Hansard -- Volume 2, Number 24 -- Wednesday, August 22, 2001

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

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY



CONTENTS

	Routine Proceedings
		Time

Introductions by Members		1400

Municipalities Enabling and Validating Act (No. 3) (Bill 25). Hon. G. Abbott
	Introduction and first reading	1410

The Bank of Nova Scotia Trust Company Act, 2001 (Bill Pr403). R. Sultan
	Introduction and first reading	1410

Oral Questions
	U.S. softwood lumber duty and provincial bond assistance proposal	1410
	J. MacPhail
	Tuition fee review	1420
	J. Kwan
	Compliance of Crown corporations with local land use and zoning bylaws	1420
	P. Bell
	WCB workplace smoking ban	1425
	J. Kwan
	Lillooet land and resource management plan	1425
	D. Chutter

Petitions		1430
	Proposed smelter project for Alberni Valley

Tabling Documents		1430
	Forests ministry, annual report, 1999-2000
	Forests ministry, annual performance review, 2000-01
	Forest Appeals Commission, annual report, 2000

Parental Responsibility Act (Bill 16)
	Second reading
	Hon. R. Coleman	1430
	J. MacPhail	1435
	B. Penner	1515
	J. Kwan	1520
	Hon. G. Plant	1545
	K. Stewart	1610
	D. MacKay	1615
	Hon. R. Coleman	1620

Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (No. 2), 2001 (Bill 23)
	Second reading
	Hon. G. Plant	1635
	J. MacPhail	1650

Public Service (Merit Employment Commissioner) Amendment Act, 2001 (Bill 10)
	Second reading
	Hon. S. Santori	1650
	J. MacPhail	1650
	R. Stewart	1715
	J. Bray	1715
	J. Kwan	1720
	Hon. S. Santori	1725

Crime Victim Assistance Act (Bill 24)
	Second reading
	Hon. R. Coleman	1725
	J. Kwan	1740
	S. Orr	1750
	Hon. R. Coleman	1755

Private Members' Statements
	Land claims. D. MacKay	1755
	W. Cobb
	Volunteerism. D. Hayer	1810
	Hon. G. Abbott
	Surrey Senior Games. B. Locke	1825
	Hon. G. Cheema
	Hon. K. Falcon
	The importance of agriculture. B. Lekstrom	1840
	Hon. J. van Dongen

Committee of Supply
	Office of the Premier estimates. Hon. G. Campbell
	Vote 9: Office of the Premier	1855
	J. Kwan
	J. MacPhail
	Hon. G. Halsey-Brandt

Hon. G. Cheema: I would like this House to welcome a delegation from Surrey and Delta. Please welcome the 58 members of the Surrey-Delta Indo-Canadian Seniors Society. They are led by their president, Maghar Singh Sanghe, and they are assisted by my constituency assistant, Karnail Nagra, and Mr. Niramal Singh Nannar.

This group has a wealth of experience and knowledge which is an asset to our province. Among these guests is my father, Ajinder Singh Cheema. I assume they have all come to see if I am working hard or not.

Hon. G. Campbell: Today in the galleries we have many distinguished jurists from around the world who are members of the Institut de droits international, or the Institute of International Law. They're here with their president, the first Canadian who has been elected to the institute and a former Member of Parliament, Dr. Ted McWhinney. The institute's resolutions carry persuasive legal authority within the United Nations and before international tribunals. The current meeting that is taking place in Vancouver is only the third time in the 128-year history of the institute that they've met outside of Europe, and we are delighted to have them here in our capital today. Please join me in welcoming all the members of the institute and Dr. McWhinney in particular.

P. Bell: It's my honour today to have my first introduction in the House. It comes from the beautiful pine beetle–infested community of Prince George North. Joining me today I have Shane Schepens, who helped me through the campaign as my youth coordinator, and Carrie Stewart. Would the House please make them very welcome.

S. Brice: I am pleased this afternoon to introduce my son Jason, who is here from Vancouver, a young entrepreneur who is here to watch his new era of government in action. I would like the House to make him welcome.

Hon. G. Halsey-Brandt: Today in the members' gallery we have two special visitors from Mexico. The first is Mr. Rodolfo Elizondo, who is the coordinator for the President of Mexico's liaison office for citizens' alliance. He is a panellist at the 2001 Civicus World Assembly in Vancouver this week. Mr. Elizondo wanted to take this opportunity to meet with government. He will be meeting with the Minister of State for the Community Charter later this afternoon. Mr. Elizondo is accompanied by Guadalupe Albert, the very busy consul general of Mexico in Vancouver. Please join me in giving them a warm welcome to the Legislature.

B. Kerr: I'd like to introduce a gentleman today who was the president of my riding association for a number of years. He is currently the regional director of the South Island for the B.C. Liberal Party. He had a heart attack about two months ago. He's back now, and he says he's fit as a fiddle and ready to run a 20-kilometre run. I'd like the House to welcome Mr. Dave Pedley.

Hon. K. Falcon: It is with great pleasure that I welcome a great family from the community of Surrey. Brian Watts was the Chair of my sign campaign and did an excellent job in the last election. Brian's wife is also here today. Dianne Watts is a councillor, one of the great councillors in the city of Surrey. They are joined by their two lovely daughters, Elishea and Elora. I would ask the House to make them welcome today.

Hon. G. Abbott: It's my pleasure to welcome to the gallery today my wife, who is accompanied by our good friend from Sicamous, Polly Cowan. I'd ask the House to make them welcome.

Mr. Speaker: Hon. members, I see in the gallery today two of my constituents from Kamloops, both hard-working members of my committee: Jeff and Kitty McAllister. Please make them welcome.

Hon. G. Abbott presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Municipalities Enabling and Validating Act (No. 3).

Hon. G. Abbott: I move that Bill 25 be introduced and read a first time now.

Hon. G. Abbott: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to present the Municipalities Enabling and Validating Act (No. 3). Like the previous two municipalities enabling and validating acts, this act gives local governments greater flexibility to handle their own affairs on a case-by-case basis. The regional district of Okanagan-Similkameen has requested an amendment to the act that would allow it to recover approximately $3.3 million from Naramata residents related to the Blackwell arbitration case. To do this, the regional district wants authority to impose a special equal-share parcel tax, a

former property tax which is not defined under the local government act. With this legislation, we're giving the regional district the flexibility it needs to handle this unique financial challenge and plan for the future with confidence.

As well, on behalf of the Minister of Health Services, I move, as part of the amendments to the Municipalities Enabling and Validating Act (No. 3) that municipal anti-smoking bylaws approved by the provincial health officer or deputy to the provincial health officer between April 1, 1996, and August 9, 1996, be retroactively validated.

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

Bill 25 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.

R. Sultan presented a bill intituled The Bank of Nova Scotia Trust Company Act, 2001.

R. Sultan: Mr. Speaker, I move that this bill, of which notice has been given on the order paper, be introduced and now read a first time.

R. Sultan: This is a private bill which will provide an important service from two important British Columbia employers: the Bank of Nova Scotia Trust Co. and the National Trust Co.

Some time ago the trust arm of the Bank of Nova Scotia acquired National Trust Co., which it is reorganizing. The trust arm of the Bank of Nova Scotia is assuming all of the responsibilities for the personal trust affairs of National Trust. To accomplish this, the Bank of Nova Scotia entity needs to be substituted in place of the National Trust entity in all personal estates. Many of the affected persons are deceased or would have to prepare a new will. Because of the large number of trusts and estates involved, the only practical way to accomplish this is through legislation in each of the various provinces in Canada.

In the past year and a half that task has already been accomplished in all of the other provincial legislatures across Canada, and now it is British Columbia's turn. This is hardly controversial legislation.

I move that the bill be referred to the Select Standing Committee on Parliamentary Reform, Ethical Conduct, Standing Orders and Private Bills.

Bill Pr403 introduced, read a first time and referred to the Select Standing Committee on Parliamentary Reform, Ethical Conduct, Standing Orders and Private Bills.

J. MacPhail: Mr. Speaker, we see today that the federal and provincial governments are moving toward providing bond assistance to companies in need of help as a result of the softwood lumber tariff. While it is my belief that the provincial government could have moved more quickly, I do want to congratulate the Minister of Finance for now getting behind a bond assistance program.

Yesterday the federal Trade minister said that a bond needs to be structured in such a way that it's not just seen as a subsidy, and I think that's a fair concern. The opposition has been pushing for bond assistance since the U.S. imposed its tariff — that it was announced. We have some constructive ideas about how to meet the test and design a bond so that it's not perceived as a subsidy. Communities need help soon. Will the Minister of Forests agree to form a working group that will consist of the stakeholders, the government and the opposition to come together and come up with a plan to provide this bond assistance?

Hon. M. de Jong: Except for the inclusion of the opposition, I'm happy to inform the House — and I think the House knows — that that's already been done. We welcome the suggestions. We've invited them from the opposition, and I think it's timely, in response to the member's question, just to review very quickly the events of the past few days. We are days away from sitting down with the Americans in what will undoubtedly be the single most important discussion or negotiation that we can have, from an economic point of view, in B.C.

Very shortly after speaking with the Premier of British Columbia, the Prime Minister contacted President Bush and sent that first message about how important this is. The International Trade minister was here yesterday, as the member knows, and saw and heard firsthand from the people who are part of that working group — representatives of communities, companies and employees — about the devastation that this punitive trade sanction is imposing on British Columbia. We obtained a commitment from the federal government to provide real dollars to fund a public campaign in the United States, and we are continuing the discussions around the question of bonding.

I'm happy to receive the information and advice from the hon. member. I might say that I know this member in the past has enjoyed a special link with the federal International Trade minister. Though I wouldn't pretend to enjoy a similar telepathic ability, I also hope that we can achieve a meeting of the minds.

J. MacPhail: I fully understand that that's the kind of bonding that that minister could never…. [Applause.] Here is a breakthrough

I do note that the file is moving very quickly on some fronts, and on other fronts it's stalled. It is again that I ask the minister to provide some very substantive detail about how the opposition can participate. We have constructive ideas. We know that in the past, bonds have been structured through the federal government with commercial rates. They use the Export Development Corporation to do so. That's a common practice, and it's one that cannot be challenged by the Americans as well.

I'm pleased to see that the Minister of Forests will take me up on my idea, and I ask him only now to provide the meeting place and time.

I should say to the member that we should do this quickly in terms of the exchange of information. I'm intending to be in Ottawa and Montreal tomorrow and Friday. To the extent that we can facilitate that exchange today — and otherwise electronically — then we should do that.

It is a point of departure for us here in British Columbia. When we can work together, speak with one voice and have the government, the opposition, Mr. Haggard from the IWA, all of the various industry agencies, representative agencies and the community organizations pulling in the same direction, I feel a whole lot better about our chances to emerge from this thing.

J. Kwan: It's great to be back and see a different air around the legislative buildings. I hope that we can get cooperation on all issues.

During and after the election the Premier, the Minister of Finance, the Minister of Education and other members of the now government bench claimed that it is taking longer for students to finish their degrees because of the tuition fee freeze. To the Minister of Advanced Education: is there a single study — not just anecdotal evidence or hearsay evidence but a study — that shows that the Premier, the Minister of Finance and the Minister of Education have been telling British Columbians the truth about the effects of the tuition fee freeze?

Hon. S. Bond: As I shared with you in estimates, it is clear to us, particularly…. The most important voice that we're listening to is the voice of students around this province, who are telling us that there are challenges for them as they continue to try to complete their degrees in reasonable amounts of time. The commitment of our government is to begin a dialogue with educators, administrators and students to talk about the hidden costs that are impacting students and institutions today.

Mr. Speaker: Member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant with a supplementary question.

J. Kwan: The students that I've spoken with certainly have not mentioned that the challenge they face is the tuition fee freeze. In fact, they want the freeze, and further, they want tuition to be eliminated altogether. The fact is that there is a study that shows that students at Simon Fraser University are completing their degrees faster under the freeze.

I understand the minister now intends to conduct a review of the tuition fee freeze, but the only evidence the minister, the government, the now Premier, the Minister of Finance and the Minister of Education have provided has been false. This government has a hidden agenda of massive cuts to program spending, and this government has already secretly axed programs that help young people get an education. We saw that yesterday in question period.

Again, to the Minister of Advanced Education: why would young people and their families today believe that this government's tuition fee review is anything more than a public relations exercise to justify massive tuition fee increases, when her government cuts funding to post-secondary education institutions next year?

Hon. S. Bond: I would assume the reason that the students and other people in the province of British Columbia would believe that we're going to exercise a meaningful dialogue is because to date we've done everything we said we were going to do, and we're going to continue to do that.

In fact, we look forward to having opportunities to chat with students, educators and administrators. Do you know what we've told them? We haven't yet made up our minds about what we're going to do in the future, because we actually want to listen to them to determine what the issues are and then make up our minds.

Mr. Speaker: Hon. members, I would remind all members to please direct their responses and their questions through the Chair.

P. Bell: Just short of 80 days ago a new era began in British Columbia with the swearing-in of our first B.C. Liberal cabinet. You know, we made 21 specific commitments during the election campaign, and we still have two of those left to fulfil. The one that concerns me today subjects Crown corporations to local zoning and land use bylaws. I wonder if the Premier would tell us today how he plans to fulfil that commitment.

Hon. G. Campbell: Two weeks ago I wrote to the Crown corporations that were involved. I told them that we expected them to live within land use and zoning bylaws. The Crown corporations secretariat will be working with them to see if there are any legislative

changes required. We don't believe there are, but we're certainly willing to make those if they're necessary. They've been directed to do it; they will do it. I think the local governments and communities across the province will appreciate that.

J. Kwan: To the minister responsible for the Workers Compensation Board: will the WCB rules to protect workers' health by banning smoking in pubs and restaurants proceed as planned for September — yes or no?

Today I have written to the Workers Compensation Board and asked that they implement their regulations on April 30, 2002, for the purpose of doing several things. I'm striking a committee under the regulations that I have within the power of my ministry to come back and report to me on other ways of accomplishing the smoke-free environment within pubs and hospitality areas — specifically, a performance-based regulation — and to make sure there are things that government is doing between the right and left hand — the liquor control board, the WCB and other agencies — in terms of the implementation of these regulations that would have a good, commonsense application.

That committee would report back to me by the end of October, which would then, if there were any changes to be made or recommendations to be followed through on, allow the WCB the appropriate time — that would be the months of November, December and January — to hold hearings if necessary. Those regulations, if they're changed, would be deposited, and those rules and regulations would be in effect on April 30, 2002.

I'd like to add that all of this is on the basis of two tacks: the first and most important is that the health and safety of all workers in British Columbia is appropriately looked after. Second is that these regulations are implemented in a manner that has the least impact on the survival of small businesses throughout British Columbia.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant with a supplementary question.

J. Kwan: Then the answer from the minister to my question is clearly no. All of the consultation work was already done prior to the decision having been made. The Premier, during the election, said over and over again that he would not interfere with independent agencies like WCB. The Coalition of B.C. Businesses and the Council of Construction Associations, with members who donated huge sums — huge sums — to the B.C. Liberals, think that they can get whatever they want from the WCB out of this government. The Liberals received tens of thousands of dollars in political contributions from pub and restaurant owners.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. I would urge the member to please put her question now.

