of the people of British Columbia and to the detriment of the constituencies that we're meant to serve.

One of the discussions that the Premier and I have had in the past during these conversations has been with regard to the establishment of a fixed legislative calendar. Again, this year we find ourselves with many members on both sides of the House trying to discover when they are going to be able to return to their constituencies, what they are going to be able to do, how they can plan for themselves, for their families and for the constituencies, and how the Legislature will work.

[1550]

I think, as the Premier will know, that for the last. . . . Well, as we began this truncated, last segment of the session from last year, there was talk from the government that we had to manage our agenda properly -- all of us had to. They were hoping that they might be out at the beginning of July, and then it's the middle of July. Now it's the end of July. I really don't think, in terms of planning a legislative agenda, that we should be going through this.

So my question to the Premier is: could he outline for me the process that he would like to follow to try and provide for the legislative reforms that we need so the public can know when the House is sitting on a regular basis, so the legislators can know when they will be sitting in Victoria on a regular basis, and so their families may know when their spouses and their parents are going to home to be with them on an orderly, thoughtful and, I think, publicly advisable basis?

Hon. G. Clark: I think the Leader of the Opposition knows that we actually agree in principle on this. We just have never been able to agree on the details. Let me first say that I think that we have actually made a little bit of progress. Maybe I've been around here too long, but I think that sitting a little bit later and not sitting on Friday is actually an improvement. Certainly I think many people feel that way for their families, particularly those from out of town. That is an agreement which I'd like to commend the Opposition House Leader and the Government House Leader for arriving at. I hope it's something we can make a more permanent arrangement -- or perhaps alter it. But I think it shows that where there is some good will, we can do it.

I also want to say that I think -- and I know it will sound paternalistic of me to say this -- the estimates debates have gone better this session, and not just from the government's perspective. I believe as a citizen that they've been shorter and perhaps sharper in some cases as we've worked through them, and I think that's good. I think there has actually been more cooperation in this session -- perhaps oddly enough -- than we've seen in the last few years. I think there have been some modest improvements.

Now, the question is: can we build on that and genuinely get a real calendar that people can plan their lives around? I think the best way to do that is a committee of members. Perhaps it should be non-cabinet ministers on our side, or something, meeting with the members of the opposition to try to plan an appropriate calendar.

There are, I think, a few difficult questions which are hard. The opposition at one time insisted on a fall session as part of the arrangement for a fixed calendar. While I'm not opposed in principle to a fall session, very few parliaments do have a fall session. It's not something we've traditionally had in British Columbia, but that is one that would be difficult for the government to agree to -- it doesn't mean we can't -- because of the way we've historically managed both the budget process and the legislative process in terms of preparing legislation. We can change that, and it's certainly legitimate to discuss it, but it's harder -- that's all -- for the government to do.

So what I was hoping was that we could get some interim steps which would be beneficial to both sides and perhaps not get a perfect calendar but get closer to a calendar, maybe in more of an incremental change. So there has been, I think, some incremental change this session, but not nearly enough. I agree completely with the member, and I'd be delighted to take another stab at it or to have a committee from the government side and the opposition side work through some options for improving the way this place works.

Incidentally, I might say that we had this discussion earlier about the Crown Corporations Committee and other committees of the House and how they might operate. There's a bit of a debate about that in terms of the time commitment and the travel commitment and the priorities we place. If we had a calendar, we could also then work in a calendar for committees, which people could agree to, and it might make for either more committees or fewer committees meeting more often or something. It's not as well planned. So for some committees, like the MAI committee, there's extensive travelling and hearings. Members of the opposition -- I gather, at least -- weren't very happy about that or didn't feel that was a productive use of their time, while we members of government felt that it was very productive and helpful -- but a lot of time commitments.

[1555]

[ Page 14242 ]

G. Campbell: I think that it's easy to say and that it's actually relatively easy to do, if there is a will to do it. I don't disagree with the Premier. I believe that if we establish a fixed legislative calendar, it allows not just for the government to plan their resources. . . . One of the concerns that I know the Premier has had with regard to committees is that the government is in a different position than the opposition. They've got cabinet ministers who can do one thing. They've got backbenchers who have other obligations.

I am certainly willing, and the opposition is certainly willing, to work through with the government a way of establishing a legislative calendar. I concur again with the Premier. I think that we should make an announcement -- maybe do a press release on it -- that I concur with the Premier on this. We have made some small steps forward. I believe -- not for people like the Premier and I, who live in the lower mainland. . . . It's not nearly as significant to have that Friday to travel home to be with your family or community. But I believe that it is significant for people who live in the vast majority of British Columbia. I think that it was a step in the right direction. We found that if we sit down and have MLAs work with MLAs and set aside the normal political dance, we can actually move forward with regard to this.

I believe that we should commit ourselves to moving forward. I'm glad to establish a committee of opposition MLAs with the government MLAs -- with the backbench MLAs, if that's how the Premier would like to do it -- and look towards establishing a fixed legislative calendar. We should be clear, I think. I know that the Premier had some problems with it, this year as well. When we have, out of the blue, a session called for November 30 and closed on December 14, called for January and closed at the end of January, called back for the end of March, and all of those sorts of things, that's difficult. It creates difficulties, not because people don't want to serve or don't want to do their job but because they don't know from week to week what's going to happen. The public is equally baffled by this.

Interjection.

G. Campbell: Yeah, it's interesting, I agree. They sometimes think that we're not here when we are, and that we are here when we're not. That's probably a message to all of us as well. I think that the important thing for us to do is to try and look at this chamber as an important place. We will not have the public understanding what we're doing and when we're doing it, unless we can give them some assurances that we actually will do it at the time we say. So I would like to see us move forward with regard to that. I will forward some suggestions to the Premier within the week, and hopefully we can get on with it.

I would like to see, and I'll just lay this out for the Premier. . . . I think it's critical for us to start at a reasonable date in the new year so that we do not have the kind of discussions we've had for the last couple of years. Frankly, the Legislature in many ways has got worse and worse in terms of the way it's run and the way that the agenda is run. I think that there have been some small steps, but there's been a number of things that have caused me some concern.

I guess that the most important one -- and I think the Premier would agree it's the most important debate we've had in this chamber, certainly in my experience here, and probably even for someone like the Premier, who's been here even longer -- is the Nisga'a debate we had. I believe that it was critical for British Columbians for that debate to be full and for that debate to be continuous. I think that the changes that took place were difficult. Clearly they were difficult for the government. But to have a 55-day gap and then to cut off debate simply was not in the public's interest. I believe the Premier, in retrospect, would agree with that; there was clearly no reason to rush that through. We had time; we had time to carry that debate out in a thoughtful and deliberate manner -- not in a way that said that everyone is going to agree; I know the Premier's position on the Nisga'a treaty, and the Premier knows mine.

[1600]

It seems to me that one of the critical things that we could do. . . . There is no question, in terms of this government's legislative agenda -- if we could even find one in the 1999 sittings of the House -- that the most important bill in that was the Nisga'a treaty. I think the government could have identified that. We would have been glad to say: "Yes, that is." We would have been glad to say, "This is the time that we expect to take," on the basis that the government was going to answer questions directly. Sometimes it took longer to get answers than we would have liked, but we got some answers. The public deserved those answers. So as we move forward in trying to develop a legislative calendar, I think we have to remember this is not our place. This doesn't belong to the Premier or the opposition or the Leader of the Opposition; it belongs to the people of British Columbia. So our goal should be to make sure, in the best way we can, that the people of British Columbia have an opportunity to know what's happening, when it's happening and how it's happening.

Even for people who may decide they want to run for office, it's reasonable for them to know when they're expected to be in Victoria, when they're not, how that works, how the travel arrangements work, etc. I know from a number of, particularly, women -- parents, more than women, parents that I talk to -- that they're very concerned about that. We don't want a Legislature without parents. We don't want a Legislature that does not have any people in it who have young children in their families, because families with young children are an important component of our province. We want to encourage people to participate.