J. Kwan: And clearly there were thousands of dollars provided to the Liberals, who wanted protection on WCB, on worker protection in the health and safety area.

To the minister, again: did that money buy a promise of political interference with WCB to water down the rules protecting workers from the harmful effects of secondhand smoke?

I'm not making light of the situation. The consultation process didn't occur. Clearly, in speaking with those that are going to be most directly affected on the capital costs of this, there is a will to accomplish clean air within the facilities.

Hon. G. Bruce: No, that clearly was not done. We were in a situation where, quite frankly, the regulations were being imposed without consultation. I have since had conversations with people who are in the business and believe there is very much a spirit and a will to accomplish this. It's very clear that this is the direction we are going in. These regulations will be implemented by April 30, 2002.

D. Chutter: To the Minister of Sustainable Resource Management. It's my understanding that this government is reviewing the decision on phase 1 of the Lillooet land and resource management plan. As I'm sure the minister is aware, this is an issue of huge concern to the resource-dependent communities of my riding as well as to those with environmental, recreation and tourist interests. Can the minister tell the people of my riding what he plans to do in his review of the Lillooet LRMP?

Hon. S. Hagen: Our government is living up to a commitment that was made during the last election campaign, and that's with regard to phase 1 of the Lillooet LRMP process. Local people who live and work in that area are very, very concerned that the decision that was announced by the previous government one day before the election was called may not have been made in good faith.

I want to make it clear to the House that the order-in-council declaring Spruce Lake Park remains in place. I have met with the groups who have been involved in the process and who live outside the area, mainly from Vancouver and Victoria. Tomorrow I'll be going to the Lillooet area to meet with the people who live and work in those communities.

G. Trumper: I would like to present a petition from the business community of the Alberni Valley and the Labour Council concerning the proposed smelter project for the Alberni Valley.

Hon. M. de Jong: Three reports to table today: the Ministry of Forests annual report for 1999-2000, the Ministry of Forests 2000-01 annual performance review and the 2000 annual report for the Forest Appeals Commission.

Hon. R. Coleman: On page 31 of the New Era document one of the bullets reads: "Fight child prostitution and youth crime with legislation aimed at providing greater protection to children at risk of exploitation and greater parental responsibility for children who commit property crimes." Bill 16, the Parental Responsibility Act, is part of that bullet and is part of meeting our new-era commitment in that section of our document.

The purpose of Bill 16 is to hold parents accountable for property loss or damage intentionally caused by their children. The bill is designed to make it easier for a person whose property is intentionally taken or damaged by a child to obtain financial compensation from the child's parents. It allows property owners and others entitled to possession of the property, such as tenants and lessees, to sue the child's parents in small claims court where a judge can order financial compensation of up to $10,000.

Currently, civil recourse for someone whose property is damaged by children is to sue the children — which is not usually worthwhile, because children usually do not have sufficient assets to satisfy a judgment — or to sue the parents. In order to successfully sue the parents, a claimant must prove that the parents were negligent in supervising their children or were otherwise responsible under the law. This can prove to be difficult.

This bill shifts the burden of proof from the person whose property was taken or damaged by a child to the child's parents. This means that in order to avoid responsibility, the parents must prove that they exercised reasonable supervision over the child and made reasonable efforts to prevent or discourage their children from engaging in the activity that caused the damage.

In this legislation the court may consider any of the following: the age and maturity of the child; the prior conduct of the child; the likelihood that the activity would result in property loss; psychological or medical disorders, psychological, physical or learning disabilities or emotional disturbances of the child; whether the likelihood of property loss arising from the child's conduct was reasonably foreseeable by the parent; whether the child was under the supervision of the parent when the child engaged in the activity that resulted in the property loss; if the child was not under the supervision of the parent when the child engaged in the activity that resulted in the property loss, whether the parent made reasonable arrangements for the supervision of the child; whether the parent has sought to improve his or her parenting skills by attending parenting courses or in any other manner; whether the parent has sought professional assistance for the child, designed to discourage activity of the kind that resulted in the property loss; psychological or medical disorders, psychological, physical or learning disabilities or emotional disturbances of the parent; any other matter that the court considers relevant to the determination.

In the New Era document we promised to introduce this legislation to provide for greater accountability by parents for property loss or damage caused by their children. With this bill, we are delivering on that promise. I am pleased to bring this legislation to the House. I am pleased to present it today on second reading, and I will have closing remarks at the end of the debate.

J. MacPhail: I am going to take some time on this legislation, the Parental Responsibility Act. It was legislation I wasn't expecting, so I paid very close attention, and I spent a lot of time thinking about this. I want to make sure that we have a fulsome discussion.

I didn't learn anything new from the minister, the Solicitor General. He certainly had said all of those things in a very short briefing when he introduced the legislation. But I also know that the minister is well aware that this legislation has caused a fair amount of discussion in the community, so I had hoped that perhaps he would have engaged a little bit more on his thinking behind bringing forward this legislation. I'm sure he will do that in his summary remarks.

Most of the Liberal agenda that's been invoked in this chamber so far — a lot of it — has been to undo past government actions. A lot of it's been clear that it was to take away the work that the NDP did and also to deliver on their corporate agenda. But this bill really is a new bill. It speaks clearly to a Liberal agenda that is solely of their own making. That's why I want to spend some time trying to understand this legislation. It's not about undoing past actions. It's not about solving a problem that was created by the previous government that this government ideologically differed with. Also, I think it's fair to say that it wasn't discussed much during the election, although it was part of the New Era document. There's no question about that.

We have to examine this legislation in the context that this is the first initiative that the government has

delivered solely out of its own creation for B.C. families. I want to know…. I need to understand, I should say, why. What's the thinking behind this? It's very, very much targeted toward the family unit. It talks about parental responsibility. It's about our children and our relationship with our children as parents.

There have been actions that the government has taken concerning families, as I've said, in the past weeks. But that was to undo NDP initiatives. They scuttled the universal child care program of the previous government. They cut new job programs. Their tax cuts were very heavily weighted toward the wealthiest of families.

But this is the first initiative that isn't undoing the work of the past. I must say that while I was reading the legislation — and I talked to many people about it — and while I was considering what position I should take on this legislation, I have come up with more questions that need to be asked than have been answered so far.

I know there is a mixed reaction from the public. The Solicitor General himself can see that from the debate that's going on. It's clear, I think it's safe to say, that editors of our newspapers and political pundits generally say it's a good step. They say this legislation that the Liberals are delivering is good. But I'm also surprised by that editorial support, because the editorial support for this legislation flies in the face of many of the demands that those same editorial page editors have asked of governments in the past.

Somehow I wonder if the editorial page editors sitting in their offices are thinking in a way that's really from a generation past. I also wonder how many women editorial page editors had input to the support for this bill. Probably those editorial page editors…. It was virtually unanimous in the newspapers that cover my living area — the Vancouver Sun, the Vancouver Province, the Times Colonist. I've read some of the regional clippings. There's actually a more thoughtful approach to this matter in the regional newspapers.

The editorial page comment has come from this premise: the bill is good because it's a path to proper parenting. That sums it up, across the board. I think that kind of thinking — that somehow this is a path to proper parenting, and thank God this legislation was introduced — really has echoes of a chasm, of civilization's old generation gap. Those people supporting this bill are of a generation past. I can actually picture the editorial page editors. They push back their desk chairs, and they probably say: "In my day this kind of thing wouldn't have been allowed to happen." Or they're saying: "Why can't parents just control their kids?" From that thought, they wrote that this legislation makes good sense on a path to good parenting.

I suspect that perhaps that's what some British Columbians are saying about the legislation as well. Without looking at the underpinnings of what this bill is supposed to do and is going to do, they think it's going to be the quick fix for good parenting.

But let's look at what today's reality is and what problem the Liberal government is trying to solve with the Parental Responsibility Act. I'm not clear. It would seem incredibly arrogant for a Liberal government to say that they have the answer to good parenting. It would be wrong for them to say that as well. So what is the problem they're trying to solve? Property crime is not on the rise. The Solicitor General gave no information to suggest otherwise. He didn't say: "We have such a problem with property crime, particularly amongst youth, that this bill is essential."

So what is it? For what possible reason could this legislation exist? There are already safeguards in place to have property owners make their rightful assertion for recompense. The common law as it stands today allows any property owner to pursue action against a parent. That goes on all the time.

The common law deals with this matter each and every month. It already says that if somehow the property owner can prove negligence on the part of the parent, that parent has to be held accountable for the actions of the child. Those cases are ruled on each and every month, and often there's recompense given to the property owner.

This legislation isn't trying to solve the problem of a gap in the way our courts operate. Our courts operate with the assistance of common law to solve the problem of grossly negligent parents not holding their children accountable for the damage that they do. This legislation wasn't needed to achieve that; it wasn't needed to achieve that at all.

What about vandalism around our schools? That is an area where children congregate, thank goodness. Our schools have playing fields attached to them. Many of our schools stay open in the evening. Well, they do now; I worry about that being available. Our community schools stay open in the evenings and provide a place for youth to play basketball and volleyball, for youth to do evening activities of a recreational nature that keep them off the street. So sometimes, just by virtue of the concentration of activities at schools, there's vandalism committed against schools. So do we need this legislation to give extra protection to those areas?

J. MacPhail: Well, in fact the School Act already provides for recompense against parents who are negligent. In fact, I'll read this. The School Act says, in section 10: "If property of a board or a francophone education authority is destroyed, damaged, lost or converted by the intentional or negligent act of a student or a francophone student…." Section 10 goes on to provide a statutory cause of action against parents, jointly and severally with students, for the student damage to the school board property. That exists; that's in place right now.

Of course, this School Act doesn't need to be in place with the Parental Responsibility Act. In fact, the Parental Responsibility Act acknowledges that this already exists. So the Parental Responsibility Act isn't

solving a problem that exists on our school sites. There's already a legislative solution in place.

I think also that those who deal each and every day with youth in the community and youth that are in trouble with the law have universally come out and said this bill is unnecessary. They scratch their heads in bewilderment about what the legislation is trying to solve.

Richard Schwartz, who is a Victoria lawyer that actually chairs the youth section of the Canadian Bar Association, said that the B.C. law targeting parents is unlikely to yield compensation to people whose property has been vandalized by children, because their parents are often in no position to pay. It would be far better, he said, to try and help families earlier, when kids are young, by giving them the support they need. Schwartz also said the new law doesn't offer much of an advantage to aggrieved property owners, because there's nothing stopping them from going to small claims court to take such action now.

He did note, though, that there is a shift in the onus of proof. Rather than requiring — the way it is in every other case in court — that the victim proves the claim, this new law requires that parents have to rebut a claim. Parents are guilty until proven innocent; that's what this law does. That's what this law says right now: we're going to change the test of proof so that the parents have to rebut the claim. So it's not a matter of anybody coming forward and saying to the parents: "Here's what we allege, and here's our proof." The parents have to use their resources to fight back before the proof is actually given.

I think that others have also come out against this by saying that it's flawed, perhaps the very people that the Solicitor General thought he was catering to. Ben Doyle, the Chairman of CAVEAT B.C., a very well respected victims-of-crime group, is concerned that the law lets older teenagers off the hook by shifting responsibility for their actions to their parents. To quote Ben Doyle: "Many parents are doing everything they can, but they just can't control their kids." He said that he would have preferred to see the law limited to younger children.

University of British Columbia law professor Peter Burns said that the whole concept of reasonable control on the part of parents is a difficult one when you're dealing with teenagers, especially in an urban setting. While its objectives are laudable, "I'm not sure the legislation will be very effective," he said.

There's many more that have commented on the value of this legislation. There we have it — the debate about those who are in favour of it, the editorial page editors, and those who work every day with youth who find themselves in positions of vandalism. And they're saying this won't work. Is this act creating or solving a problem? I spent a lot of time reading it to say: what exactly is the balance there? I have come to the conclusion that this act is creating a problem for many families in British Columbia.

During the Health Services estimates, I said something extemporaneously that came from my heart, as I was wishing the Minister of Health Services well in his job. I said that he had a very difficult, complex job and that I wished him well, but that there was one ministry that was tougher to administer and to provide direction for British Columbians. That was the Ministry of Children and Family Development. I surprised myself that I said that. I certainly hadn't been prepared to say that, but I was thinking about the time when I was in his shoes and the Minister of Health Planning's shoes and the challenges that they face. What I couldn't help but remember were the very difficult challenges I faced when I was Minister of Social Services, which is now the Minister of Children and Family Development. At that time, the ministry was an amalgamation of two ministries: the Ministry of Human Resources and the Ministry for Children and Families.

My family background didn't prepare me for what I would have to deal with as what I'll call the minister of children and families, because that's what people think about now. It didn't prepare me for that. I had not been faced with personal circumstances and am thankful for not having to face those circumstances. Nevertheless, there are thousands and thousands of families in this province who face situations of violence, abuse and socioeconomic circumstances that don't allow them all of the great avenues to be the best parent possible.

I remember one situation I faced as the minister responsible that broke my heart. Children in foster care were provided by the state with a clothing allowance that allowed them, with good management from foster parents, to get clothing that matched those of students who weren't in care, and yet parents on income assistance couldn't afford to provide that clothing. They felt the pain of their children for not being able to have the resources to match the resources of a child in care. Some income assistance families said to me: "What's to stop me from getting the best possible circumstances for my child? And the way to do that is to put my child in care." They just asked that question. It was a heartbreaking question, because I didn't have a good answer for it. But it does bear fully on the impact of this legislation.

Perhaps there are peer pressures children face that a parent can't withstand. Perhaps there are peer pressures about how one behaves in public, how teenagers behave or what teenagers need in order to be accepted by their peers. Perhaps there are peer pressures that parents simply cannot — they don't have the resources available — resist.

There were other situations I had to deal with as the minister of children and families that reduced me to tears each and every day. I thought, how about the people in the field who deal with those situations on a 24-hour, seven-days-a-week basis? How do they cope? And the social workers — I'm talking about social workers and family support workers — had great skill in assisting families with parenting. They had great skill with assisting young parents. Children having children is what we used to call them. I'm sure that is what we still call them: young teenage moms and young teenage dads having children so that by the time a par

ent is barely turning 30, they're raising a teenager. The social workers faced very difficult circumstances in those situations in trying to support the parents.

Sometimes the consequences were devastating; the consequences for both the parents and the child in those circumstances were devastating. Nevertheless, social workers each and every day tried to assist those parents. Social workers always tried to assist those parents so that the child could stay in the family unit and not have to go into care. Those are the kinds of families that this legislation is targeting.

Are the economic circumstances becoming better in our low-income areas so that parents have greater resources to deal with the pressures of parenting? Well, I just read this article in the Vancouver Sun yesterday. It's for the area of Surrey. Surrey is a burgeoning community. I think it's the fastest-growing community in British Columbia now, and it's a community that takes great pride in its socioeconomic mix. But it has a socioeconomic mix. It's not West Vancouver; it's not North Vancouver; it's not Port Alberni. It has a range of families. The two north Surrey communities are facing many of the social problems that have existed for decades in Vancouver's downtown east side. The community has just received a study that shows they don't have the community resources to deal with those pressures.

The pressures that they can't deal with are having enough community resources to support families. They're also facing huge pressures between non-immigrant and immigrant communities, reports the study. That's just one example. That's where our families are able to afford to live and raise their children, from a housing perspective, in the lower mainland. So the issue with Surrey isn't about bad parenting. The issue that Surrey faces is about not enough community resources to support their families and the pressures that the community faces.

Does this legislation help families? Does this legislation build on the experience that we've had as holders of public office over the last decades?

Well, the social workers, the B.C. Association of Social Workers, had discussed this exact kind of thing. The B.C. Association of Social Workers has views. They're one group of views. Clearly, the minister seems to think there's something exciting about me talking about the B.C. Association of Social Workers. All I'm doing here is adding to the discussion about areas that I've heard from; that's all.

So the B.C. Association of Social Workers has said that a more considered review shows that the legislation will, at best, have mixed effects and, at worse, will have dire consequences for the children and women of the province. Anyone with even a cursory understanding of the issues related to abuse knows that family abusers can and will exploit legislation such as this to justify and even intensify tyrannical and violent treatment of their families.

Unwittingly or carelessly, this legislation creates a loophole as large as, and for, a fist — a loophole that will encourage and be used to rationalize (1) the discipline of spouses by an abusive partner for not keeping the kids on a tight leash or (2) the righteous punishment, including extreme, vengeful corporal or emotional abuse, of children who expose their families to these legislated penalties.

The B.C. Association of Social Workers deserves to have their opinion considered in this matter. I've had many discussions with the B.C. Association of Social Workers over the years. There have been times when I have agreed with their views, and there have been times when we've agreed to disagree. But the B.C. Association of Social Workers are on the front line each and every day.

J. MacPhail: Mr. Speaker, I am shocked that this is the kind of situation where the members opposite feel that heckling is appropriate. I really am. I'm actually trying to make a case for a legitimate discussion here. The members are heckling in a way that's just unbelievable. It would be far more appropriate for them to join in the discussion and state their strongly held views for the chamber.

The B.C. Association of Social Workers comprises social workers who work on the front line each and every day. And whether or not the Solicitor General feels that their opinion needs to be discounted.... Perhaps all he needs to do is explain why their opinion needs to be discounted and why their opinion perhaps wasn't solicited before he brought in the legislation. It's a very interesting letter, and I think it needs to be given the full light of day. If indeed the government says that the B.C. Association of Social Workers, in their assertion that this legislation will cause more problems than it creates…. They need to explain that. That's all they need to do. They need to meet and explain that.

There's another aspect of this legislation that I'm not sure the government has thought about. If they have, then we need to hear about how that consultation was taken into consideration for the development of this legislation. That's about the impact that this legislation will have on families new to Canada.

There are wide cultural differences in family rearing. I, again, learned this by living in one of the most culturally diverse communities in Canada. It's a wonderfully diverse community that Vancouver-Hastings represents: Italians, Portuguese, Germans, Chinese. The Indo-Canadian population in my neighbourhood is small but is there. I always noted with great interest, when I was a new parent, the different parenting styles amongst the different and diverse communities. I was often envious, actually, of the different parenting styles because the only child that ever seemed to cry in public was mine. I used to discuss parenting techniques with parents of different backgrounds. They reassured me that I was not alone in the world and that all parents go through some very difficult times at all points of child-rearing.

Nevertheless, there were cultural differences, and the government of the day saw that those cultural dif-

ferences needed to be recognized and parents needed to be assisted in their parenting as they integrated into the Canadian community.

There was a program — I hope it's still in existence — called Nobody's Perfect. When I was the minister responsible for children and families, I met regularly with parents who were taking the Nobody's Perfect parenting course. That was a course, just as it says, that acknowledged the fact that nobody was perfect, and it really helped families new to Canada to adjust to the demands of parenting as they existed here in British Columbia. In fact, the parenting courses were a two-way exchange about parenting rules and parenting norms of other countries — cultural norms for parenting that existed outside of Canada — and how those parenting norms could be integrated into Canada. There was always an explanation of…. If there were issues of different cultural styles that butted up against the law in Canada, then how the law works was explained to the parents.

One of the issues that used to come up amongst parents in these groups was that many immigrant parents were having the role and responsibility of the Ministry for Children and Families explained to them for the first time. That service, that government support agency, sometimes didn't exist in their communities. When it was explained to them that the Ministry for Children and Families had to take into account the interests of the child as paramount, that sometimes parents failed to put the interests of the child first and that children would then be taken into the care of the government, immigrant families were horrified. They were horrified for this reason: they were worried that they would not be able to meet the standards of the community and that their children would be taken into care.

It was from such a point of love for their children that they were worried about that and that they went through a series of questions with me and with the teachers of the program. They said: "Am I allowed to spank my child? Grandma looks after my children all day, and grandma has very strongly held views about how the child should be reared. Am I allowed to discipline my child in any way? What's my relationship with the school and the teacher in terms of the discipline of my child?"

All of those questions were asked because they were new to Canada and new to the parenting and discipline norms that exist here in our community. This bill probably doesn't alleviate the concerns of parents new to Canada at all. Here's what they're faced with: parents new to Canada now have the threat of a $10,000 fine if their children aren't parented properly or if their children misbehave in the community.

My colleague from Vancouver–Mount Pleasant regales me with many stories of her upbringing. She comes from an extremely loving family. It's a very big family. But she faced times in her upbringing where there were differences in understanding between her parents and herself about what was the norm in society. There are children living in my community who face those differences every day. They go to school, and they're surrounded by children of a culture different from theirs. They see the demands that society sometimes puts on children about what they need to wear, what they need to do, what they need to play. They go home at night to their parents, who may not speak English, and, with the young mind of a 12-year-old or a 13-year-old or a 14-year-old, have to explain those differences to their parents. Sometimes they fail to explain the differences. Sometimes the parents have no understanding of what pressures that child may be under at school or have any understanding or capability, because of their newness to Canada, to help the child properly integrate into society.

Our schools have excellent programs helping with this — absolutely excellent programs for helping children to stop violence, to prevent bullying and to properly integrate into the school community. Those programs are working; they're working extremely well. So it's not that kind of problem that this legislation is trying to resolve.

I also think that there are many aspects of life in a society for a 12- or 13- or 14- or 15-year-old that parents struggle to deal with each and every day. It is the norm in British Columbia that where there are two parents, both parents work. That's not every case. We know that there are stay-at-home parents working inside the home. But if there are two parents, the norm is for both parents to work. Not every family in British Columbia can afford a nanny. In fact, I think it would be the rarity where two-parent families or one-parent families who work can afford a nanny.

Working parents have to rely on other resources. Parents provide well for their children through child care, yet this government is cutting the child care programs for families. This government is saying: "Not only are we going to hold you responsible, but we're going to hold you responsible while we're taking away the underpinning supports for you to make sure that your kids are safe and healthy and law-abiding." I can't understand the mixed message that this government is sending to parents.

I also know that parents rely heavily on community programs for teens. I'm sure that every other member will be able to stand up and brag about their community programs. I know that many communities throughout British Columbia have been extremely innovative in their community programs for youth. Kamloops is one example of a city that takes very seriously its youth community programs. Victoria is another, but my community is as well.

At Hastings School, an inner-city school in my riding, a third of the school are French immersion children. The rest of the school is in the English program. It's an inner-city school, and it's funded as an inner-city school. There are teachers there, educators there, who work day and night, and have worked day and night, to get evening programs, weekend programs and summer programs for their rambunctious students. They've put in evening basketball programs. They've put in just a wealth of community programs to make

All right, that was kind of a judgment thing there. But I'll admit to it that I'm an aging parent as well. These programs have worked very well in keeping children not only off the street but in a very healthy and safe environment. The business community has noted that. The business community around Hastings School has said: "Wow, things are different now that those community programs are in place."

I can't for the life of me understand why the government wants to take such a punitive approach to parenting, when indeed there's no problem that they're trying to solve here. There are avenues available for property owners right now under the School Act or common law, the small claims court, to have recompense paid. There's no balance to the Liberal agenda for parents. It's not like they're saying: "After we give you all of these supports, parents, and help you best through the very difficult time there is in raising children, only then if you fail will we impose the penalty of $10,000." So I have sadly come to the conclusion that the legislation creates more difficulty for the community and more problems for our society than it solves.

I suspect that this legislation will pass, although I will not be supporting it. I hope that the haste with which this legislation was introduced will also temper its effects. We've seen that in other jurisdictions, the legislation upon which this is modelled was so flawed that it's virtually not used. The only thing I can hope for is that this legislation will be tested in the same way and have the same fate. I think this is one area where the Legislature should have a very thorough and thoughtful debate so that members of the legislative chamber can vote properly, based on what's best for their community.

B. Penner: I intend to keep my remarks brief, but I would like to address a few of the comments made by the NDP member for Vancouver-Hastings. I think the member eviscerated her own opposition to the bill by pointing with approval to the School Act provisions imposing parental liability, because in some ways the School Act provisions which impose parental liability offer far fewer defences to parents than does the proposed Parental Responsibility Act. If the member had spent any time taking a look at it and thinking about it in a thoughtful way, she would have discovered that in a matter of moments.

For the benefit of those, like the member opposite, who have not had the opportunity to read the School Act provision, I'll do it now. Section 10 states: "If property of a board or a francophone education authority is destroyed, damaged, lost or converted by the intentional or negligent act of a student or a francophone student, that student and that student's parents are jointly and severally liable to the board or francophone education authority in respect of the act of that student."

Now, the School Act imposes no limitation on the maximum award that can be registered against a parent whose child is responsible for the damage. In contrast, the Parental Responsibility Act does provide a maximum amount of $10,000, thereby offering additional protection to parents of wayward children.

In addition, the Parental Responsibility Act sets out two specific defences that the court must make available to parents who are on the receiving end of a court action. They are whether or not the parent was exercising reasonable supervision over the child at the time the child engaged in an activity that caused the property loss and also whether they made reasonable efforts to prevent or discourage the child from engaging in the kind of activity that caused the property loss. Those are two specific defences that are not contained within the School Act, and so they are additional protection to parents under the Parental Responsibility Act.

Yet the NDP member, who says she is against the Parental Responsibility Act, has no problem with the sweeping provisions in the School Act. Certainly, if she did, her government had ten years during their reign of terror in the province to change the School Act provision, and they did not see fit to do so. By their inaction they indicated their support for the general concept of holding parents responsible.

What I believe the intent of the Parental Responsibility Act is, is to move that responsibility a little bit further — it's not a giant leap, but it's a modest leap — while ensuring there are additional protections provided to parents and additional safeguards and measures that the court must consider before imposing liability on parents for the actions of their children. It is hardly a giant leap, because again, as indicated, the principle is clearly articulated in section 10 of the School Act without allowing for any maximum threshold.

I'd like to touch briefly on her remarks about young offenders and talking about the challenges of dealing with people of a tender age who get into trouble with the law. For a few years I practised law in Chilliwack, and a good part of my practice was composed of dealing with alleged young offenders. I can tell you that as a member of the bar doing my utmost to, first of all, provide good service for my clients but also, hopefully, to send them properly on their way so they would not encounter the court system again in the future, I was considerably frustrated by some parents — not all, but some — who clearly were in a position to exercise a greater involvement in their children's lives and chose not to.

I'm thinking today, after listening to the NDP member's remarks, of one specific family which, on the surface, was a picture-perfect family. The father, I believe, worked in the hospital. The mother was a teacher. Yet neither could bring themselves to show any interest in their young daughter's affairs nor bring themselves to attend court, even though the judge specifically directed that those parents be contacted and requested to attend. Eventually a warrant had to be issued to secure the attendance of those parents. Clearly, they were in a position to exercise much more involvement and interest in their young daughter's life

I suspect that this bill is really aimed at parents such as those, who can't be bothered in their busy lives, for whatever reason, to focus on their children. If this bill helps any children, then I think it's well worth doing.

The member opposite kept saying that this is something that hasn't been done in B.C. Maybe it's time that we try. Clearly, there are children in British Columbia who are in need of additional help, and I would like to think that the Legislature would be willing to take a chance to try and help children by encouraging greater interest on the part of their parents in those children's lives.

That's all I have to say. Again, I think the member from the NDP completely eviscerated her opposition to the Parental Responsibility Act by endorsing the principle contained within the School Act, which in some ways goes much further.

J. Kwan: When I looked at the legislation, it brought forward a lot of concerns for me. It made me ask questions as to the effectiveness that I think the government hopes to achieve with this legislation. It brought up the question: if the attempt is to assist young people, particularly those who may come into conflict with the law in the area of property crimes, then is the avenue to address that issue with legislation that says that when a young person comes into conflict with the law in that instance, we've got to look to the parents and say: "It's your fault"?

If that's the approach behind this legislation, which it appears to be, then you've got to ask the question: how would it be helpful in actually helping the young person and the family in preventing that act to begin with? Would it not be more prudent for government to look for programs and initiatives that are more preventative in nature as opposed to reactive? Would you not look for interventions that would help the family address some of these issues?

Often, when a person comes into conflict with the law, it's not just about parental negligence. There are a lot of issues at hand that may be the source. I think that has to be explored, as opposed to simply looking for a quick fix somehow. If a young person in this instance comes into conflict with the law in the property crime area, are we just going to turn around and say: "You, parents — or parent or the guardian of the young person — are now responsible"? It does raise, I think, an important question in terms of an approach to addressing a problem that the minister from the government side suggests he wants to address — that is, to create healthier communities and healthier young people.

You know, where similar legislation to this — the parental responsibility law — has been brought in, in other jurisdictions, it has been proven that it has not been successful. In one instance particularly, in Manitoba, where a similar law was brought in, when you review the effectiveness of this law, it shows that since 1997 only 14 files were claimed and only one was successful in its prosecution in all this time.

It also raises the question: are you creating an atmosphere which gives the impression that there's an alternative means of pursuing a property crime, which would actually not yield the result that one might be hoping for? Why would you do that and invest in a piece of legislation that has not been proven in other jurisdictions and think that somehow this would solve a complex issue, a complex problem with young people who sometimes do come in conflict with the law?

Legislation does exist for parents who are negligent with their children, with young people. There is already existing legislation to address that issue — on the basis of parental negligence. That has been proven to be effective, and therefore it already exists. Why, then, would you bring forward a piece of legislation that has not been proven and which I don't think actually addresses the core of the issue?

When a young person commits crime, there may be many, many reasons. Sometimes it may be insufficient supervision by their parents, but often that is not the entire picture. Often it is not the fault of the parents. A lot of times parents work very hard. I believe parents generally work very hard to raise their children, and they put in their best efforts, but there are many influencing factors. Peer pressure certainly is one of them, in terms of having young people coming into conflict with the law.

There are many, many factors. Would it not perhaps be wiser for government to investigate the complex issue of why young people sometimes do come into conflict with the law and to address those issues and invest in preventive activities, in programs that may help support parents in their effort to raise children, as opposed to penalizing them with a piece of legislation that says: "If your children should come into conflict with the law, we will then put over your head a potential fine of $10,000"?