So I guess I'm not sure how we can move this beyond our mutual agreement -- as we always seem to have, but we don't make the kind of substantial progress that I'd like to. I guess my question to the Premier is: is it possible for us, as the Premier and the Leader of the Opposition, to have an exchange of ideas on how we can put this together, so that we can work to put it in place for the next sitting of the House

[ Page 14243 ]

Hon. G. Clark: Of course -- and I agree with most of what the member said. I, of course, disagree. . . . I mean, with the Nisga'a treaty, we had more debate than any bill in the history of British Columbia -- as appropriate. The challenge, of course, for the opposition and for the government is this: the government gives up the right to call the Legislature back, the time of the beginning of the Legislature and the right to call the bills, in a sense. The opposition gives up the right to extend the sitting. That's the trade-off. If we have a calendar, the government has to agree to a fixed time to start, and the opposition has to agree to a fixed time to end.

That's where the challenge is, because if we'd agreed on the Nisga'a treaty -- if we could get an agreement in advance on the Nisga'a treaty -- I suspect the hours would have been something like the hours we actually got: more time than any bill in the history of the province. If we'd started in the beginning by agreeing on that, it probably would have been the hours we actually spent -- but they might have been spent differently, because everybody knew the end and the beginning, and the opposition would have planned the time accordingly.

Now, the challenge, of course, is that you can never stop the government from filibustering or the opposition members, I guess, from getting sidetracked from time to time. That's the kind of discipline you'd have to have. So I want to acknowledge that there is a lot of agreement here, and I'd be. . . . Again, would the member like to share some views? I know that the last time we tried this, we were unsuccessful. I think that perhaps it was an unwillingness on the part of both of us to compromise sufficiently to make some progress. Perhaps, with some time and with the little bit of progress we've made, we can do that.

G. Campbell: I want to close this little chunk and just point out to the Premier this: I think that the obligations and responsibilities flow both ways. Clearly the Nisga'a treaty was something that was of major importance to every member of this House. There are bills that come up where the government introduces them, sits down, we get on with asking our questions, and we pass them. There are some that take very little time; there are some that take a considerable amount of time. The Nisga'a treaty in particular, I think, was a time when every member of the House had to stand and not just ask questions but speak about what they believed in and how they believed we could move forward. There is no question in my mind that within this House there is not a member who does not want to move forward with regard to treaty negotiations to resolve them and to put every British Columbian on a firm footing for the future.

[1605]

M. de Jong: On a marginally related point, let me try this with the Premier. If I weren't a partisan opposition MLA -- if I were a completely dispassionate non-partisan observer -- I would probably be compelled to conclude that the Premier and his government, in 1999, have a credibility problem with respect to the public. That is particularly true, I would say, with respect to financial matters and management of public finances. We have talked about that in other parts of this debate. We'll talk about convention centres and fast ferries and the lack of success that the government has had in its managerial, guardianship role of the public purse. But those are big numbers. Sometimes it's difficult, in those big projects, to get a proper sense of what it means.

Let's try a smaller case study on a matter that the Premier was admittedly involved in. I'm talking about the Nisga'a implementation committee. We talked about it last year during the Premier's estimates, not in specific terms, but we did touch on what the government's plans were with respect to the amount of money that would be spent. It's interesting that the now Minister of Labour is here. We dealt with it in a lot of detail with him.

One of the things that he has confirmed for the House -- and that the Premier actually confirmed earlier today -- is that there was an involvement by the Premier's Office. The Premier, in fairness to him, made no secret that he intended to be very directly involved, particularly in the final stages of negotiations and in communicating his government's view about the final product and its worthiness for support to the people of British Columbia.

Maybe I can start here. Can the Premier explain at an operational level what his office's involvement was with the Nisga'a implementation committee?

Hon. G. Clark: My deputy minister at the time, Doug McArthur -- who used to be the Deputy Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and was also a deputy minister in the civil service in the Yukon when they negotiated the master land claims agreement -- took an active role. In a sense, he was the person that assisted by pulling together the secondments, and they set up an administrative structure to run it. It reported through the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs. It was managed by the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs, but the committee had the active participation of my deputy in preparing material. I think we did canvass this at some length -- was it last year?

Interjection.

Hon. G. Clark: Could it have been last year? We canvassed it at some length last year. I remember canvassing it in here. It was during the Nisga'a debate, actually, when we canvassed it -- in November, I think. I don't know if we can do better than that. It was pretty active at that time. What happens in a cross-government initiative like this is that it's helpful to have the deputy minister responsible -- not so much the deputy minister to the Premier but the deputy minister in charge of the civil service -- ensuring that secondments can take place. Often ministries are not as keen on

[ Page 14244 ]

[1610]

Hon. G. Clark: That's fair enough. Yeah, sure.

M. de Jong: That is consistent with the notion that the Premier was going to be a little more hands-on on this file than on any one of the myriad of other issues that come along and that call from time to time for a Premier's attention.

Hon. G. Clark: I think that's a fair comment.

M. de Jong: And part and parcel of that was the communications strategy. I'm not suggesting that the Premier would have been involved in decisions around that on a day-to-day basis, but it was -- and the Premier will correct me if I'm putting words or ideas out there that he disagrees with -- important to the Premier that the government's message on this treaty and on these negotiations be communicated in a way that he felt would be effective, both in terms of communicating the message and from a political point of view.

Hon. G. Clark: I think that's a fair comment. I think it was particularly acute when the publisher of 40-odd newspapers in British Columbia, Mr. David Black, gave an edict not to print editorials supporting it. It became more acute that the government therefore use its resources to communicate what we considered to be a balance to the view of the owner of a major newspaper chain.

But either the budgets or the content. . . . Budgets had to go to Treasury Board for approval, and the content of them I did not usually see until after the fact -- although I think I did a radio ad or something at one point as well. That obviously was something not necessarily written by me but at least was input from me.

M. de Jong: So maybe I can ask the Premier this: what, in his words, was the objective of the campaign? If we consider that the document was signed in August. . . .

There's no secret where we're going. The one bit of information we didn't have in November was the rather astounding growth in the budget: a more than tripling of that amount.

Well, I don't know; the Minister of Labour may have duties that will ultimately take him elsewhere, but I know he always enjoys my reading into the record his comments of July 8, 1998. It's one year ago today; that's ironic. This is what the then Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and now Minister of Labour said: "There will be a budget of $2.3 million -- no more than $2.3 million. We're not going to spend one nickel more." I can ask the Minister of Labour the question, but it is the Premier's estimates. He gave us that assurance. That was in July. What we now know is that within a month and a half -- probably within a month -- of the minister providing that figure and that assurance, the budget was already horribly overspent.

Let me try to be as fair as possible to the government. There are times when unexpected expenditures will arise, and we can all think. . . . In the normal budget cycle, that is a fact. But this is something that falls squarely and entirely within the discretionary spending authority of government.

[1615]

When you check back, you know that probably within days of the minister providing that figure, that amount, they were already over budget. How does that happen? How does that speak to the issue of confidence that people should have in the government's overall ability to manage their dollars, when something as basic as that, something that falls entirely within the control of government and only requires one thing -- that is, discipline. . . ? Maybe it requires two things: discipline and honesty -- that you're going to follow the word that has been given about a budget. It didn't happen. It's not hundreds of millions of dollars, but it's millions of dollars. I think that kind of massive over expenditure, in the face of assurances given by the line ministry, on an operation headed by the Premier's own deputy, warrants some explanation.

Hon. G. Clark: I'm tempted to read from the same debate in July a year ago, where that member indicated that there'd be no need for a referendum on the Nisga'a treaty. I'm thankful, because that became subject to some of our advertising, I think, at the time -- at least our political advertising. And it may yet be again.

He's accusing us of not living up to the commitment on advertising. I would be happy to accuse the member of not living up to his commitment on a much more fundamental question: whether there should be a referendum on the Nisga'a treaty; I notice he changed his position sometime after that. We did not change our position on advertising, but what happened was, as I recall. . . . First of all, this should be canvassed in the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs' estimates. I assume it was. This is where the money came out of; this is where it was managed.

Interjections.

Hon. G. Clark: Well, the ministry budget; it was accountable for that -- or from contingencies.

All I'd say is that I don't have the details of it, but what happened, obviously, in the course of the campaign, was that

[ Page 14245 ]

But each and every expenditure, of course, must be authorized by Treasury Board. There has to be approval. There's no money spent that isn't approved and accounted for or debated in this chamber. I think it was a good information campaign, and I think, frankly, that we'll have to do more advertising around land claims treaties. The Sechelt treaty, when we get an agreement, will also have to be the subject of some -- hopefully, not as much -- media on that.