I think it also sends the wrong message to young people themselves. I should also preface by saying that generally speaking, young people in British Columbia are very, very productive. From time to time, yes, there are some that do come into conflict with the law, but by and large…. We don't actually ever hear about the successes of young people, how they contribute to our communities, how they contribute to their families in every sense. They are very undermined, I think, in that way, because the media chooses to sensationalize the incidences where there has been misbehaviour or misconduct.

I think this piece of legislation also serves to send mixed messages to young people. What you're saying to them is that on the one hand, you're accountable for your actions, but then again you're really not, because your parents are accountable for your actions. It takes away completely, I think, the essence of accountability for young people as they're growing up, as they're learning. Their own personhood no longer exists. Your action is now, under this piece of legislation, the re-

sponsibility of your parents. I think that's the wrong message to send. It's an inconsistent message to send to young people.

In some cases they may even be young people who are rebelling against their parents. They may well be engaging in misbehaviour or misconduct, if you will, or come into conflict with the law because they are rebelling against their parents in some way. Would this piece of legislation not actually encourage them, promote them further on this path? I really don't think that the logic behind this piece of legislation has been thought through.

Maybe the government should actually create a panel, as it often does — you know, with WCB on the smoking ban issue, where all of the conclusive work has been done by experts, by an independent panel. All of that work's been done, and the evidence clearly says that secondhand smoke is bad for workers in the work environment. Therefore the WCB has brought forward a piece of law with recommendations to say that we should actually ban smoking in the work environment, in restaurants and in pubs. Yet government decided that they would create another panel to go and do all of the work that has already been done by experts.

But in this unproven area there is no indication by government to say: "Hey, you know what? There is an issue with youth crime, so let's put together a group of people, a panel, to review what could be done, how we could be constructive in addressing the issue and not just be punitive in our approach and perhaps look and see how we can better address the issue." Instead, government has decided to come forward with a piece of legislation that is unproven — a piece of legislation that may well have the opposite effect to the goals that it's trying to achieve. It may even propel young people into conflict with the law, because they are rebelling against their parents, for whatever reason, in those instances. Therefore, I fear that this piece of legislation would actually backfire in those instances.

In the cases of parents who are already struggling to get by without enough resources, it threatens them, I think, with a fine that they can't possibly pay. This government is taking away resources from parents at the same time as it is eliminating the Child Care B.C. program, which provides good child care to parents to ensure that they do have the best opportunity to grow up in a healthy and professional environment. That is being threatened, with every single social program under its core review and some of them even before the core review.

If government wants to support young people and their families in the parenting role, then you would think that the government would not take away child care programs. There have been numerous studies, time and time and time again, that say that early childhood prevention is the best method of ensuring that young people have the best opportunities to succeed in life, to finish school, to advance to post-secondary education, to not come into conflict with the law.

We have a proven program of child care for young people. Government decided to cut its funding for the program. How does that make sense? The government says, on the one hand, here's the goal they want to achieve, and when proven solutions have been found, they decide to cut funding for those areas and embark on a path that is unproven and punitive and potentially could have a very devastating impact on young people and their families in the long term.

Even the board of trade, the mentors, the group of people that I know this government looks up to and worships, has said universal child care is needed, is important and should be supported. Even the board of trade, the business community, have come forward and advocated for universal child care. Yet this government has stepped back, turned back the clock, to cut funding for child care programs.

In situations where a family's income level is low, they may have no real opportunity, as victims of the crime, to pursue a claim. The family simply doesn't have the resources to pay for a claim being pursued.

As was mentioned in the letter from the B.C. Association of Social Workers, the front-line workers in the field, who are dealing with young people and families, have great fears that this piece of legislation will perhaps simply escalate abuse in the family for the children and for the spouse. That is also, I think, a very serious issue, not one to be belittled and to be mocked by the minister and other members of the government who heckled my colleague from Vancouver-Hastings when she spoke on this issue. The B.C. Association of Social Workers, I know, care about their work and the people. That's why they chose the field of social work. And they have tremendous fears of what this piece of legislation may do to provoke a negative reaction and more harm to the young person and to the family.

This issue is serious. The minister just says: "Well, do you agree with it? Do you support it?" It's not an issue of whether we agree with it or support it. The fact is that we have front-line workers who are faced with these issues every single day, experts out in the field, the rank-and-file people who have written to every member in this House a four-page letter raising legitimate concerns and fears about what this legislation could do. All the minister can do is say: "Well, it's not legitimate." He just wants to belittle it as though somehow the B.C. Association of Social Workers is not valid or that their opinion doesn't count just because they differ from that of the government. Guess what, hon. Speaker. There are people in British Columbia who care very much about British Columbians and about young people and their families and who actually may have something to offer that may differ from government's opinion. And you know what? Those opinions are worthy of consideration. They are worthy of the government taking some moments to review and to perhaps speak with them and consult with them.

The government talks about being an open and accountable government. Yet the minute there is some-

body who has a different opinion than theirs, it is discounted. Consultation is limited only to the people that they think, I suspect, agree with them, but not with people who have varying opinions — which is, of course, what a democracy is about. So it's disturbing for me to see this when I come back to the Legislature from my honeymoon. I see the attitude of the government, the minister who has introduced this bill and who just mocks the people who have raised legitimate concerns around this piece of legislation.

The minister may want to actually apply the government's own core review tests to this piece of legislation and save himself the trouble of having to junk it later. A much broader approach needs to be taken to make sure that our kids are healthy, raised properly and take responsibility for their actions and to create a broader, healthier community on the whole.

Hon. Speaker, I have grave concerns around this piece of legislation. I don't think it would be effective. I would much rather see the government invest its resources in preventative actions, in proven solutions that we know exist already, such as universal child care programs and initiatives, as opposed to embarking on perhaps what they think would be a quick fix to a very complex issue, which would be there on a case-by-case basis, existing for case-by-case individuals with varying circumstances.

It troubles me, as well, that custodians of young people would somehow also be responsible according to this piece of legislation. The individual may not be a parent but may be responsible as a custodian of the child. What about the Ministry of Children and Family Development, which has responsibility for children of the state? Would they then be held responsible for children who come into conflict with the law in this instance? Would the government itself be held accountable in that instance?

This legislation does not address that. It says: "Oh no, government is exempt, because we understand the complexity of the issues impacting what actions young people may take." But for individual children in their own respective families, there's a different story. There's a different application of standards being applied here, and that, too, causes me grave concern.

Hon. Speaker, I come from a community, Vancouver–Mount Pleasant, where we have a lot of challenges but also a lot of strengths. There are a lot of very low income families, and a lot of the children sometimes do come into conflict with the law. But there are a variety of reasons why they do that. Sometimes it is because they live in a poverty-stricken environment, and they're trying to survive on a day-by-day basis. As they struggle to survive, they may come into conflict with the law. I would think that in that instance, instead of coming forward with a piece of legislation that says, "You're responsible, so therefore we're going to fine you $10,000," as opposed to programs that would actually help assist a young person to move forward….

J. Kwan: Hon. Speaker, the members all of sudden have risen up and said that the $10,000 fine…. The piece of legislation actually talks about small claims court, an approach to go to small claims court in claiming damages in the amount of up to $10,000. In many respects it's equivalent to a fine for a family, if they are faced with that. The point is that…

J. Kwan: …the approach and the premise behind the approach here are flawed. That's the point I'm trying to make, which I know the government side is having grave difficulties with because when anyone disagrees with them, somehow their opinion is not valid in a democratic society. They feel that. I sense it in this room. Every time I or my colleague speak, they have an issue. When the B.C. Association of Social Workers raised their concerns, their concerns were belittled as though somehow they didn't count and ought not to count. Hon. Speaker, that is very disturbing.

This chamber is a place where every elected official is entitled to provide their opinion. It's not a caucus meeting for the Liberal government but rather a place for all opinions to be offered, heard and considered. That's what I and my colleague the member for Vancouver-Hastings are attempting to do with respect to this piece of legislation.

I'd like to also add a point that was made by the executive director of the lower mainland John Howard Society. She has pointed out that this is a financial quick fix that ignores the mitigating factors that lead to crime and abuse. She also asks the question of how hitting people with a financial bill is going to make them better parents. This doesn't help the already embattled parents. How does it serve the property owners if there's no way to pursue the claim?

I have to ask why this government has taken this kind of action. It seems fairly clear that this government was perhaps just shopping around for some right-wing boilerplate legislation which they thought might strike a chord with the more extreme elements of their party and could keep them happy. This legislation got its start in the United States. The funny thing is the only places in Canada that have brought it in are very right-wing governments, with the same willingness to pander to the extreme law-and-order constituency that is widely unsuccessful.

When a piece of legislation has been brought in, in other jurisdictions and, since 1997, only 14 cases have been filed and only one has been successful, you've got to ask the question: why would you pursue it? It doesn't make any sense. It doesn't make any sense when proven programs have been shown to work. Perhaps the investment of the government's attention should be placed there.

I will join my colleague from Vancouver-Hastings in voting against this legislation, and when committee stage arises, I will certainly have questions for the min-

ister with respect to this piece of legislation. I look forward to actual debate in the House by all members. I look forward to hearing other members who may have some thoughts on this issue. Perhaps some of them may even offer a different opinion than that of the government's bill and of the ministers. That, too, will be welcomed. I hope they feel they could do that in this House, because I know that sometimes it can be stifling with their own members preventing them from voicing their true thoughts and opinions.

Thank you for the opportunity to speak, and I look forward to asking questions in committee stage.

Hon. G. Plant: I'm glad to have the chance to take the member up on her invitation to hear more comments, but I should tell her that I rise to support the bill. I must say that it's going to be hard for me to improve upon the remarks that have already been made about the bill from this side of the House, but I wanted to try and add a few comments from my own perspective.

The first thing I want to say is this: I know it's a bill that's called the Parental Responsibility Act, and I know it is concerned with damage caused by the children of parents. In the speeches from the members of the opposition, I did hear a lot of reference to parents and to children. I listened closely to two quite detailed, comprehensive and lengthy speeches from the members opposite, and I listened in vain for a single reference to the word "victim." I did not hear, at any point in their exposition of their concerns around this bill, the slightest expression of any concern on the part of the members of the opposition for the victims of crime.

This bill in part is also about the victims of crime. It's a bill that will give to the victims of crime, in some circumstances, a remedy to recover the loss that they have sustained — damage to their property — and that they can recover to the value of the amount of the damage sustained in circumstances where they can bring themselves within this act. So, yeah, this bill is about parents; it's about children. But it is also about giving a right of action to people who are victims of crime.

I think it's important to pause for a little bit longer on that thought. Oftentimes, when we look at criminal activity by young people, we are rightly concerned about doing what we can — or causing the institutions in society that are there for that purpose to do what they can — to try to get the young offender back onto a path of becoming a constructive member of society. When we are dealing with young offenders, we are often pretty focused on the young offender and sometimes, perhaps, not as focused on the victim of the crime that the young offender has committed.

Whenever we talk about crime, even if we're talking about property loss, there are victims. There are people who have invested their savings or worked hard for months or years to acquire property which, in a moment of wanton, irresponsible maliciousness, is destroyed or damaged by someone. The question that is also a legitimate part of the discussion around this issue on the floor of this Legislature is: what are we doing to help the people who are the victims of crime?

This bill does, in a small but I believe meaningful way, speak to that question. It says that in some circumstances, the people who are the victims of crime deserve an opportunity to be assisted by this legislation to recover the damage they have sustained.

The question then is, if you will, an appropriation or allocation of loss, as between the victim of the crime and a parent who was in a position to exercise reasonable supervision but chose not to do so — someone who, as a parent, was in a position to make a difference in their kids' lives but chose not to do so for no good reason.

Who should bear the responsibility for the loss caused? Should it be the innocent victim who simply walked out of their front door one day and, through no action or fault of their own, looked into their driveway and saw that every window in their car had been smashed in? Or should it be the mom and dad across the street who've got a bank account as big as you can imagine but who don't care enough about their kids to pay the slightest attention to how they're spending their time?

I'm prepared to stand here and suggest that, as between those two opposites in that context, it's a reasonable thing to argue that the parents in that case should be the people who have to compensate for the loss sustained by the victim. I think that victims are an important part of this debate.

The next thing that I think is an important part of this debate is to talk a little bit about the larger context of young offender criminal activity or offences committed by young people. I have noticed in the media coverage that surrounded the introduction of this bill…. I must say it was a feature of the comments offered by members of the opposition here this afternoon to talk a lot about things that this bill manifestly does not attempt to address.

For example, there is talk about how restorative justice may be a better tool for dealing with first-time property offences by young offenders. It may well be. I know from my experience as an opposition critic that there are in fact, across this province, many good restorative justice programs. As a result of the implementation of this rather modest legislation that we're looking at today, not one single restorative justice program that existed in British Columbia yesterday will cease to exist tomorrow. All of the restorative justice programs — the community accountability programs, the diversion activities undertaken by the law enforcement officials and by Crown counsel…. All of those parts of our criminal justice system that are there to try to respond to the phenomenon of youth crime will be there again tomorrow, as they are there today.

You know, as time and circumstances permit, I'm pretty sure the Solicitor General is committed to the project of ensuring that where we can, we will improve the availability of those services. Nothing in this legislation compromises or qualifies or expresses the slight-

The Young Offenders Act is about to be reformed and renamed by the federal government. There are going to be new processes and new procedures instituted that we're going to have to cope with in the courts of British Columbia in the months and years to come. All of the services that exist around young offenders in the context of what was the Young Offenders Act and what will become the youth justice act…. All of those programs and services and projects that are an attempt to respond to the phenomenon of youth crime will continue to play a vital part in that response.

We're not introducing this bill so that we can say this is the only answer to the problem of youth crime. I apologize to those who feel that is the only way they can conduct a debate on complex public policy issues. I apologize that for me, the world is as complex as it appears to be. Those who seek to oversimplify it are dealing with the wrong guy when they take me on. We will continue to treat the problem of youth crime in a comprehensive and principled and broad-based way. I believe that one useful, thoughtful, creative, balanced and measured additional tool in the toolkit is this bill.

Let me give you a specific example of how it might come into play. Restorative justice is often about bringing together the victims of an act of vandalism with the perpetrator — sometimes with the parents and sometimes not. Restorative justice is usually voluntary — that is, as I have observed it. Most programs say they give the young offender the option: "We could put you through the criminal justice system, the youth offender justice system, or, if you want, we could try this restorative process where you may appear in front of a community accountability panel, and there may be some measures suggested by mutual agreement that will involve you doing community service or making reparations or paying restitution."

Sometimes, and maybe more often than should be the case, the parents or the young offender don't agree to participate in that process. For some reason or other, a restitution remedy may not be available in the criminal system. So in that context, is it useful to say to the victim of the crime that you have this additional tool to use to go to small claims court to recover what is, frankly, in the scheme of things for many, many British Columbians, a relatively modest, not enormous…? We're not talking about hundreds of thousands or millions of dollars here. We're talking about the price of a few broken windows or a smashed-in car roof — those sorts of things. We're saying to the victims: "You can go to court and sue to recover your losses."