In this case, because it was the very first one and we're venturing into uncharted territory with respect to that, I think it was very important that we run such a campaign to get people information. I don't have the documents, because I'm not the minister responsible for this, but you know that thousands, if not tens of thousands, of people wanted copies of the Nisga'a treaty. This was expensive. This was much more than was anticipated, so the documentation had to be available. The 1-800 numbers were ringing more than anticipated, and people were there. We had to have staff there, and I think that if you check, you might say that the cost of the Nisga'a implementation team was much larger in the end -- because there were many more people working on it than anticipated -- but not nearly as large as you suggest with respect to advertising. What happened was that, again, we had to respond to public demand and to the circumstances of the day; and that's what we did.

[1620]

Secondly, I just want to make sure I understand this correctly. The government felt compelled to triple the budget -- quietly triple a $2.3 million advertising budget -- because a newspaper editor took a contrary view to the government's on a particular piece of public policy. Is that the size of it? Is that what drives provincial government policy and expenditure?

Hon. G. Clark: What drives fundamental issues like this is demand, and what happened was that there was an enormous and overwhelming demand for information. Even some of the polling that was done after the advertising suggested that people wanted more information. I spoke to church leaders throughout British Columbia -- faith leaders -- on the Nisga'a treaty. I had meetings all over the province with groups of faith leaders. Of course, even near the end of the campaign, just before the legislation was brought in, I was surprised at how there was a real lack of information on the substance of the treaty. So we were responding to an enormous demand and requirement that people be fully informed on such a fundamental issue of the day so they could made their judgment on it. I know members opposite were doing. . . . So was Mr. Black, who commissioned a series of articles which were critical of the treaty. There was an overwhelming and enormous response, and we felt compelled to do so.

Just for the record, I hope I didn't suggest any contradiction with the current Minister of Aboriginal Affairs. We don't anticipate such a similar campaign again, having done it for the first one. But there will have to be a significant information-type campaign on the Sechelt treaty -- and on other treaties. I think that's important for openness and for people to grasp the significance of it. Maybe that's just a nuance difference.

M. de Jong: Forgive us for being skeptical. Look, I'll say this and move on. I just think people deserve to know that when faced with a negative public reaction to government policy, this government will respond -- and feels it is legitimate and entitled to respond -- by spending massive amounts of taxpayers' money to further its own position on that public policy issue. That's what I hear the Premier saying. He didn't like Mr. Black's response, he didn't like some of the editorials, he didn't like some of the letters to the editor, and that justified this tripling of the budget.

And there's another thing I want to give the Premier an opportunity to respond to, because it was something the minister was also required to deal with: printing costs -- because that was the government spin. According to the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs, the amount spent on printing was under $1 million. The amount spent on media advertising was in the range of $6 million. So let's not present this false image that: "Oh, my goodness, we had a 1-800 number, we made the document available, we were overwhelmed by these demands, and that's what drove the cost of the budget up from $2.3 million to $8 million." That's just not true. It was a department of government, an agency of government headed by the Premier's deputy, that decided it was going to triple the amount of money it had budgeted for propaganda advertising. Let's at least, during this debate, be forthright about that and not try to cloud the issue by suggesting that somehow printing costs got out of hand.

[1625]

You know that every advertisement we did had a 1-800 number for people to phone for information, and thousands of people did. Yes, there was a lot of television and radio

[ Page 14246 ]

M. de Jong: Why did it take four months for the government to tell us they were massively over budget? Why did they have to be asked?

Hon. G. Clark: We're obviously accountable for every expenditure that takes place. The House wasn't sitting, I'm sure, at the time. As we moved forward, we. . . .

Interjection.

Hon. G. Clark: We don't report the monthly or weekly expenditures of various campaigns. We report to the Legislature at the time and are accountable at the time, as we are right now.

M. de Jong: Help me again. What was the purpose of the exercise, and was it successful? How do we know that?

Hon. G. Clark: The purpose was to provide information. I don't think it was perfectly successful, in the sense that I don't think there's a full understanding of the Nisga'a treaty by everybody in British Columbia, so I guess if you're. . . . How do you define success? If it's that everybody understands fully the Nisga'a treaty and is aware of it, probably the answer is no. I think it was successful in that more British Columbians -- many more British Columbians -- are fully aware of the consequences, of the costs, of the ramifications of the Nisga'a treaty. That's an important function for government. In several cases -- many cases -- people have come to the conclusion that they don't like the Nisga'a treaty, as a result of the information they've received. That's legitimate in our democracy, and it's legitimate for the opposition to be opposed to the Nisga'a treaty. We know that, and that's a very legitimate position to take. I think it's equally legitimate that we are passionately in favour of it and we'll defend it.

Nobody can be fooled by advertising. You can't sort of run an advertising campaign to convince people. No, we ran an advertising campaign to inform people of the information and of the treaty issues that arise. There were lots of dissenting views, including all of the members across the way. That's part of democracy. We felt a very strong obligation, on such an important issue, to communicate directly to the public and make sure that they got their questions answered and that they got access to the treaty itself and were aware of the fact that we were having this debate.

M. de Jong: All right. Well, we're not going to rehash Nisga'a; we're not going to rehash the contents of the advertising. But we are going to establish yet again, once and for all, that on a managerial issue that should have been very easy and straightforward and that relied upon a minister disclosing, during the estimates debate, that the budget for the coming year for a function of government was going to be $2.3 million -- and he was in fact. . . . We taunted him. We said to him: "We don't believe you." He said: "No, trust me on this one."

Interjection.

M. de Jong: Oh, I'm sorry. Correct -- he would never say: "Trust me." That's true; he wouldn't have said that.

An Hon. Member: And rightly so.

M. de Jong: And rightly so. But he was emphatic that this was going to be the budget, and within weeks, the government didn't have the discipline to live within that commitment. They spent three times the amount they told the people of British Columbia they had budgeted for this function of government.

[1630]

Let me turn just quickly to one other aspect of the aboriginal file. I do so because on this one, the Premier again imposed himself and his office into the debate. I'm just curious about the process that led to that involvement. In the estimates involving the present Minister of Aboriginal Affairs, we talked about how policy is developed within government and the mechanism by which it goes to cabinet and is adopted as a negotiating mandate and a position that our negotiators take to the table. I'm not sure, and it wasn't clear to me from those discussions, whether there is any unique involvement on the part of the Premier's Office insofar as policy or mandate development is concerned. But if there is, I'm sure the Premier will tell us about that now.

Hon. G. Clark: On what ministry?

M. de Jong: On provincial negotiating positions, generally.

Hon. G. Clark: First of all, I just want to end, as well, on this question of the budget. We did not overspend our budget; we consciously made a decision to spend more money on communications.

Interjection.

Hon. G. Clark: Well, that's a very significant difference. This is the most important land use decision in the history of British Columbia, and we made a conscious decision, each step of the way, to make a larger investment. That's not a small distinction. It was not a budget fixed in stone; it was a decision that we made as we moved -- so we did so.

Secondly, with respect to how the policy is made, the mandates are set by Treasury Board, but they come from. . . .

Interjection.

Hon. G. Clark: Let me be clear. Treasury Board sets the mandates, but it has to go to cabinet for ratification. That's on the fiscal side. And there is an enormous amount of debate on the mandates that are set for individual treaty tables, includ-

[ Page 14247 ]

So was I involved in that? Absolutely. Did I do anything unilaterally? No. Did I impose my views on cabinet? No, I don't think so. Maybe I'd better check with my cabinet colleagues. But there has been a lot of discussion in which I have been very active, since I've become Premier, on what the mandate would be and what the shape of the treaty would be. I'm not trying to shirk any responsibility. I'm completely responsible for that, but it was a collective decision by cabinet. I took no special role, although I think it's fair to say that near the end, when some key decisions had to be made -- key moves and compromise had to be made to get there -- I was perhaps more active than at other times. In fact, I was more active at the end than during the whole process.

M. de Jong: That's helpful. In fairness to the Premier, I wasn't meaning to focus entirely on the Nisga'a round and Nisga'a procedure. We have spent some time discussing how that all unfolded. I was more interested in the general mandate development around issues like third-party compensation and self-government and how these policies are developed and what unique role, if any -- besides the fact that the Premier is the leader of the executive council. . . . Operationally, how does that work within government? Does the Premier play a special role in developing what those negotiating positions will be for the various tables that are taking place?