If you see this bill in the context of the overall system of our response to the problem or the phenomenon of young offenders, and you see it as merely one element in that overall response, then it starts to take on its proper perspective. In that light I think it can be seen as a useful tool. Let me be clear about one aspect of that. It doesn't have to be used 25,000 times a year for it to be, nonetheless, a useful tool on the occasions when it is invoked. I don't have the aspiration for this act that it will be used 25,000 times a year. That is because I see it only as one relatively modest tool in a toolkit that has a variety of tools in it and that, goodness knows, probably could use a few more tools.

Let me move to a third general point. This is to respond in part to some of the comments made by the opposition leader. The opposition leader is partly right when she says that some forms of laws are already open to victims to seek to recover the damages they have sustained from the parents of the child who caused the loss. I'm going to say some more about that in a moment, but let's be clear about the implications of that observation. What she is saying, in effect, is that the basic principle underlying this act is already present in the law. Now, I have never heard her attack that basic principle in the law. One of two things, I suppose, flows from that. Well, it doesn't really matter. It's clear to me from the position she's in that most of the rest of her argument is fatally flawed and undermined by the first point she makes. That is, if the first point she makes is true, then most of the rest of her argument is false. If it is in fact already part of our legal fabric that, in some circumstances, parents can be made civilly liable for damage caused by their children, then most of the complaints out there in the world around this act are, with great respect, misplaced because they don't speak to that issue. They don't become arguments for changing the basic principles of vicarious liability in respect of actions and damage caused by children.

The members opposite had ten years in government to take that principle on, and they never did. As my colleague the member from Chilliwack points out, these principles of common law are also given effect in the School Act, which I think came into force some years before the last government took office but certainly remained in force throughout the term of the previous government. I must say this: in one or two cases, the application of those principles exposed people to liability in the hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of dollars for schools being burned down. In that context — and they were quite highly publicized situations — I don't recall ever hearing from the government a suggestion that there was something wrong with the notion of vicarious liability in the School Act. I think we can draw some conclusions from that.

What this bill does is make some changes to those principles of vicarious liability in what I think is a principled and relatively modest and balanced way. It takes some elements of the common law that the opposition leader talked about and puts them in what I think is a pretty clear statutory framework that says: "Here are the circumstances in which you have this additional right to go to small claims court to recover these types of losses to the extent that you can prove them, subject to a range of defences."

I don't see anything in this bill, with respect, that reverses onus. What I do see in this bill is an opportunity for a plaintiff who has experienced loss to recover that loss, to prove their cause of action and then to listen to the defendant make defences. I must say that

when you read the defences available under this act and you read the host of considerations that a judge is entitled to take into account in determining whether or not to grant liability under the act, the very least you could say about it is that it is a fair and balanced list in terms of accommodating all the concerns I have heard out there about problem kids, kids who can't be supervised, kids who are too old to be meaningfully supervised, parents who are not in a position to exercise reasonable supervision, and the like.

You know, I think that if reasonable people were to sit around the table and ask, "What are the situations where it would be appropriate to ensure that victims of property crime could recover damages for the loss they have sustained from the parents of the child who caused the loss, and what are the circumstances where it would not be reasonable for that to happen?" people who are prepared to be reasonable and objective about things, sitting around the table, would come up with a list that's pretty similar to the relevant factors contained in this bill. I think they would come up with something that's pretty close to — in fact, exactly — what this bill says. That's why I have argued before and I argue today that it's a pretty reasonably balanced bill.

The argument made by some people is that it will affect those who can least afford it. Clearly, there are many parents who experience economic hardship or distress in their lives who are also having a challenge raising their kids. Clearly, government has an obligation within the limits of the fiscal resources available to it to try to come up with programs that will help parents meet those challenges and that will also help the kids who sometimes get into trouble with the law. If you harken back to the situation we began with, there are also going to be situations where the interests of the victim who has suffered a loss through no fault of their own are also a legitimate part of this equation.

In my experience there are very few people who will commence a lawsuit against someone that they know cannot pay. I mean, people are apt to do the darndest things. That's the great part about life in a free and democratic society: people are entitled to do the darndest things. On rare occasions I have accepted instructions from clients in my past life as a lawyer where people were determined to sue, notwithstanding the fact there was no prospect of recovering anything. I can tell you that in every single one of those instances, the client afterwards regretted the fact that they had paid me a lot of money to achieve absolutely nothing.

Although I personally enjoyed the experience, I suppose, but that might not be accurate either. I even think that the vast majority of lawyers want to participate in constructive dispute resolution processes. So when you take this act out for a walk in the community that is British Columbia, I don't think you're going to find very many occasions where someone exercises the claim that they have the right to make under this act against someone who has no ability to pay. But I suppose it could also be said: "All right, so what happens if someone does that?"

Well, that's an interesting thought. Remember that the parent who is brought to court as a defendant under this act and is sued successfully will be, by definition, a parent who has not exercised a reasonable degree of supervision over their child. They'll be a parent that by definition cannot look at any of the itemized defences and get comfort from them. Is it a bad thing that that parent be brought to account in a court of law to listen to someone say to them: "Your child damaged my property. Your child injured me; your child caused me a loss. Don't you feel some sense of obligation around that? You brought this child into the world; I didn't. It was your child who damaged my property; I didn't. Don't you feel some sense of obligation around that?"

Is it a bad thing that that sort of accountability should take place from time to time? I don't think so. I think that maybe on the rare occasion where that's likely to occur, it might not be a bad thing at all.

I don't think this bill is the complete answer to the problem of youth criminal activity in the province of British Columbia. I don't make that claim for this piece of legislation. Therefore, people who say in response to this legislation, "It fails because it is not the complete answer to the problem of youth justice," are engaging in a dialogue that makes no sense to me.

I do not say that this bill is anything more than a modest part of a large and complicated puzzle, and I do not say anything other than that we as a government are committed to continue the programs that are also part of that puzzle and to continue to do our job as administrators of a justice system to ensure that the justice system is there to do the best it can in a variety of ways for young offenders. I think all of those things will continue as they ought to continue, and I think this bill is a useful addition to that entire spectrum of programs, rights, responsibilities and obligations.

I recognize in saying that that the challenge we all face as legislators is not to claim too much for what we do but to be measured in our claim about what we do and to defend, on the basis of principle, the things we do but to ensure that people understand the limits on what we're seeking to do. In that context I think this bill is worth supporting, and I am pleased to join with the government and, I hope, all members of the House in supporting this bill in second reading.

K. Stewart: I'd first like to thank the Attorney General for all of his comments earlier. His eloquent defence of the victims' rights will allow me to limit my comments to what I originally planned.

In an earlier career I worked in the youth justice field. In those ten years I worked with hundreds of youths and many families. The bill that's before us today would, in my opinion, give us another avenue in which to add to the ability to deal with youth and crime in our society. There are many good programs for youth today, and our goal should be to use the most appropriate program and activities in dealing with our situation.

The purpose of this legislation, from my perspective, is not to be targeting low-income families. It's not to be aimed at taking youth from families. This was suggested in some of the earlier comments. Obviously, the purpose of any bill that comes before the House should be to enhance society and to enhance our ability to govern ourselves. There are many families that I came across in the ten years of working with youth where this exertion of an ability to deal with property damage within the family and to engage the family in the activities of that youth would have been very productive. That opportunity wasn't always available to us. There were other means suggested whereby families that were victims could pursue this, but this gives a broader range and, in many cases, is a more specific piece of legislation available to them to do that.

I would also like to talk a little bit about the parental involvement in this. If a youth goes out and commits some property crime — in many cases, property crime is the first type of activity that the police and the authorities are involved in with the youth — at that early intervention stage the family can be brought into that instead of being isolated from the youth. In many cases, the isolation is simply because the courts and the youth workers, the probation officers, take on that role to deal with the youth instead of engaging the family in a more fully participatory method. Somehow the family does get cut out, and they are not drawn into it. If the family is part of the action and not just the parent of a youth involved in the action, I think there's more family involvement within that. There's more justification for the family to take note and become involved, because they are part of that action.

So again, I do appreciate the earlier comments of my colleagues talking about the involvement of the officers of the court and looking at the perspective of the victims and how that impacts this legislation. I won't go over that, but I do want to say that from the practical experience of ten years of working with youth and their families, I see that there is a real need for this type of legislation. It will fit a certain group that has been left out in the past.

D. MacKay: In my previous life I spent 28 years with the RCMP. I attended a large number of complaints dealing with issues such as we are discussing in this House today. When a crime was committed against a victim — whether it was a break-in on an automobile where the window was smashed or a window was smashed in a home — and we would respond to those complaints and investigate, the victims always asked what recourse they had. As police officers, we never had any suggestions for them, other than to suggest that maybe they should talk to their insurance company, to compensate for the loss that they suffered at the hands of a young offender.

The bill that's before us today deals exactly with the concerns I had as a police officer for my 28 years. I can recall going to court and listening to the victims of those crimes asking the courts: "What can we do? Why are we out of pocket for a crime that was committed against us? We aren't the person who committed the crime; we are the victim of the crime." And quite often the courts would say: "Go to your insurance company for compensation." Well, a lot of times those victims of crimes didn't have insurance, and they had to pay for that out of their own pocket.

Invariably, the justice system spent countless sums of money on the young offenders, trying to rehabilitate them so they would not reoffend. The victims of crimes were always left out.

The Attorney General spoke about a complex issue when we're dealing with social behaviour such as young offenders committing crimes where property damage is concerned. It's a social behaviour. It's like a car; it's a very complex issue. It's a complex issue when a car breaks down and you have to fix it. When you have to fix the car, you have to open up the toolbox. In the toolbox there's a variety of tools you can use to fix the car. One of those tools is before us today.

Mr. Speaker, I think it's time — it's long overdue — that legislation such as we have before the House today has some recourse for victims of crime down the road. I obviously speak in support of the bill.

Deputy Speaker: Solicitor General, closing second reading debate on Bill 16.

Hon. R. Coleman: I would like to thank the members opposite from Bulkley Valley–Stikine and Maple Ridge–Pitt Meadows for putting their personal lives and histories on the line relative to discussions around this particular bill.

I want to just speak for a few more minutes, before I close debate, about some of the comments that were made by members of the opposition relative to this piece of legislation, because I think there are some points that should be cleared up. In addition to that, I want to just touch briefly on the letter that both members opposite chose to quote from in their debate relative to some comments on that.

First of all, the members opposite said they've had comments from the community, and I would like to tell them both: so have I. I have not had negative comments from the community, but I have certainly had a lot of positive comments from communities all across this province. They talked about the editorial support of the newspapers relative to this particular initiative, the Parental Responsibility Act. Now remember, that's what the title of this act is: Parental Responsibility Act. They're right about that editorial support. They should also be aware of the other support from both men and women and also from councillors, mayors and other community leaders who see this as a positive step for their communities and a positive message back to their communities. They see it as one more tool we can give them to assist them in building better communities.

One member opposite talked about the School Act. I know my colleague from Chilliwack mentioned this, but it bears saying again that the statutory cause against a parent and the burden of proof under the

School Act are much more difficult for parents than what this bill actually gives parents. They support the position in the School Act, and they support the measures of measurement for parents in the School Act, but they don't support this one, which is even better for parents.

This legislation does not have a history, in the two jurisdictions where it's been introduced in Canada — in one case since 1998 and in another case more recently, both in Ontario and in Manitoba — of creating other problems. It's kind of interesting. I have to say that, because I think it's important that if you are going to draw a comparison from one jurisdiction to the other, you also draw a comparison with other correspondence that you receive relative to this issue. It's not been seen as a financial quick fix, because that's not what the legislation was ever intended to do in either of those jurisdictions nor in this one, in spite of what the John Howard Society may have to say about it. I think that after they've listened to the debates and the discussion around this legislation, that society will come to a different view relative to this legislation.

The disturbing one was the quote relative to a particular letter from the B.C. Association of Social Workers. It should be noted that this letter was written by Robert F. Kissner, who is the president of that association. Thankfully, both members of the opposition chose not to go to some of the more inflammatory language that was contained in that letter. Frankly, that's not the type of language or comments or accusations that this House should ever have to deal with. In reality, I can only surmise that the writer of this piece of correspondence was not having a particularly good day. I will leave it at that, except to say that to make these kinds of comments to people who are in public office, on behalf of an association such as this, is improper.

I actually showed the contents of that letter to some social workers I know. They were absolutely appalled and upset that representatives of their association would write anything relative to this to someone like ourselves. The fact of the matter is that if you've ever been there on the front line, like my colleague from Bulkley Valley–Stikine was for 28 years or like I was for eight years, and you've seen some form of abuse in a situation, you would know that a bill like this would have no impact whatsoever in causing or increasing that in our society. To have been there and seen the hurt and seen the difficulty of people.... I find it insulting that somebody would even want to try and draw that parallel with anything that we would do in this House.

The other thing was that both members opposite referred to immigrant parents or other people being threatened with fines. For goodness' sake, folks, get it right. This is a small claims action. If you break a $100 window, it's $100; it's not a fine. The reason it's in small claims is because you don't need a lawyer to go through small claims court. It's an easy system for them to deal with. It is much less cumbersome and a lot less expensive than other actions one might take to recover loss relative to property crime.

The member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant also mused about assisting young people. This is the Parental Responsibility Act. There is a Young Offenders Act. There is restorative justice. There are other ways to deal with youth who commit crimes and to assist them with counselling. This is just another piece, another tool, to get people together to help solve problems. This is about one more vehicle. This isn't about drawing unnecessary parallels, no matter what organization you represent. This is about one more tool for communities and for people who are victims of property crime. And remember, it's about victims and it's about parental responsibility. We all believe in parental responsibility, and we all believe in caring about victims. That's what this bill's about.

I look forward to the committee stage of debate on this bill, because maybe at that point the opposition will finally get what this really is instead of the rhetoric that they put forward in second reading.

YEAS — 72
Falcon	Coell	Hogg
Halsey-Brandt	Hawkins	Whittred
Cheema	Hansen	J. Reid
Bruce	Santori	van Dongen
Barisoff	Nettleton	Roddick
Wilson	Masi	Lee
Thorpe	Hagen	Murray
Plant	Campbell	Collins
Bond	de Jong	Nebbeling
Stephens	Abbott	Neufeld
Coleman	Chong	Penner
Jarvis	Anderson	Orr
Harris	Nuraney	Belsey
Bell	Long	Chutter
Mayencourt	Trumper	Johnston
Bennett	R. Stewart	Hayer
Christensen	Krueger	McMahon
Bray	Les	Locke
Nijjar	Bhullar	Wong
Bloy	Suffredine	MacKay
Cobb	K. Stewart	Visser
Lekstrom	Brice	Sultan
Hamilton	Sahota	Hawes
Kerr	Manhas	Hunter
NAYS — 2
MacPhail		Kwan

Bill 16, Parental Responsibility Act, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

I am pleased to speak today about the amendments that Bill 23 makes to several pieces of legislation. In my remarks today I hope to elaborate on the very brief overview that I provided during the first reading speech. This is a miscellaneous statutes amendment act. It's an omnibus collection of a variety of legislative initiatives, and I anticipate the possibility that there will be a spirited debate about some of these initiatives in the committee stage debate, as is often the practice with miscellaneous statutes amendment acts.