[1635]

If I had to answer, I'd say no, there is no special role other than the normal role for the Premier or chair of the executive council. But I think that would probably not be quite accurate in the sense that because this is such an important issue collectively across government, I and my office are involved at different stages.

Questions on self-government -- what it would look like. . . . Not only was I involved and the cabinet involved, but actually the caucus of the governing party spent many, many hours debating and discussing what the shape would look like before we proceeded. Because this is a complicated matter and because there are such implications for governing and governance, there is a lot of activity by deputies and committees of deputies in terms of how certain mandates have developed, so that they can give advice to cabinet and to the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs as they move forward.

For example, there has been a deputy's committee on Delgamuukw providing how we would operationalize the implications of the Delgamuukw decision. That in itself contains lots of political decisions to make within it, but there are also many legal tests that have been set up with respect to meaningful consultation and the like on which we had to try to have uniformity across government. In that respect, it wasn't me or my office particularly. Absolutely, my office and my deputy have had to be integrally involved in ensuring that we met what we felt were certain legal standards, and perhaps consistent with treaty-making negotiations. . . .

In fact, in that case, probably the key deputy minister has been the Deputy Attorney General, in terms of designing operational guidelines in the field. Mr. Tony Penikett has also been very actively involved in that. The Delgamuukw deputies committee has now, I think, just wound up, because they've implemented a variety of changes.

Finally, on the major question of cost-sharing, which first in the previous government and as long as I've been here. . . . My deputy minister must be involved in those at least in some fairly significant way with the federal government. Increasingly, if we were to have any expedited treaty settlement taking place, which many people are talking about and we're looking at, this requires a very big financial commitment by the federal government. That does involve me and my office at the various levels.

In a general sense, there is no day-to-day management of this issue. It's done by the Ministry of Aboriginal Affairs, a lot of cross-government coordination at the deputy level -- chaired by my deputy, in many cases, and really policed or managed by, mandated by. . . . I am, of course, very much involved in some of the major issues, but there is no sort of unique nature of this compared to other major issues. It just happens to be a major, if not the major -- well, it is the major -- land use decision, and therefore the whole cabinet and I are involved fairly intensely in the discussions.

M. de Jong: I think what the Premier describes is, insofar as the mechanism by which these policies are developed, a bureaucratic exercise, and I don't mean that in a negative way. It is necessarily bureaucratic insofar as the involvement of caucus, various line ministries. . . . And that, happily, is consistent with the description of the newest Minister of Aboriginal Affairs, who, when his estimates took place, I think had been at his post for only three or four months. He described a similar process by which positions are taken to cabinet for ratification and perhaps, following that, ratification by caucus -- or whatever order that happens in.

In fairness, I think that makes sense. We can quarrel -- and the Premier has heard from the opposition about better ways to involve members of the public in that process -- but I'm now focusing on internal government operations.

[1640]

I couldn't help but remember that conversation when I heard the Premier -- rather out of the blue, as it were, in the face of questions from the media -- say: "Absolutely not. We will not sign any treaty that involves an aboriginal whaling component." Now I'm not, for the purposes of this discussion, as interested in the substantive issue as I am in the process by which that became the policy of the government of British Columbia. I'm having a hard time believing that that similar bureaucratic exercise took place with respect to an issue that I know was the cause of some media focus. Nonetheless, I can't help but draw the conclusion.

[ Page 14248 ]

[J. Doyle in the chair.]

Hon. G. Clark: First, let me say that there are some mandate questions which we have put out. . . . Let me put it another way. Aboriginal people, including the Nuu-chah-nulth and others, are certainly free to raise the question of aboriginal whaling at the treaty table. They're free to raise whatever they like and pursue what they consider to be their legitimate claims. They may well have a legitimate claim with respect to aboriginal whaling.

What I said was that as the province, we give a mandate to our negotiators, and in this case, the mandate is that they are not to sign a treaty that allows this. We don't usually discuss the details of our mandate publicly, because we are in a respectful negotiating process. We don't put down all of the mandate and say: "Okay, that's it -- no negotiating." We try to engage in something that actually. . . . The negotiators try to come in under the mandate that's generally set by government. That's their job; they're negotiating. It's not useful to publicly say what the mandate is, because therefore you forestall all the negotiations that take place.

But there are some exceptions to that. For example, the previous government and the previous Premier, Premier Harcourt, announced that private property would not be on the table in negotiations. Aboriginal people didn't like that, because they want to try to negotiate private property. We said, as a public mandate, that that's not on the table. We said publicly -- Premier Harcourt said -- that no more than 5 percent of Crown land will be allocated to aboriginal people. They represent about 4 percent of the population, and they will be roughly the same in terms of the land mass. That was a public mandate, which we then translate into individual mandates for treaty negotiations -- or tried to, in various ways.

So in this case, even though we had a mandate not to. . . . I, by the way, commented a couple years ago on whaling and said that we would not agree to aboriginal whaling. All I was doing was commenting publicly on the mandate that we had given to our negotiators. We've had discussions of this from time to time. Again, aboriginal people weren't very happy about that. I really understand and respect their view, because they want the right to negotiate that, and they have the right to negotiate that. But we also have the right. . . . I believe they have the right to raise it and try to negotiate. . . .

[1645]

Hon. G. Clark: Well, that's why we don't normally circumvent those negotiations. But I felt that there was a compelling sort of public interest in laying out the provincial government position in advance, which, again, many aboriginal people are not very happy about. I, frankly, would have preferred not to generally go through negotiations, even though that's the mandate we gave. So I simply pre-empted that part of the discussions, because I thought it was in the public interest that everybody know what the mandate was with respect to that for our negotiators.

M. de Jong: Well, I don't expect the Premier to confirm the theory that I put to the present Minister of Aboriginal Affairs, which I will suggest to him now. But it seemed clear to members of the opposition and the public that what happened was that on an issue that -- because of actions taking place, in fact, out of the country -- suddenly found itself in the spotlight on the front page of the newspaper, the Premier suddenly found himself in a position where it was politically expedient or necessary to make a statement which from everyone else's perspective appeared to represent a shift in the provincial position. The Premier has already said, "That's not the case," and "I was consistent two years ago," but that was not the tenor of the discussion that we had previously. "We'll negotiate something" is a far different position than "It's not on the table." Those are two different positions.

But let me leave the Premier with this. We always talk about certainty within this exercise. We generally talk about it in terms of the language -- the finality language -- but I think people also want to know that the mandates and positions that their government takes into these negotiations are well thought out, well developed and coherent. Developing these things on the fly -- as I suggest occurred in the case we've just been discussing -- I don't think is particularly helpful. My admonishment to the government now is to resist that tendency, which I think there is evidence to suggest took place in that case, at least.

Hon. G. Clark: All I can say is that it certainly wasn't made on the fly. We have a fully developed process. We were in negotiations, want to be in negotiations and be open to negotiations, and not reveal our mandate. I felt it important at that time to say what it is, and I'd said it about a year ago. So I didn't think it was particularly significant, and I don't see any contradiction between what the minister said and what I've said.

G. Campbell: I'd like to go back to the issue of accountability, because I think that one of the most serious challenges this government faces is the issue of accountability -- the issue of the undertakings that are made to the public. I guess the critical thing for us to know -- for the public to know -- is how the Premier deals with those issues.

An Hon. Member: Well, first of all, he. . . .

G. Campbell: Why is it that when I raise the word "accountability," it's. . . ?

The issue, hon. Chair, is really a very substantial one. It is one that this government has continually failed on. I believe that the Premier and the office of the Premier are the fundamental arbiters of accountability. They are the fundamental receivers. They are the fundamental referees of accountability within the government. You know, the challenge that we have and that the public has, it seems to me, is that the Premier must always lead by example. His office must lead by example. My colleague from Matsqui just talked about the Premier's Office literally throwing out the window the undertakings of the Premier during estimates last year -- the consis-

[ Page 14249 ]

[1650]

The first issue that I want to deal with is the whole fast ferries debacle. We have a government that claims -- and it is simply a claim -- to care about education and health care. At the same time that waiting lists are expanding, students are without equipment and teachers are without support, we watch an overrun for ferries of almost a quarter of a billion dollars.

I know that many members on the other side of the House have become immune to the word "billion." It's like it's just water. The fact of the matter is that the fast ferry project which was announced by the Premier was clearly the Premier's responsibility and something the Premier had a special interest in. His office had a special interest in it. We ended up with a situation where we had almost a doubling of the cost for ferries which probably will not perform the way they were supposed to. In all likelihood, they have taken a run which was formerly a successful, profitable run for B.C. Ferries and made it into a losing run for B.C. Ferries.

The issue is simply that the government's minister who is responsible claims not to have known what took place. There was $215 million overrun, and the government minister said: "I didn't know about it." The government minister said: "I was not aware of it." And the Premier himself promised the people of British Columbia -- undertook in no uncertain terms -- that those three ferries would be built, right down to the cost of the toilet paper, for $230 million. We know that that hasn't happened. In fact, if the people of British Columbia are lucky, those ferries will have cost them $445 million.

My question to the Premier is: what processes does this government have in place for accountability? What processes does the Premier have in place to hold his ministers responsible for their areas of concern? What processes does the Premier have in place to hold his government responsible -- to hold the people of British Columbia and the taxpayers of British Columbia with some regard -- so that ministers know that the consequences for ineptitude and incompetence don't always fall to the taxpayers of B.C., but they personally assume accountability and responsibility for such enormous overruns and failures? These are failures to the people who depend on the ferry service and failures to the people of British Columbia who depend on the government's word.

Everyone we know does not have to agree with what the government does or doesn't do. That's what a democracy's about. I concur with that. But they should, when the Premier undertakes something, know that they can count on his word. When the Premier says, "These ferries will be done for $230 million," the first question we have to ask is: why would he even say that? They were so far away from that to start with.

[1655]

So my question to the Premier is: what level of accountability does he have in this government? The minister responsible remains sitting as his Deputy Premier -- the minister responsible, who has consistently failed in his responsibilities. How can people have confidence when there is no accountability in government, no accountability for the minister and evidently no accountability for the Premier? Without accountability built into the structures of government, built into the decision-making powers of government, the people of British Columbia are consistently going to be taken to the cleaners by a government that's acted irresponsibly and incompetently at historic levels.

Hon. D. Lovick: Mr. Chair, I'm not going to presume to be able to answer those questions, speaking for the Premier. What I have been doing is taking some notes. I'm assured that the Premier will return shortly. I can, of course, respond in broad and generic terms to the larger subject areas that the member opposite raises. But perhaps at this point I should simply give him the opportunity, if he wants, to pose another question, and then I will pass it on.

G. Campbell: We'll wait for the Premier.

Hon. D. Lovick: Okay. I'm not sure what the Premier's intentions are. I'm sure he'll return shortly.

G. Campbell: I'm sure the Premier will return shortly. I think this is such a fundamental issue. I don't have that many more issues to deal with, with regard to the estimates of the Premier's Office. There are a number of detailed questions we can get into, and we know from the Premier's responses earlier that we may or may not get a full response to them. I think the issue here of accountability, openness and trust in government is essential. With all due regard and respect for the Minister of Labour, I believe those are issues that must be addressed by the Premier, and I'm perfectly willing to wait for his return.

The Chair: We'll have a short recess.

[ Page 14250 ]

[J. Doyle in the chair.]

Hon. G. Clark: First of all, I certainly want to apologize. . . . I was slightly longer than I anticipated.

G. Campbell: I'm sure the Premier will read my question with interest and answer it.

Let me go back. Quickly for the Premier, this is actually a fundamental and, I think, critical issue for the government and the public. It has to do with establishing accountability in government. I believe that accountability starts in the Premier's Office, goes through his ministers and works right through the public service and all of his caucus colleagues.

[1700]

[W. Hartley in the chair.]

The fact of the matter is that none of that took place. It didn't take place because it wasn't an issue. We in fact raised that issue in the House year after year, and the government turned a blind eye. So the issue for me is: if the Premier has someone in cabinet who clearly has not done their job, who clearly has not fulfilled their responsibilities, how can that person remain in cabinet? How can we have accountable government when people with major responsibilities clearly fail in their exercise of those responsibilities?

Hon. G. Clark: First of all, I obviously don't accept your characterization of events. I'd like to explain a little bit of context with respect to the fast ferries. When the Ferry Corporation, with the support of the Crown corporations secretariat, did a ten-year capital plan, it looked at all of the options available to it. One of those options, for example -- the one that was initially preferred by the Ferry Corporation -- was to put superferries on the route between Nanaimo and Horseshoe Bay and to build a ten- or 15-storey parkade that would be necessary to house the cars -- and, of course, at the same time the growing traffic through Sechelt.

In an analysis that was done, it showed that the construction of fast ferries would reduce the need for public infrastructure at both sides and could be done in a competitive way with respect to the pricing of fast ferries vis-à-vis traditional larger vessels and all the infrastructure that goes with it. So there was a thorough analysis. There was an assessment done by consultants to the B.C. Ferry Corporation, which suggested that it could be done within a certain budget. That capital plan is a broad capital plan which was announced at the time. It was $880 million or something and was released to the public for public debate. Treasury Board approved that spending envelope.

Once a decision was made in principle and the envelope was set, the detailed business plan was determined and worked on and then subsequently approved. The staff associated with that had been giving reports to both the minister and the government on the progress of the construction of those vessels. We received, literally weeks before we discovered the significant overruns, consistent assurances by the CEO, in writing and verbally, that this was on budget or slightly above budget. But that slightly higher budget had been announced -- I think $70 million. We knew, of course, that it was delayed, but we were informed that the budget was intact. That was what happened; that is the truth. The individual left the employ at that time, and we've been dealing the reality that they had been misleading us and the public. Obviously that's very unfortunate and something which no one should support, but that is the truth. I think all the documentation supports that.

The ferries, fortunately, are working well, and the next two are coming in significantly lower. I am still optimistic that this strategy will be a successful one for both B.C. Ferries and the shipyards, although the overrun is there. So this process, which has been very transparent and very unfortunate, we are clearly held accountable for. I have no hesitation in accepting responsibility for that, but you are only as good as the information that's provided to you. Questions were asked repeatedly and answers were given, including in the chamber, including in committee and including with staff present. Those answers were in error, and that is unacceptable. That's what happened, and we've been accountable for that ever since. We've dramatically changed staff at B.C. Ferries to deal with the consequences and to turn it around.

[1705]

You know, every single minister has a responsibility to think -- to use the grey matter between their ears. When you have a project which is two years late, if you have a business plan and you're borrowing money for it, you know that project is costing you more. Yet the minister didn't know. He was wearing one of those blindfolds and one of those earplug things.

The fact of the matter is that anyone who was paying attention -- and this was the issue that we tried to raise time and time again -- knew that these ferries were in trouble. The

[ Page 14251 ]

The bad news is that your pet project is doubling in price. The bad news is that we're taking the B.C. Ferry Corporation down the tubes. The bad news is that we're spending so much money on interest that we can't provide service. The bad news is that we've taken a profitable ferry run and turned it into a losing ferry run. Where was the minister responsible? Where is the minister responsible? The bad news is that there must be bad leadership coming from the Premier's Office, because the Premier is not demanding performance. There is no one in the private sector who would possibly maintain their job when one of their projects had doubled in price and is two years overdue.

It just couldn't happen, yet we still have the Deputy Premier sitting there. Granted the responsibilities for the ferries have been taken away from him, but he is still sitting as a major leader in government. That sends the wrong message. My question to the Premier is: how do you establish accountability in the public service, how do you establish the mandate for results and for performance in the public service when the Premier is willing to allow the Deputy Premier to mismanage -- to negligently manage -- such an important project that is so expensive to taxpayers?

Hon. G. Clark: The member should be accountable for his statements. He said this ferry "would sink." That's what the Leader of the Opposition said. He said it wouldn't work. He said it wouldn't go this fast. He has been wrong on all of his assertions. He just made that up. He said: "It won't work; it will sink." So he's been making up stories about this fast ferry right from the beginning, and he has been wrong.

I also want to make the point that the Ferry Corporation requires significant investment and still does. There are 40 ships; they last about 40 years. It needs to be building one ship per year. Fifty percent of the fleet was built between 1962 and 1965. The debt associated with building new ships would be required in any event if we are to deal with both the declining Ferry Corporation capital stock and the dramatic growth in traffic -- some 20 million passengers per year.