Let me provide the overview that I just spoke about. This bill amends the Budget Measures Implementation Act by repealing section 99 of that act, which allows new hydro rate freeze legislation to be included in this bill. The hydro rate freeze included in this bill extends the B.C. Hydro electricity rate freeze to March 31, 2003. The extension will allow government to complete its core services review and to develop a new energy policy before the B.C. Utilities Commission conducts a rate hearing. The amendment also contains an option for the early termination of the freeze before March 31, 2003, if the core review and the energy policy are complete before that date. The way the provisions work, March 31, 2003, is the maximum date of the freeze, with the provision for the possibility of shortening it by regulation in the event that both the core review and the energy policy task force work are completed earlier than March 31, 2003.

This bill also amends the Constitution Act and the Financial Administration Act. These amendments will bring the law into line with the longstanding practice of allowing ministers limited personal use of government vehicles. Ministers are required to make personal use of a government-provided vehicle at times — for example, when they drive between their Victoria accommodation and the Legislature, even when, as was reported in a media outlet this morning, they have to stop off and buy a couple of litres of milk on the way between the Legislature and their Victoria accommodation.

A legal review undertaken by the new government, by our government, has indicated that there is no statutory provision to authorize any personal use by ministers of government-provided vehicles. Accordingly, this bill will provide that missing statutory authorization. These changes are retroactive to April 1, 2001, the start of the current fiscal year.

This bill also amends the Industrial Development Incentive Act as part of the government's plan and commitment to end subsidies to business. The amendment clarifies that no new commitments shall be made under the act after the date the amendment comes into force. It also caps the total amount for loans and investments at a number lower than the current statutory maximum. The current statutory maximum is $600 million. At present the actual loans, or loans and investments — that is, the actual current commitments — of the industrial development incentive fund are $496,785,857. Accordingly, the amendments to this act cap the industrial development incentive fund to that precise figure. I may say that for the precision of that figure we are all indebted to the Minister of Competition, Science and Enterprise. He did not want to be able to loan a single dollar more. Now, if that isn't commitment to ending business subsidies, I don't know what is.

The bill contains an amendment to the Members' Conflict of Interest Act to respond to an area of urgent concern raised by the conflict-of-interest commissioner. The change made is to the trust arrangements in the act. The commission approved a blind trust agreement under the act. The act actually contains provisions that say that members who wish to entrust their businesses to trustees may only do so on the terms of a trust that meets the approval of the commissioner. However, under the present act the trust is not blind, because there is a requirement in the act for the trustees to report changes in the trust to the member.

It makes no sense to talk about a blind trust when the trustees are under a statutory obligation to report all changes in the assets and liabilities in the financial interests in the trusts to the member immediately upon those changes occurring. So this amendment changes the act to make the trust truly blind so that the disclosure obligation lies upon the trustee but is an obligation to disclose to the commissioner, not to the member.

Bill 23 also amends the Pacific National Exhibition Incorporation Act. These amendments change the management structure of the PNE by removing the representational requirements for the board and reducing the board from 15 to not more than five members to allow the board to be more flexible and to focus on the core review. The Pacific National Exhibition incorporation is, like other Crown corporations, agencies and boards, subject to the core review of government. The provisions in this bill will remove the agricultural advisory committee, and they include transitional provisions necessary to give immediate effect to these changes.

Bill 23 amends the Provincial Court Act relating to the tabling of the report of the Judicial Compensation Committee. Mr. Speaker, you will recall that we did that some days ago — on August 2, I believe. The act, as it is currently written, requires that the report be placed before the Legislative Assembly for 21 sitting days to await the possibility of a resolution from the Legislative Assembly to reject or amend the report. Under the statutory scheme, if no resolution is made within 21 days, the report takes effect. Twenty-one sitting days, which is the current formula, has been found to be too long for the efficient administration of the report in the statutory process.

This amendment will shorten that time from 21 sitting days to 21 calendar days. For the information of

members, I should make it clear that under the new statutory formula, the time within which the Legislative Assembly may pass a resolution to accept or amend the report will expire as of August 23. The government, of course, has already indicated that it takes no issue with the Judicial Compensation Committee report.

Bill 23 also repeals the Regulatory Impact Statement Act, which required the government to prepare regulatory impact statements. This government does not need legislation to require it to have a policy to make sure that it understands the implications of regulation.

This government has promised to cut red tape and the regulatory burden in British Columbia by one-third over three years. It has already adopted new criteria and standards for new regulation and has launched a systematic and rigorous review of existing regulation. The commitment to cut red tape and the regulatory burden in British Columbia by one-third over three years is a shared commitment of all the ministers of the Crown, and it will be honoured and respected by all of the ministers in this government.

I know I speak for some of my colleagues who were here in the years after the Regulatory Impact Statement Act came into force. It was difficult to keep track of the number of times we asked the questions, "Had the act been applied? Where was the regulatory impact statement?" only to be told: "Oops, we forgot," or "Oh well, it's coming," or whatever.

Hon. G. Plant: I'm glad to see I've excited the attention of the opposition leader.

Bill 23 also amends the Regulations Act as a consequential amendment to the repeal of the Regulatory Impact Statement Act. The amendment allows the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council to prescribe criteria in addition to the required review by legislative counsel which must be met before a regulation can be deposited and become law.

Bill 23 amends the Special Accounts Appropriation and Control Act with a number of amendments, including some housekeeping amendments and, as well, amendments which will fulfil new-era commitments. The first is to increase the account balance of the First Citizens Fund by $36 million over four years. The second will increase the account balance of the physical fitness and amateur sports fund by $22 million over four years. Those are both new-era commitments. The third will establish an Olympic arts fund with an account balance that will be established at $20 million over four years to support this government's commitment to aggressively promote British Columbia as the destination for the 2010 Winter Olympics.

This bill also contains a series of housekeeping amendments to correct grammatical and typographical errors in the Revised Statutes of British Columbia. First is to the Health Act to replace the word "therein" with the words "in those." I'm sure that you're gripped by this part of the presentation, Mr. Speaker.

Second is a change to the Livestock Act to replace the word "changeable" with the word "chargeable" in the section dealing with the fees that are chargeable by a pound keeper. Many, many citizens of British Columbia will be gratified to know that that change is, at last, forthcoming.

To the Wildlife Act to replace a Latin name. Actually, I think it's to change the spelling of it in the definition of "fish."

A change to the Motor Carrier Act to remove the word "shall" from a sentence which illogically reads, in part, "Nothing in this act shall has the effect of…" and to bring that amendment into force by regulation — to deem it to have come into force on April 21, 1997.

An amendment to the Public Service Labour Relations Act to reflect an organizational change to the name of the public affairs bureau.

Finally, the bill will confirm and validate regulation 81 of 2001, which made several corrections to statutes under the Statute Revision Act.

Mr. Speaker, I look forward to the comments of other members before closing debate on Bill 23.

J. MacPhail: The debate will occur at committee stage on a clause-by-clause basis. I look forward to vigorous participation during that time.

Hon. G. Plant: I also look forward to that debate. With those remarks, I move second reading.

Bill 23, Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (No. 2), 2001, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

PUBLIC SERVICE
(MERIT EMPLOYMENT COMMISSIONER)
AMENDMENT ACT, 2001
(second reading)

Hon. S. Santori: Merit has been a foundation value of the public service for over 100 years. A strong and professional public service is essential for the government to successfully serve the people of British Columbia. We need to have the best and the brightest working in the public service to create a new era for British Columbians. This government is committed to restoring a professional public service hired strictly on merit, without regard for political affiliation.

The purpose of the bill is to create a merit commissioner. This officer will report annually to the Legislative Assembly on the application of the merit principle in public service appointments. The merit commissioner must have the confidence of the Legislative As-

sembly, and the act provides that the individual must be appointed only upon unanimous recommendation of a special committee of the Legislative Assembly.

Under the legislation, the commissioner of the Public Service Employee Relations Commission also holds the office of merit commissioner. The commissioner of PSERC is responsible for human resources management in the public service. This role is a logical extension to those responsibilities. The need for a merit commissioner is satisfied in a cost-effective way and without creating more bureaucracy.

In the interests of making a smooth, timely and efficient transition, the current commissioner of PSERC will assume the role of merit commissioner. The next merit commissioner and commissioner of PSERC will be chosen through the process I have just explained. The act provides for a three-year appointment, with the possibility of reappointment.

Under the legislation, the merit commissioner will monitor merit by conducting random audits of completed competitions. There is no overlap with the existing appeal process. The act provides that audits are of completed appointments only. This legislation will not apply to appointments that were made before June 5, 2001. There have been concerns that the merit commissioner would review appointments made by the previous administration. Under this bill that will not happen. This government is moving forward.

The bill specifies that the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act applies to the merit commissioner's report. The names of those involved in the competition and appointment processes will not be released.

The principle of merit was created as an administrative reform many years ago. The principle has stood the test of time. The creation of a merit commissioner in this bill is an important and significant step in this evolution. A non-politicized and professional public service is in the best interests of all British Columbians.

J. MacPhail: We are spending a lot of time in the Legislature today doing business that I don't think is really needed at all. We just finished the Parental Responsibility Act, which wasn't needed in this province. It certainly wasn't needed on the basis that the government espoused it was needed, whatsoever. And here we are rising today on this holy grail of committing the 90-day agenda that the Liberal government brought in, as if somehow it's useful work.

This is one example where the 90-day agenda was wrong. There was no problem that the government needed to resolve. This legislation is unnecessary.

Let me just walk through why this government's obsession with the New Era document has not been tempered one iota by their 80-odd days in office. I think the public would assume that a government grows and learns and matures as it actually has the reins of power, as they actually are responsible on a day-to-day basis to exercise state power.

Yet this government hasn't learned anything from its 90 days in office. They hold up, every day, the little red Liberal bible. It's called the New Era document. They hold it up every day. In case they're worried about anything, about the work they may have to do on behalf of all British Columbians, they open up their little red document and go: "Oh, we've got to do that." They don't bother to say: "Now that we actually have access to state power, now that we're actually in charge, does the New Era document still make sense?" No. They go right down the path saying: "We made these promises. We had no idea whether there was any legitimacy to it. We're not going to temper any of this with experience." And here we are today with the merit legislation.

The now- Liberal government said prior to the election that this public service was rife with partisan appointments and that the previous government had destroyed the public service with its partisan appointments. They had no evidence of that whatsoever, but they misled the public by saying: "It's true, and we're going to bring in a merit commissioner because there's no merit in the public service now. We're going to solve a problem that was created by the previous government."

In the course of their cheap, partisan politics they've besmirched the reputation of every public service worker in British Columbia. Who are those public service workers? Well, they look after and protect our forests; they provide conservation — or they did — to endangered species; they work in our hospitals; they work in Riverview Hospital, looking after people with mental illness; they provide services to families that this government thinks aren't necessary, through social workers, through financial assistance workers; they keep our highways safe; they enforce the laws of the land; they look after our children. Somehow this government thought they could besmirch the reputation of every single one of those public service workers with a cheap, political, partisan allegation that turns out, as of today, to be completely unfounded.

This legislation does two things. First of all, it admits that there's no problem. There's no change. The merit principle was brought in, in 1994. The Public Service Act was revamped in 1994. The merit principle was fully enunciated in the 1994 Public Service Act. This now- Liberal government was told that over and over again by public service workers. They were told that over and over again.

J. MacPhail: Listen. Stop your accusations, saying we were partisan. We hired on the basis of merit. Today the minister stands up and admits to that. He says the merit principle has been in the legislation. Oops, it turns out that all of the advice that they received before the election was correct. Do they change their plans? Do they take a sober second look and say: "Now that we're in power, now that we've had a chance to reflect on this, we admit that we were wrong"? No. They proceed with a flimsy piece of legislation that really hides the fact that they were wrong in the first place.

There is no need to change any legislation, because the merit principle has been entrenched in the Public Service Act, including a revamping of the Public Service Act in 1994.

Then they say that we need an independent officer of the Legislature to do this. "We can't trust government to do it. We have to have an independent officer that will speak on behalf of all British Columbians and rid the scourge of NDP public service workers in the public service. The only way we can do that is to have an independent commissioner." Well, it turns out they're not. This government isn't bringing in an independent commissioner. They couch it in nice little language that somehow there's going to be a committee. There's going to be a committee of the Legislature to hire a deputy minister reporting to the executive council — once again, an abuse of the legislative process in here. Once again, it's mixing the work of the executive council with the Legislative Assembly. They will use their overwhelming majority to mix that up again and to improperly use the Legislative Assembly in duties that they know full well are deputy minister's duties reporting directly to the executive council. So there is no independent merit commissioner. Why? Because you don't need one. But do they admit to that? No. They mix it up in here again using what is unprecedented obfuscation of the role of the Legislative Assembly and the executive council — unprecedented.

What didn't they do in this legislation? Well, they knew they didn't need to invoke the merit principle in the public service, because that exists. They reneged on their promise to have an independent officer of the Legislature as a merit commissioner. What they didn't do was make their own appointments that they've made since the election subject to this legislation. Surprise, surprise. Andrew Wilkinson's appointment won't be reviewed by the merit commissioner. Paul Taylor's appointment won't be reviewed by the merit commissioner. Donald Leitch's appointment won't be reviewed by the merit commissioner. My goodness, these are the appointments that the government itself has made, which have been of a deeply partisan nature. This government has exempted from review those appointments, because deputy ministers and assistant deputy ministers are exempt from review by the merit commissioner.

Well, isn't that interesting. Throughout all of their time in opposition the Liberal government, led by that Premier, somehow said that any sort of public policy adviser, whether they be at the deputy minister level or the assistant deputy minister level, had to be completely squeaky clean. That Premier would stand up and throw allegations at deputy ministers and assistant deputy ministers, by name, and call them NDP hacks. That was the basis on which they stirred up all the dust in the province to accuse the entire public service of being partisan. That's what they did.

So their own legislation comes in. Guess what. Those appointments are exempt from the merit principle. Isn't that shocking? Why would that be? That was the nature of the problem in the first place. That's what got the Premier on his high horse about the dilemma faced by this public service. Today we have this very Premier saying: "I'm not going to subject the appointments I've made to the merit principle, and you live with it, British Columbia." Of course, if they looked at Paul Taylor, the deputy minister responsible for Treasury Board, he may be a fine fellow, he may actually be doing a fine job, but he's a partisan appointment. He's a complete partisan appointment made by this government after June 5, I think, but he won't be reviewed. He was the president of the Automobile Dealers Association, and he is the deputy minister responsible for advising on the tax that the Automobile Dealers Association had been lobbying on for years — having the tax threshold raised on luxury vehicles. He was a partisan appointment. These public servants, at the deputy minister and assistant deputy minister level, aren't subject to this legislation.

What is it that the government thinks it needs to solve here? What was the problem? Well, the Premier outlined the problem very clearly by accusing deputy ministers and assistant deputy ministers in the previous government of being political partisan hacks, and here he is introducing legislation that exempts from scrutiny those very same appointments that he's making.

Let's look at Andrew Wilkinson. This issue will be explored in depth later on, but Andrew Wilkinson is a deputy minister, and he's….

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Order, hon. members. The Leader of the Opposition has the floor.

J. MacPhail: Andrew Wilkinson is the deputy minister of intergovernmental affairs. My gosh, on the very day that he was appointed, with no intergovernmental experience, he was made…. Oh, I'm sorry. He had no governmental experience, but he was the president of the B.C. Liberal Party. Ah, that's right. The review of his appointment won't be subject to this legislation.

If the government is so sure that it's appointing people on a non-partisan basis and with merit, why did they make any exemptions at all? If the government is so proud of its appointments, why exempt?

J. MacPhail: Exactly. If they have nothing to hide, why exempt? You know, the government, when they were in opposition, was told over and over again that their witch-hunt cries to weed out the nefarious partisans from the public service were simply not necessary

because they were based on myth and downright misinformation — downright misinformation.

They were told over and over again that the Public Service Act contains, as of 1994, a legal requirement that public service appointments have to be based on the principle of merit. That merit principle was defined as a result of a process that appraises knowledge, skills and abilities of eligible applicants. In determining merit, consideration must be given to education — something that the members are just thrilled about, and so they should be, with regard to various deputy ministers — as well as skills, knowledge, experience, past work performance and years of continuous service in the public service. It's been in place all throughout the 1990s.

Somehow this government thinks that this legislation adds to that, because it delivers on a promise. Well, what it delivers on is make-work, busywork, for some people who have nothing else to do. With such an expanded, bloated, oversized cabinet, I guess some people needed busywork. That's what this is about.

The government owes an apology to the public service, if you ask me. The minister who is responsible for the public service owes a substantial apology to the people employed by the government, who work day in and day out. During the election they were told that things were going to change because the public service was so partisan. They were actually made to fear for their jobs in a way that I think is extremely unfair to the public service. What happened was that in this legislation, the government said: "Oh, sorry. We were wrong. We're not going to look backward at all on this. June 5 is the day that we're going to go forward."

All of that fear this government stirred up in the public service has come to naught. The government, rightfully so, doesn't have and shouldn't have the fortitude to deliver on its promise to look backward, because there's nothing of ill repute to look back upon. The public service in British Columbia is professional, non-partisan and experienced, and it serves the interests of British Columbia. It also serves the interests of the government of the day. That's its job, and the public service does it.

This government has people who were members of the public service as MLAs now. The member who represents all of the public servants in Victoria was a member of the public service himself. I'm surprised that he didn't say to the Minister of Management Services — I guess it's actually the Premier you have to get to: "You know what? It was a rash, ill-thought-out, unsubstantiated accusation that we made before and during the election, and now it's time to rethink it. Now that we have the information as the government, it's time to rethink it and not proceed on a basis of frivolous legislation." Did the member for Victoria–Beacon Hill do that? No, he didn't. He sat there in silence. As a public servant, knowing that the accusations that were thrown into the faces of public servants were without substance, he sat silent and did nothing — unless he is going to rise in the debate today. Again, if he does rise in the debate today to ask for an apology, then I laud him for doing that.

The government stands today without admission of wrong, without admitting that the new-era promise was unnecessary and basically says to public servants: "We're just going to proceed with business as usual with you. We're not going to withdraw our accusations. We're actually going to exempt deputy ministers and assistant deputy ministers from any review of the merit principle. We want you to carry on serving the interests of our government and serving the interests of the public." That doesn't seem to be a very good beginning for employment relations. I must say that I was very, very pleased that the president of the B.C. Government Employees Union stood and said that he welcomes this legislation because it confirms what he's been saying all along: that the Public Service Act meets the test and that the government is admitting that the public service is meritorious. He had been saying that, as had B.C. government employees, to this government for months, and the government chose to ignore the advice.

Back in February, when the Minister of Education was out there in a big speech right here in Victoria saying, "The merit commissioner's going to be independent and is necessary to clean up the ranks of the public service," the president of BCGEU told the then opposition, now the government, that it wasn't necessary. He said that the public service is not filled with political appointees. It was prescient that he said this next phrase: "Political appointees are traditionally restricted to senior policy levels, and I'd be surprised if any government put an end to those." That was dated February 14, 2001. How right he was; how prescient he was. He called the Liberals' bluff, and it turns out today that he's exactly right. There was no need for the legislation, and they wouldn't actually do what they promised to do.

We have much work to do in this chamber. This afternoon has been spent delivering on 90-day new-era promises that do nothing for the well-being of British Columbians and contribute nothing to the well-being of the taxpayer or people who need strong leadership from this government and good government services. We've done nothing in that area today, and Bill 10 is a continuation down that path.

R. Stewart: I rise to respond a little bit to a couple of the comments from the previous member, the member for Vancouver-Hastings, who I believe completely misunderstands the need for this — or perhaps not. Perhaps she doesn't misunderstand it at all.

I have worked, over my career, with a great many people in public life — a great many public servants. I will agree with almost everybody that I've ever heard speak about this that the vast majority of people who work with government, the vast majority of public servants, are hard-working, dedicated professionals working very hard in their professions. I would argue, in fact, that many of the ones that I was able to work with, who have since talked to me about this type of

promise — this Liberal agenda promise from the New Era — said that this was needed. They applauded it. Many people that I spoke with were tired of the very few — and they are a few, I would argue — that don't belong there. They are there because of their political connections. I was somewhat offended by the previous comments that that isn't the case. I believe that there are very few, but there are people in public life who are there because of their political connections, and that is wrong. They should not be in the halls of government when their only reason for being there is because of their political connections.

The one thing that bothered me the most was the member's opening comments that for some reason, she takes offence with the idea that we have not matured since the election and that we have not tempered our promises with experience. Now, I'll take "tempered our promises with experience" to be what governments in the past have done. They got elected based on some promises, and then they didn't keep them. I guess the euphemism the member wants to use is that they tempered their promises with experience. "We promise to do this until after we're elected, and then we won't do that." I think, in fact, it was a quote from the member's own government: "We announced things we weren't even going to do." Who was it in the previous government that used another euphemism for, I guess, tempering one's promises with experience? I think the words were "wriggle room."

I don't believe that the New Era document, which I'm quite proud to have run under, has any need of being tempered with the kinds of experience that the member speaks of. We intend to keep those promises, and I intend to work very hard in my capacity to make sure that I support our government in keeping the promises that the people of B.C. expected us to keep when they elected us based on our platform.

J. Bray: I rise in support of this bill. I'm here because I heard some comments from the member for Vancouver-Hastings with respect to my standing beside the Premier, and some other things. I want to just make very clear for that member and for all members of this House that I am extremely proud of this legislation. As a 13-year civil servant, I spent my entire career working with the finest civil service in this country, the finest civil service in North America. Obviously, this was an issue in my riding, because I was running against two other members of the civil service, two other fellow members of the BCGEU. The commitment to merit employment was something that was raised in my area during the campaign.

Let me tell the member for Vancouver-Hastings that the number one group of volunteers on my campaign was civil servants working in the Victoria area. They were there because they represented the vast majority of civil servants who are hard-working, who are professional, who are there to do the public good and who were tired of seeing one or two people coming in with clear connections from any political party that weren't there because of merit. They were there honestly. They embraced the concept of merit employment legislation because they wanted to make sure that they and their colleagues got the opportunities based on merit and not on political affiliation.

Many of those civil servants who worked on my campaign had never before been involved in politics. They felt so strongly about this very piece of legislation that they came out in support of candidates like myself to ensure that we were here in the House to make sure this bill got passed.

As a civil servant I'm proud of the 13 years I spent working with my colleagues. At some point in the future I will likely return to the civil service. I know that when I return, as good as the civil service is today, with merit employment legislation it will be a stronger place. The morale will be higher, and it will have even more qualified, capable, hard-working British Columbians serving the needs of our communities. I am very proud of this bill, and I stand very firmly in support of it.

J. Kwan: I will only make some brief comments with respect to this piece of legislation. Much of what needed to be said was said by my colleague from Vancouver-Hastings. I think it is important to note that the primary piece of this legislation is around the basis of a merit commissioner. But on the basis of a merit commissioner, one would have expected that this government would apply the principles behind this piece of legislation to all employees and not exempt deputy ministers and associate deputy ministers. By exempting these two positions, the government has…. Of course, also doing it at a time when their political appointments have already been made is, I think, a blatant contrast and a hypocritical way of engaging in this argument.

We know that Mr. Wilkinson was the head of the Liberal Party, and this person is appointed….

J. Kwan: The member behind me was heckling like crazy when I mentioned that your own government, on the principle against the notion of political appointments, does that very thing by appointing Mr. Wilkinson to one of the top jobs within the bureaucracy, without any assessment or evaluation of this piece of legislation. Yet he could sit in the House and act as though they have fulfilled the application of the merit legislation to its fullest degree, which it clearly hasn't.

I want to mention that prior to this piece of legislation, the merit application in terms of public service hiring was already in place. This is a piece of legislation that really doesn't add anything, with the exception that it exempts deputy ministers and people like Mr. Wilkinson, who's been appointed by the Liberal government to the top position.

On that basis, I'll be voting against this piece of legislation on division — not because merit should not

be applied but because, on the issue around merit, it is not being applied to all public service members, and I think it should be. For the deputy ministers that were exempted and the appointments made before the legislation was brought in place.... I think that is wrong of this government; I think it's hypocritical. On that basis, I'll be voting against this piece of legislation on division.

Hon. S. Santori: First of all, I'd like to thank my colleagues for their comments in support of this legislation. I would just like to make some comment on the comments from the member for Vancouver-Hastings, one being the obsession of this government with our 90-day agenda. This is not an obsession with this document. The obsession is one of the province of British Columbia, an obsession within themselves that they wanted change in this government to change the wrongs that have been done by that member and her government.

The member opposite and her colleague make reference with respect to Mr. Wilkinson. First of all, I think the record will speak for itself. If we look back and look at the condition that this province is in today, whether it be in health care, in education or in anything that the NDP member opposite and her past government had their hands on, I would have to question those that did the recruitment for your party, because the results are quite obvious in this province. When we talk about expertise and we talk about Mr. Wilkinson, let us count our blessings that we have people with those credentials and that expertise who will put the province back to where it was before you and your government destroyed it over the last ten years.

I want to make it very clear, as my colleagues did, that we champion the public service. That is why we have this before the House today. We want to give those employees an opportunity for some hope, some opportunity that they know that in the future, with hard work and innovation, they will accomplish their goals in their careers and will move up the ladder in government.

With respect to this, when I became the Minister of Management Services, one of the first things I did was take a tour, and I met a lot of civil servants and discussed the merit principle and the appointment of a merit commissioner with them. It was welcomed by them. The other comment they made was: "Thank you, Mr. Minister. This is the first time in ten years that anyone in your position has taken the time to come and talk to the public service and get our opinion on a piece of legislation." We do care about the employees. We continue to care about the employees, Mr. Speaker.

This government will work and provide them with the tools that are necessary to help this province move ahead and put it back where it was prior to this member and the NDP government destroying what was a great province. But I guarantee you that this government, with the help of the strong public service that we have today, will prosper and will continue prospering in the future.

Bill 10, Public Service (Merit Employment Commissioner) Amendment Act, 2001, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

Hon. R. Coleman: I am pleased to introduce the Crime Victim Assistance Act for second reading. This act will replace the Criminal Injury Compensation Act, which was first introduced 30 years ago. The Criminal Injury Compensation Act was created to provide compensation, within certain limits, for personal injury or death resulting from criminal acts. Without such a program, victims would be left to take action against often insolvent offenders through the civil courts.

Since its inception in 1972, the related criminal injury compensation program has been administered by the Workers Compensation Board. Initially, the Workers Compensation Board was the logical administrative body, given its experience with adjudications and the fact that the majority of claimants were male victims of assault who were concerned about wage loss. Times have changed. Today's applicants to the program are largely women and children who are survivors of sexual assault, abuse and other crimes. Their service needs are dramatically different.

At the time the criminal injury compensation program was developed, victims services in British Columbia were in their infancy. Today B.C. is a leader in providing innovative services to victims of crime that reflect a greater understanding and compassion for victims and their families and an appreciation of their critical role in the justice system.

Over the decades many changes have taken place. The 1980s marked a tremendous shift in the response that victims received from the justice system. The Ministry of Attorney General began funding provincial sexual assault centres and introduced the first wife assault and sexual abuse policies. In response to RCMP and local police forces' needs, the ministry established police-based victim services to provide front-line support to victims. In 1986 victim impact statements were introduced into court proceedings, giving victims and their families an opportunity to describe to the court how the crime had affected their lives. By 1987 the Ministry of Attorney General had created a consolidated victim assistance division to provide coordinated guidance across the province.

Victim services continued to evolve in the 1990s. Specialized programs were established to meet the needs of aboriginal and multicultural communities.

Further policy development improved the response of all stakeholders in the justice process to violence against women, particularly women in relationships. A toll-free information line was also established to provide victim referrals to community resources. The scope of the criminal injury compensation program was expanded to include victims of threats, victims of criminal harassment, parents and other non-dependent immediate family members of murder victims.

Today police-based programs and specialized community-based programs are available in virtually every area of the province. B.C. was the first province to develop and implement standards of excellence and consistency for all its community and police-based victim services programs. The victim services division of the Ministry of Public Safety and Solicitor General continues to make the justice system more responsive to victims of crime by ensuring that victims have access to services that meet the needs of their own communities; funding, training and supporting victim services workers across the province; developing and promoting effective policies, procedures and legislation that address the needs of victims of crime; providing information to communities and government ministries about issues concerning victims of crime; and educating government and the public about the needs and concerns of victims of crime.

In the context of this ongoing development, this government is affirming its commitment to victims of crime and will further improve service delivery through this new legislation. First, the legislation will transfer the criminal injury compensation program from the Workers Compensation Board to the Ministry of Public Safety and Solicitor General. This move will more logically align financial assistance for victims of crime with other types of victims assistance that are already contained in the management of the ministry of the Solicitor General. Services to victims will be coordinated and supported through one body, rather than dispersed. Efficiency, savings and clarity are further important benefits that will be realized with this move.

Expenditures have increased substantially over the years, rising from $192,000 in 1972 to over $23.5 million in 2000. Pain and suffering awards account for approximately one-half of the total awards in the present program. Although program costs have stabilized over the last few years, the administrative costs remain dramatically high, in that they account for over 23 percent of the $23.5 million budget. These are services paid to the Workers Compensation Board. The Criminal Injury Compensation Act is complex and confusing because the legislation is completely entwined with the Workers Compensation Act, and many victims feel they need an advocate or legal representation at hearings in order to receive benefits.

Under the new act, the Crime Victim Assistance Act, benefits to victims will include medical and dental care, vocational rehabilitation for victims and members of the victim's family, income support for the victim or victim's family relating to lost or reduced income or inability to provide services previously provided to their self or to their family, counselling for the victim or the victim's family, protective measures to ensure a victim's safety, travelling expenses for the victim or the victim's family, physical rehabilitation and modifications or aids for home or vehicle, repair or replacement of prescribed personal property, counselling for the witnesses of crime and funeral expenses for families of victims — all services that need to be available in a streamlined, seamless manner to quickly address the emotional, psychological and physical hurt that comes to the victims of crime.