[1710]

The fast ferries are part of that strategy, and yes, it's unfortunate and wrong that they were significantly over budget, but they are all part of a capital plan designed to try to deal with some fundamental problems at the Ferry Corporation. I say to all members of the House that there is still the requirement for more steel vessels to be constructed at B.C. Ferries -- and more infrastructure required. You cannot have the largest ferry corporation in the world not build any ships for years, while we have a doubling of the population of British Columbia.

This is a question of how best to deal with the consequences of the very large capital investments that are required. We were endeavouring to move to more user-pay. We have now decided to increase the subsidy associated with this. I suggest that it doesn't matter who the government is; there is a requirement for more capital investment in B.C. Ferries -- i.e., more debt and more funding coming from the provincial government -- if you're to deal with the decline in capital stock and the growth in passenger service.

The Chair: Members, could I ask leave to make an introduction?

Leave granted.

The Chair: I just see in the gallery a longtime friend and constituent, Iris Reamsbottom. She works at Ridge Meadows Hospital and is a hard-working school trustee in district 42. Would members please make her welcome.

G. Campbell: Let me be clear. No one argues with the needs of coastal communities and the needs of B.C. Ferries. What we argue with is the incompetence with which this project was carried out. There was no business plan -- again, not our words. In the government's own consultant's words, there was no business plan. We had a minister who was asleep at the switch for two years, who never asked a question, because we know the Premier doesn't like bad news. Don't ask any questions; you may not get the answers. There is no way around that. There is no way for this Premier to dodge this particular issue. The ferry project has been mishandled from the word go. It was mishandled in the way the contracts were administered. It was mishandled because there was no business plan. It was mishandled because what we now have is a B.C. Ferries run which is increasing lineups at Horseshoe Bay, not decreasing them -- which is increasing the amount of time it takes to load those ferries.

There's no question about it. The Premier says I should be held to account for what I said; I'm glad to be held to account for what I said. What I said -- I sent a warning both to the president of B.C. Ferries and to the government -- was that what I am hearing is that these boats may not even float. People were saying that, and the government decided to plug their ears about it. The fact of the matter is that people within the B.C. Ferry Corporation were crying out for this government to listen, and the government closed its ears.

Again, my question to the Premier is: how does he establish any level of public credibility and accountability of his cabinet and of the things that he says, when something like B.C. Ferries takes place? Surely the Premier understands that this has been a huge black mark not just on the Ferry Corporation in terms of what it's done, and not just for the communities that are involved, but on the government as a whole. The problem is that it keeps on happening. It's like the government doesn't learn a thing about how this takes place.

Let me give you another example, hon. Chair. Perhaps the Premier can respond to this one. Back in 1996, the Premier promised 5,000 new jobs in environmental industries by the

[ Page 14252 ]

[1715]

G. Campbell: Can the Premier tell me the address for the international centre for environmental business? Can the Premier tell if there is a place called the international centre for environmental business?

Hon. G. Clark: I'm sorry. I'm not familiar with it, but I'd be happy to look into it. You say you have something from 1996. Let me know; we'll look at it.

G. Campbell: This is exactly the point that I am making. This is a press release from the Premier dated March 26, 1996: "Clark Targets 5,000 New Jobs in Environmental Industries by the Year 2000." He announced that 5,000 new jobs would be created in the next five years and more than 12,000 jobs by 2005. The government was making a commitment to the international centre for environmental business. My question to the Premier is: has anything happened with that? It was his announcement; it was his government's announcement. Is he aware of it? Has he done anything?

Hon. G. Clark: This is going to be fun. We're going to take the press releases from the election campaign, and we'll debate that -- like you saying that $6 billion is enough for health care. Remember that? He wanted to be accountable for that. Or the 14 percent cut in post-secondary education that he campaigned on, with the phony budget he brought in during the election campaign. It's great. I look forward to that debate, because clearly. . . .

Interjection.

Hon. G. Clark: Do you want to go back and look at those press releases? Let's go back and look at the press releases that you put out, and we'll hold you accountable. Or the member for North Vancouver-Seymour, who said: "Let's have mining in parks." Let's go back and revisit that question.

Interjection.

Hon. G. Clark: I know you still support that, hon. member.

D. Jarvis: But in a responsible way.

Hon. G. Clark: In a responsible way -- I understand. I'm not trying to put words in your mouth. Mining in parks in a responsible way is the opposition's call. During the election campaign there was lots of debate back and forth, and this may well have been one of them. I'd be happy to look into what transpired at that time.

G. Campbell: First let me start by being very clear about this: there is nothing I would like better than for the Premier and I to be involved in an election campaign. Let's have one right now. Let's go right now and have one. Let's have the Premier stand up and be held accountable for his record, and I'll be held accountable for my record.

The fact of the matter is that this is not an NDP press release. This is not even an election press release. The Premier may not recall this, but the election wasn't held in March of 1996. This is the Premier of the province of British Columbia making a release and saying: "Here I am, the Premier. I'm going to establish the new international centre for environmental business." The question is: what is the address? What happened? Or was it just another phony announcement, like we're going to have environmental. . . ? We're going to have B.C. Ferries build ferries for $230 million, down to the cost of the toilet paper. Is the Premier willing to be held to account by anyone, at any time, for his comments? Where is the international centre for environmental business?

Hon. G. Clark: I look forward to being held to account for both your record and my record. That's what elections are all about. I look forward to it, and it may be sooner than you think.

Interjections.

Hon. G. Clark: Maybe sooner than you think.

I'll get that information for you. I don't know what transpired at that time. And let's be clear: you have every opportunity to raise those questions with the ministers responsible every time. And you want to go back to 1996? I look forward to it.

G. Campbell: This is exactly the point. This is not from a minister; this is not from a party leader. This is from the Office of the Premier. Just like from the Office of the Premier we had announcements with regard to numbers of jobs that were going to be created and filled. This is now 5,000 new jobs that supposedly were going to be created, and there was going to be an international centre for environmental business. This wasn't some passing thing. This was an announcement by the Premier.

His own colleagues now sit there, and they see that the Premier can say what he wants, when he wants, however he wants about anything he wants, and he won't even hold himself accountable for it. Unquestionably they don't think they should be held accountable, and that's the problem.

[1720]

The Premier says he wants to have an election. Today we could actually have an election. Let's just vote for an amend-

[ Page 14253 ]

Let me go to another example, and this is an example that's been topical recently. It's been around for the last two or three years, and that's the whole issue of the cruise ship facility expansion and the trade and convention centre expansion. Once again, we have an example where the minister who is responsible evidently doesn't know what's going on. The Premier may not know what's going on. The message that goes to the public is totally, totally confusing. So let me start by asking the Premier a couple of specific questions. I understand that so far with this project about $46 million has been spent on the trade and convention centre. Can the Premier tell me what role, if any, the province has played in Greystone's costs to date?

Hon. G. Clark: You have to ask the minister responsible for the details of it. I'm not managing this file, but I do find it ironic, to say the least, that the member at once criticizes us, or me, for proceeding with a project with haste and now criticizes a project which we have not proceeded with, because we are bargaining and negotiating with individuals. It's greatly ironic.

The trade and convention centre is a project which went through, as you know, for some years. We had a bidding process. The remaining bidder, and the consensus choice by most of the industry downtown, was Greystone Properties. There are really three or four components to that project. There's the trade and convention centre, there's a cruise ship terminal, there's a retrofit of the existing trade and convention centre, and there's the hotel. It's a complex project involving many parties.

We hired Henry Wakabayashi, who was the project manager for the airport, and Doug Allen, former deputy minister, to head up a team to negotiate in the public interest the best way to manage this project. They've done not just business plans, but I think they've done about 20 different financial analysis aspects of it. They are in negotiations, and we are still in negotiations to proceed with this project. We will proceed with this project with or without the federal government if we can do it in a fashion which is less cost than our benefits that we receive, and that's the negotiations we're in.

I don't know the status of what has been spent so far. I don't direct the project on a day-to-day basis. I don't know where the project is with respect to the work that is being done. That is the ministerial responsibility of the Minister of Employment and Investment.

G. Campbell: Again, the problem that I have and that I think the public has is that the Minister of Employment and Investment clearly doesn't know what's going on. The Minister of Employment and Investment says on Monday that the government's contribution is $300 million. "There's a cap. We're not going any further. That's what it is." The Minister of Employment and Investment says there's going to be $170 million from the federal government. The Minister of Employment and Investment tells us it's going to cost $810 million. Within 24 hours, the Premier's saying: "No, the Minister of Employment and Investment doesn't know what he's talking about. The cap's $530 million; the cost is $900 million, not $810 million."

The fact of the matter is that the Premier is driving this province. All of the announcements with regard to this project have been the Premier's announcements. So I don't expect the Premier to know the day-to-day activities; I do expect the Premier to have some idea. . . . When he's the front man, when he's the spin doctor for this, it seems to me that the Premier should know at least some of the things that are going on. For example, have there been any direct or indirect subsidies, grants, loans, or loan guarantees from the government to Greystone with regard to this project?

Hon. G. Clark: You have to ask the minister responsible. I don't know the details. Or ask your friend Jack Poole, who's on the board. I don't know where the project is in terms of the details of it. I do know the broad outlines of it, and there is no contradiction between the minister and myself -- none whatsoever.

[1725]

The Premier should know, and so I ask the Premier again: is he not aware of, does he not know about, any subsidies? Who in his government decides these subsidies? Do ministers go out and say: "Oh sure, have a subsidy; it's fine. Take a loan; that's okay"? The Premier's not aware of any of those things? Those don't come to cabinet? He's not informed about those activities?

Hon. G. Clark: Obviously, any expenditures have to be approved by Treasury Board, and the minister responsible takes it forward in that fashion.

But let's be clear on what I've said -- and I've been entirely consistent on this question. We are not going to spend more money on the convention centre than the revenue we receive. That's an important point. That's always been my position. Convention centres generate jobs throughout British Columbia, but particularly in the lower mainland -- in hotels, in taxis, in bars, in restaurants. It's a classic case for government intervention, because all of the small operators who benefit cannot get together to build a convention centre, and every convention centre in North America has been paid for with government money.

We know that the net present value of all the tax revenue -- conservatively -- of all the different spin-offs is about $527 million. That is the analysis that's been done, and it's been public information. We also know it's similar. . . . It's that or more for the federal government. So that's the net present

[ Page 14254 ]

That has always been the position of the provincial government. We've never said: "It's free to build a convention centre." We've said: "A convention centre will be paid for by the provincial government, and it will be paid for by the tax revenue that it generates and the spin-off revenue it generates. And it will be paid for, in part, by a tax on the industry or fees that we charge on the industry." We've been entirely consistent, and we're in negotiations right now to drive to that point. Those negotiations have been unsuccessful to date, because the developer wants us to pay a larger subsidy than we believe is necessary to make this project a reality.

Interjection.

Hon. G. Clark: Yes. Well, it all depends on how you discuss. . . . We've said that it's $500 million in revenue, roughly, that we received from the convention centre, and therefore we can spend that much money and still be better off. But the developer wants us to spend more than that, to pay for costs associated with infrastructure and to pay for costs associated largely with the hotel. We are not prepared to do that. That is why the talks have not been consummated. We're in discussions to try to deal with that question. We believe, we have always believed, and the experts that we have working for us -- Henry Wakabayashi and others -- believe that you can build this project at no net cost to the taxpayers after the revenue. That is what we are attempting to do.

G. Campbell: Initially, when this project was started, the Premier outlined a project where the taxpayers of B.C. were going to pay the least costs for a convention centre. Basically, that would have restricted the risk of the taxpayers of B.C. pretty significantly for 30 years. What we now have is the taxpayers of B.C. assuming virtually all of the risk. We've spent $46 million at least. Greystone is spending on the order of $4 million a month. The question, it seems to me, that we should know is: is the government of British Columbia. . . ? And forget the government. Are the taxpayers of British Columbia in any way liable for that $4 million a month -- that $46 million? Or is Greystone assuming that responsibility? If in fact Greystone is not, then it is the taxpayers who have assumed all of the risk.

[1730]

You can't have it both ways. You can't be blind one minute and open-eyed the next. You either know what's happening or you don't. If you know what's happening, I'd appreciate it if the Premier would tell us. And if he doesn't know, who is responsible and accountable for this project? And how can you possibly have a government that doesn't know when they're moving in to almost a $1 billion project, and the person who's supposed to hold the minister to account doesn't have a clue what he's holding him to account for?

Hon. G. Clark: That's ridiculous, hon. Chair. We initially were trying to have a privately financed convention centre that we would lease back. The analysis from the experts showed that the lease cost would be higher than the interest cost if we were to do it ourselves. That was announced; that was public. People knew that it made more sense financially for us to do it. Once we are building it at our borrowing, then we have some risk, which is why we hired a team. . .

Interjection.

Hon. G. Clark: Right.

. . .headed by Henry Wakabayashi to manage for the public interest and, frankly, why we don't have a deal. Because we are accepting the risk, we are not prepared to allow Greystone to build it and charge us whatever they want.

So we have been working to try to deal with this question, and because there is risk to the taxpayers, we are not prepared to proceed until we get an arrangement which works. We have a business plan; of course we do. But we are not going to share that business plan, because we are in negotiations with private developers to build it. We obviously have a mandate that we have given to our negotiators to deal with. We have not built this project, because we have not arrived at an agreement. We will, I believe, arrive at an agreement. A business plan will be there. We haven't even received the environmental permits yet. We will get the environmental permits. Then we will proceed to build it -- if it's in the public interest.

G. Campbell: Let me start with this. First of all, if you have a business plan, you may actually be able, if it's a sensible business plan, to get those contributions. I get that. The Premier tells us that there is a business plan. Will the Premier agree or admit -- or does he know -- whether or not $46 million has been spent on this project yet? Does he have any idea whatsoever about how much has been spent? And if he doesn't, does he have any clue about whether the so-called business plan, which doesn't exist really -- which he says does exist -- has been performed to?

Hon. G. Clark: No. You should ask the minister responsible. I assume that some money has been invested in the project. I'm sure that it's consistent with what we've said. I suggest, if the members wish, that they should talk to the project team that's managing this file. I have complete confidence in Mr. Wakabayashi and Mr. Allen in dealing with this file.

It would have been easy to build this. People are now saying: "Why don't you just agree to Greystone's demands?" It's because we are not prepared to do this unless we get the best deal for the taxpayers.

G. Campbell: We've asked the minister. The minister doesn't know; clearly the minister doesn't know. We asked the

[ Page 14255 ]

The Premier says to us: "There is a business plan, and we're going to benefit, and everyone's seen it." That is not true. Everyone hasn't seen it. Everyone should see it, because the fact is that people on all sides of this House would like to see the cruise ship facility expanded; they'd like to see the convention centre go ahead. But once again, we don't have any controls from this government -- none whatsoever.

The Premier says: "We've got a good team." I'm sure that it's a good team, but the team gets its directions from the government.

[1735]

What the Premier is trying to tell us this week is: "Gee, we're still negotiating, and it's tough, and aren't we just tough guys." I can tell you, I'd love to negotiate with this government. All the ferry builders would have loved to negotiate with this government, because they got everything.

That's exactly what's happened with the convention centre. The agreement that we were supposedly going to get has not been there. The Premier says: "We'll go it alone." How can you say, on the one hand, that we'll go it alone and, on the other hand, negotiate well for the people of British Columbia? My question to the Premier is: why has one cent been committed before we know what the costs are going to be to the taxpayer of British Columbia and before we know what the risks are going to be to the taxpayer of British Columbia?

Hon. G. Clark: As I said earlier, there are four components to this project. There's a private component called the hotel, which is somewhere between $250 million and $300 million. There is a convention centre, which is $300 million. There is a retrofit of the existing convention centre, which is $100 million. There is the cruise ship terminal, so you can add again. The convention centre alone is $300 million. That has not changed. We know, and all the due diligence we've done shows, that it can be built for that budget. We have been talking to the federal government about retrofitting their asset for $100 million. We know that the federal government has not provided any money to British Columbia on this project, and we've said consistently that we will build it entirely ourselves if the benefits outweigh the costs -- and they do. We believe they do. But we're not prepared to subsidize a private hotel. We're not prepared to cross-subsidize a convention centre with the hotel, and we're not prepared to subsidize the cruise ship terminal through the province of British Columbia.

So it is appropriate for the government, in these negotiations, to proceed with environmental permitting and other costs associated with the convention centre, because we are confident that we can build it with or without Greystone -- and that's what we intend to try to do.

Interjection.

G. Campbell: The member opposite says it's pretty clear. Well, what's clear is that the costs of this convention centre have almost tripled. The cost of the idea has tripled. All of the risk has been assumed by the taxpayers of British Columbia. Taxpayers' costs have almost tripled. What's clear is that $46 million of the taxpayers' dollars have been spent. What's clear, and what I would ask the Premier, if he can confirm this for me, because he seems to know. . . . Conveniently, he knows what he wants to tell us and forgets the things he should know.

Forty-six million dollars have been spent. My understanding is that all of that has been at the taxpayers' expense. The Premier says: "We are looking for environmental approvals." Say Greystone walks and say Marriott walks. Who's paying for the environmental approvals? Who's paying for it? Once again, it's the taxpayers. The Premier says there's a problem with negotiations. The question is: why on earth did we start an investment of $4 million a month, up to $46 million? -- and some suggest $54 million. Why have we invested those dollars before there was a firm, tight contract that protected the interests of the taxpayers of British Columbia? Surely the government has learned that you don't start spending other people's money until you've got a firm contract. So why have we spent $46 million if the deal isn't done -- not just with the federal government, but with the private sector that supposedly is moving forward?

Hon. G. Clark: Well, as I said, I don't know the details of what's been spent to date, but I know that there has been pile-driving taking place to test, for environmental permits, and I'm sure the government paid for that. We have a team in place that's negotiating with BERC, the Burrard Inlet arm of the federal government which deals with environmental permits, and we have not received a permit. It is appropriate and it is important for us to manage this project through the permitting process, through city hall, through dealing with all the development permits and others and negotiating with city hall and all of that work. We have the best expertise in the province. Henry Wakabayashi is the top project manager in this province, and he is managing this file and he is working through. . . . Yes, the government is paying for that, and it's paying for all of that work, and all of that work is necessary to build a convention centre.

[1740]

G. Campbell: Well, again we see the leader of a government who is unwilling to accept responsibility, a leader of a

[ Page 14256 ]

So I'd like to move a motion, an amendment to the motion which is before us: "Be it resolved that the sum provided for in vote 9 be reduced to the amount of $1 so that we all send a clear message to this Premier that his performance is totally inadequate."

On the amendment.

G. Campbell: In speaking to the motion, let me point out that on this side of the House, we understand how many public services are important to the people of British Columbia. One of the reasons those services have been undercut and undermined is because we have a leader of the government who does not believe in accountability, who does not believe in openness, and who does not believe that it's important that we restore the trust of the public in our public institutions -- which he is ultimately responsible for.

There's no question why this takes place. There are some huge public issues which have generated that concern. One of the public issues is the massive overrun for fast ferries, which has debilitated and done serious damage to one of the most important services that we have for people in coastal communities. Another reason is because project after project is announced -- millions of dollars are expended -- for no benefit and with no accountability. Another reason is that people have just decided that they can't take the Premier's word for things. That's a real problem.

We can talk about the big issues, but there are simple issues. There are simple issues which I think reflect the Premier's difficulty in simply telling the truth to people -- in simply being straight with them -- and giving them the information that they need. As I look across to the other side of the House, I see many MLAs. Some are in cabinet; some are not in cabinet. All of them, I believe, at the end, want to provide public service. For us to truly provide excellent public service, we have to be willing to hold ministers, the cabinet and the Premier to public account. That is what the public is crying out for.

When the Premier is asked, "Do you know Mr. Pilarinos?" and he says, "Oh gee, I sort of know him," they understand the problems that are created. The Premier says quite clearly. "Oh, I kind of know him." Then it turns out that it's someone that the Premier has actually spent his vacation with, who's actually a friend of his and who the Premier has given a gift to. The public understands that once again the Premier has not told them what's taking place.

I wanted to touch on that issue specifically, because one of the things that's happened is that there's been this dramatic turnaround -- this sort of false conversion that's taken place. In 1996 we had the Premier announcing there would be no massive expansion to gambling. The Premier initiated a massive expansion to gambling. Now we understand that the government has said: "Well, we will kind of not carry out the massive expansion which we've undertaken." The question that I have for the Premier is: what led to the conversion? Who was responsible for the conversion with regard to the government's gambling policy?

[1745]

G. Campbell: Very good point. The Premier raises a very good point, hon. Chair. The issues that we should be dealing with. . . .

The reason I hope that members opposite will vote and support this motion is this. We look and we see a situation where the Ferry Corporation is drowning in a sea of red ink. We look and we see a situation where B.C. Hydro has cost the taxpayers of British Columbia millions and millions of dollars. We look and we see a situation where the Supreme Court of British Columbia has said they don't believe this Premier. We look and we see a situation where thousands of British Columbians have lost their jobs in forestry and in mining. We look and we see where thousands of British Columbians are leaving the province in search of opportunity and of hope again.

We look and we see a situation, with the government, where we have no accountability whatsoever and no performance criteria, where we have a Premier that turns a blind eye and a deaf ear, and in fact, where the Premier punishes and evidently intimidates people who bring him the bad news -- the bad news that says: "Your press release isn't going to work."

It seems to me that it is critical for members on that side of the House to show that they still believe in some of the fundamental values of British Columbians, in a government that levels with the people, that enters into public debate, that recognizes that there are times when there are different positions and different opinions that may be taken -- and they see that as healthy. But they want to have the truth. They want to have accountability. They want to have openness in our public institutions. None of those things have been reflected by this Premier and this government.

I hope that the backbenchers -- the people in this government -- will have an opportunity to voice their position with regard to this, because I believe there are members opposite who are not happy with what this government has done. Regardless of what their public positions may be, I believe that there are people on that side of the House who believe that it's time to hold this Premier to account. I believe there are people on that side of the House that believe it is important for the government to be straightforward with the people of British Columbia.

This is the chance for them to prove that. This is a small amount. I recognize that it is a small amount. It is less than 1 percent of 1 percent of the total budget in British Columbia, but it is a chance for members opposite to send a clear message -- a clear message to the Premier, a clear message to the cabinet -- that they expect the Premier and the cabinet to be held accountable for the various undertakings that they have made to the public. They expect the Premier and the cabinet to be straightforward with the public of British Columbia, and at the end of the day, they simply expect the Premier and the cabinet to level with the people whose money they are spending on a regular basis.

We have to start to restore trust in our public institutions. I believe that the message the backbenchers opposite can send to the Premier and the cabinet will be a salutary one. It will do them good. It will do the public good. It will do our public institutions good. So I would ask them to consider supporting

[ Page 14257 ]

[1750]

Amendment negatived on the following division:

YEAS -- 25
Whittred	Campbell	Farrell-Collins
de Jong	Plant	Abbott
Neufeld	Coell	Chong
Jarvis	Anderson	Nettleton
Penner	Weisbeck	Nebbeling
Hogg	Coleman	Stephens
Krueger	Thorpe	Symons
van Dongen	Barisoff	Dalton
	J. Reid

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

[1755]

Vote 9 approved on the following division:

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

 

NAYS -- 25
Whittred	Campbell	Farrell-Collins
de Jong	Plant	Abbott
Neufeld	Coell	Chong
Jarvis	Anderson	Nettleton
Penner	Weisbeck	Nebbeling
Hogg	Coleman	Stephens
Krueger	Thorpe	Symons
van Dongen	Barisoff	Dalton
	J. Reid

Vote 1: legislation, $36,593,000 -- approved.

Vote 2: auditor general, $6,923,000 -- approved.

Vote 3: office of the child, youth and family advocate, $1,353,000 -- approved.

[1800]

Vote 5: Elections B.C., $11,935,000 -- approved.

Vote 6: information and privacy commissioner, $2,329,000 -- approved.

Vote 7: ombudsman, $4,655,000 -- approved.

Vote 8: police complaints commissioner, $837,000 -- approved.

Hon. D. Lovick: I move that the committee rise, report resolutions and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; the Speaker in the chair.

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

Hon. D. Lovick: I would wish all members a pleasant break from their duties and, with that, move adjournment of the House.

Hon. D. Lovick moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 6:03 p.m.

[ Return to: Legislative Assembly Home Page ]

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