The other thing is that after considered review, when we determined to eliminate the pain and suffering awards, it was to bring British Columbia into alignment with other jurisdictions across Canada that actually eliminated pain and suffering awards when the federal government withdrew from cost-sharing agreements in 1992. These awards are difficult to judge. They result in delays, increased appeals and frustrations for the victims. That's frustrating for a victim, because they need the help, the counselling and the assistance today, not a long way down the road when they have to go through some hearing process to receive a small amount of money that really isn't going to benefit their long-term psychological or physical well-being.

All other existing benefits are being maintained, and more victim-appropriate benefits will be introduced to replace pain and suffering awards. In addition to highlighting the list that I gave you a minute ago, I wanted to highlight the replacement benefits within this particular act. That includes income support for caregivers and dependents; expanded counselling for victims, immediate family members and eligible witnesses; funding for protective measures to enhance the safety of the victim; vocational rehabilitation for dependent spouses; and travel assistance to attend legal proceedings and medical appointments for victims and immediate family members.

Even with the elimination of pain and suffering awards, B.C. still provides nearly twice the benefit expenditure per capita as compared to Ontario. B.C. will continue to have one of the most generous and comprehensive victim response systems in Canada, and the new legislation will allow the ministry to ensure that the crime victim assistance program is responsive to victims — that it provides appropriate benefits and is accountable. The process will be clear, the eligibility requirements will be transparent, and the response time, which is vitally important, will be enhanced.

This is a responsible management move by my ministry. It eliminates duplication. It streamlines the benefits to the people that need it the most, those being the victims of crime. It responds to their needs better. Being there quickly, with the resources to help people that are victims of crime, is the objective of my ministry as part of its mandate in public safety.

I am pleased to present this bill to the Legislature today and speak to it in second reading, because I think it's a very valuable move for the future of enhancing

programs and assistance to victims of crime in British Columbia in the long term.

J. Kwan: This piece of legislation is an important one. It addresses the issues of victims of crime, particularly supports and compensation for victims of crime.
In particular, I know that our previous Attorney General, Andrew Petter, was very concerned about this issue and looked at it very thoroughly as well. I know he had to, at the time, review these matters. I know that a lot of the people who end up benefiting from the victim assistance program are women. Many of the women have experienced abuse, have been battered and have experienced sexual assault, and it has caused a lot of damage, pain and suffering for these women to have such crimes perpetrated against them.

The pain and suffering provision of the victim assistance program is an important one because of the damage and the harm done by a battery, by an abusive partner, by a sexual assault and the like. The pain and suffering provision of the program went directly to the victim, many of whom were women. Therefore, the money went directly to them to compensate for the pain and suffering that they had endured as a result of a crime.

I do believe that this is an important provision. I know that the former Attorney General had investigated this matter thoroughly and decided not to make changes to the program precisely because the dollars went directly to the women who had experienced the crime, who were battered, abused, raped or violated in uncountable ways.

From that point of view, by taking away the provision of awarding pain and suffering.... I understand that it is a very subjective assessment of the amount of pain and suffering you might have gone through if you had been a victim of horrible crimes such as battery, abuse, rape, sexual assault and the like. I understand that it is subjective. But in this complex society that we live in, a lot of the issues are not cut and dried. Sometimes the assessment is subjective and is not just about whether or not you were able to continue to go to work. Some people who have experienced such trauma, such an assault on their very being, might have experienced that. But do you know what? They might be able to carry on and go to work, but it does not mean that they have not suffered or that they have not suffered greatly as a result of that violation against them.

Because a lot of the crimes are against women, I think it is important to note that oftentimes a lot of women in abusive relationship situations are already in less of a power position. They are less able to have access to programs and to express the pain that they have endured. Therefore, the provision that allows for evaluation of compensation for pain and suffering is, I think, an important one to maintain and keep when we look to compensating victims of crime, particularly in the instances where emotional trauma is very devastating to the individual who's experienced it. Sometimes these are repeated offences for a lot of the women, especially if we are talking about an abusive relationship situation. Many women experience it time and time again, and the pain and suffering that they endure is added on each and every time. As I mentioned, people may be able to carry on, still go to work and do all sorts of stuff, but the damage is there. The suffering is grave.

I know that the statistics are alarming for women who would have experienced some sort of assault by the time they're 16. The percentage is extraordinarily high. I forget exactly what the numbers are, but it's something like, I believe, one in four women by the time they're 16 or older would have experienced sexual assault of some form or another. I may stand corrected on that figure. I'm trying to remember some of the facts that were presented to me. I remember that when it was presented to me, it was absolutely alarming how often women are exposed to some sort of violation of their physical or emotional being or on them sexually, how often women suffer in silence as a result of this violation and how they're unable to seek compensation for the pain and suffering that they've endured. When the legislation of compensating pain and suffering for victims of crime was introduced many years ago, I know that an important component was women who had suffered horrific crimes and violations against them.

On the basis of a new crime victim program and hence the services that are being introduced today, I don't disagree that there needs to be programs and services provided to victims of crime. Absolutely, there's no doubt about that, but I don't think we should take away the pain and suffering element of the compensation. It is an important piece of it. It validates in many ways the people who have experienced that trauma and attack on them physically, emotionally and sometimes sexually. It's important to recognize and validate that action by recognizing the pain and suffering that the women, the victims, would have gone through. To take that away, I think, is unfortunate, because a lot of people who have experienced such crimes against them sometimes blame themselves. They don't think they have the right to feel pain and suffering. They blame it on themselves. Society sometimes defines it as such — that somehow they might have brought it on themselves.

I remember that as the former Minister of Women's Equality, I talked to many women who had been battered and abused and had experienced assault on them. They often don't want to talk about it. They don't want people to know this has happened. They hide it; they are ashamed of it. They think it's somehow their fault that they were attacked. They're denied the ability, or the right even, to express how they really feel about it and how horrifying that experience might have been for them.

I think that to step back in recognizing the need for compensation for pain and suffering for victims of crime — particularly victims of crime of the nature of battery, assault, sexual assault and those kinds of violations — is stepping back in time. I think it moves back

the recognition that we have moved forward to say to women who have experienced these crimes: "No, you're not at fault. You don't deserve it, and that was not right. We as a society recognize the pain that you must be undergoing and will continue to experience for many years to come." I think it's absolutely important that we don't erase and do away with that recognition. For too long women have been silenced and for too long they have not spoken up. It took too long for their voices to be heard.

We have marches now, all across the province and all across the country, that recognize violence against women and say to them loudly that they are not to blame and it is not their fault. As a society, we all have a responsibility to step in and ensure that violence against women is unacceptable and will not be tolerated. We recognize that whenever a person is violated — whether it be emotionally, psychologically, sexually or physically — we send the same message, over and over and over again, to the offenders that we as a society will stand united and will not accept such behaviour.

For the women, for the victims who have experienced such crimes, I think it is critical that we don't take away our right to recognize that they have indeed suffered and indeed there's pain involved and indeed they deserve to be compensated.

While I recognize that there is an aspect of this piece of legislation which the minister wants to pursue in terms of perhaps providing for some objectivity in assessing compensation, I would urge that there is also the need to recognize subjectivity. The measurement of pain and suffering for the individual needs to be recognized, particularly for groups of women who have experienced major violations against them. I would urge that there be consideration of not taking away this component of the compensation for victims of crime.

S. Orr: I'm going to make this brief. I wasn't going to speak, but I feel so compelled that I have to speak. I have been very involved with a lot of women who have been sexually abused. I've been involved with children who have been sexually abused. I've been involved with rape victims. I'm very angry listening to this. I'm very angry because, obviously, the member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant doesn't really understand what it's all about.

People who have been raped, children that have been abused and women that have been treated badly and sexually abused cannot go through the process that we have in place right now to get compensation. What these women need is help. They need counselling; they need medical attention. They do not go back to work and wait for a cheque to come in. They need help, and this bill is going to give them that help.

I know from personal experience that you need that. You don't need the money; you need help. What this bill is going to do is exactly that. It's going to allow counselling, which is incredibly important; it's going to allow medical attention, which is incredibly important; and it is also going to allow these people to have the type of attention that they need. They do not need to go through the previous process that was in place.

Hon. R. Coleman: The sentiments expressed by the member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant about recognizing the pain and suffering of victims are correct. However, when you recognize that pain and suffering of the victim and you come with the statement that you have to recognize that, you have to recognize that you…. The objective here is to be there, available to help that person who is suffering. The local program is there to help people. The counselling is there. The wage loss...is there. The victim programs are there. It is clearly important that we improve on that.

That's the reason for this bill: to more seamlessly and immediately be there for victims of crime and to have a process in place that isn't bogged down by tribunals, that doesn't actually revictimize a victim by putting him through a process but, rather, is there in an understanding manner.

I've recently met with some victims agencies that deal with serious victims-of-crime situations. They've told me: "We need the resources on the ground. We need the counselling dollars here. We need the medical aid here. What you're spending elsewhere is just hurting the victims in the province." I think the member for Victoria-Hillside summarized it better than I ever could, because she gets it. She gets what this bill is about. What this bill is about is being there for victims of crime when they need us.

Bill 24, Crime Victim Assistance Act, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

D. MacKay: We are all Canadians, regardless of where our parents or grandparents came from. We live side by side. We work; we play. We share in the vast resources of this vast and beautiful province.

For many years our native Indians were excluded from becoming Canadians. They were placed on Indian reserves and controlled by the federal government under an act of parliament called the Indian Act. When British Columbia entered confederation in 1871, we had 120 reserves in the province. Today, throughout all of Canada, we have 2,323 reserves, and British Columbia has 1,634 of those reserves.

Under article 13 of B.C.'s Terms of Union with Canada, obligations were placed on Ottawa. Let me read one of those terms to you: "The charge of the Indians and trusteeship and management of the lands reserved for their use and benefit shall be assumed by the Dominion government, and a policy as liberal as that hitherto pursued by the British Columbia government shall

Under article 13, B.C. was to provide tracts of land to the federal government for additional reserves. On July 19, 1924, by passage of order-in-council, the federal government acknowledged that B.C. had satisfied all the obligations of article 13 of the Terms of Union representing the furnishings of lands for Indian reserves and described the process as full and final settlement of all the differences between the governments of the Dominion and the province.

Moving ahead to 1913, the Nisga'a laid claim to the Nass Valley. A special joint committee concluded unanimously that they had not established claim to the Nass Valley. In 1973 then Indian Affairs minister Jean Chrétien introduced land claim policy for the federal government. Provincial Premier Dave Barrett refused to get involved, and in 1976 Ottawa went ahead on its own with Nisga'a.

In 1988, under Premier Bill Vander Zalm, a Native Affairs ministry was established to protect the interests of British Columbians in negotiations for outstanding land claims. The province was to sit at the table without recognizing aboriginal title. What followed was unrest with native Indians. The government capitulated, and in 1990 the provincial government joined fully with the federal government and the Nisga'a tribal council. So, Mr. Speaker, the stage was set for land claims.

Few, if any, Canadians were ever consulted; nor did previous politicians go to the people and ask what should be done to satisfy native claims. The reality of native land claims was brought partially to my attention when I was introducing a guest speaker to a group called Share B.C., in Smithers. It was at this time that I learned the federal government had settled a land claim called Nunavut in the Northwest Territories. It provided outright ownership of 350,000 square miles to 17,500 Inuit residents. That took place in December of 1991.

On February 15, 1996, the Nisga'a treaty process reached an agreement-in-principle between the government of Canada, the province of British Columbia and the Nisga'a tribal council. As it happened with Nunavut, it happened with Nisga'a. Once again, the people were not consulted. I recall Premier Glen Clark sending out the Select Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs of this House to listen to the people of the province before the treaty was signed. The Premier said the committee would listen to the people but no changes would be made to the treaty. The treaty was signed without proper debate in this House, and I question the number of people who understand what was in that final agreement.

Another case of importance to British Columbia was the Delgamuukw land claims litigation, which commenced on October 23, 1984, in the Supreme Court of British Columbia. That trial started on May 11, 1987, and concluded before Chief Justice Allan McEachern on June 30, 1990. The findings of the Chief Justice were significant. He dismissed outright the natives' claim to full ownership of the territory. He ruled that native claims were extinguished when B.C. entered confederation in 1871.

Then we had a change of government in October of 1991, and the new NDP government fired the team of five lawyers who secured the province's Supreme Court victory. During the Court of Appeal process the following decisions were announced in July of 1992. On the question of ownership, it was ruled that the plaintiff had not established a claim of ownership. On the question of self-government, it was ruled that there was no room for a third order of government. On the question of extinguishment, it was ruled that limited aboriginal rights continued to exist and were not extinguished before 1871. On the question of the nature of aboriginal rights, it was ruled the natives had the right to engage in those practices and activities associated with the land they used and occupied. This followed another appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada in 1993. This was later abandoned with an agreement to adjourn litigation to pursue a negotiated settlement.

Today in this province, Mr. Speaker, we have a treaty process that appears to be going nowhere. The people of this province have never been asked for their input. For our native Indians to be part of Canada and British Columbia, they must be full participants in our society. I do not believe this will happen if we do not look at the past 130 years. Creating homelands such as we did with the Nisga'a treaty will not, in my view, solve the problems our natives face. If the people of this province are not included in the process to settle land claims, distrust will develop — and is developing.

To achieve the goals will be difficult, but it should and must include the non-native population of this province. The B.C. Liberals have committed to a referendum on the principles that will guide the future treaty process, and I believe this is an important first step. I would like to close my comments with these words I heard from Gordon Gibson: "You cannot make the weak strong by making the strong weak."

W. Cobb: My colleague from Bulkley Valley–Stikine is quite right when he suggests that settling the land claims is an issue of utmost importance to all British Columbians. It's important to the first nations, who for too long have been excluded from full participation in society. But we must now move beyond that. It is important to the non-native communities, who are looking for a sense of stability and finality on how they can carry on their businesses, when all is said and done. In the end, these people will be working side by side, and the treaties must be fair to all.

It is important for us as a collective society to settle this matter once and for all in a way that is fair and equitable and unites us through what we share in a common hope for the future and a desire for success.

The first nations are a large part of my riding of Cariboo South. While there are cultural differences, there are also striking similarities. It may sound trite to the cynical, but I went to school and grew up with many of these people,

One of the common issues that is very difficult to address is compensation. The natives are requesting compensation for the past, the non-natives for the present, in their plight for compensation for the displacement of jobs and tenure to the land that they now own or have access to. This will not be an easy task. But let's be very clear: we want to work with all the communities. We want to make sure that all voices are heard, respected and acted upon.

We know that aboriginal families stuck in the cycle of poverty want out. Our government is committed to make that happen. When I talk to the people in these communities that will be directly affected by these treaties, they are concerned about the power brokers that will continue to dominate what happens in their communities. The women are concerned that if it is not in their leader's best interest or on his agenda, it will not happen. They are concerned that if they are not part of the family, they will be ignored, whether it be on child care, education or abuse. These issues must be addressed if we are to have true equality.

We want a new era for British Columbians, and that's why we plan to devote special attention and resources to addressing the challenges and needs of aboriginal women and youth. We want to help aboriginal people bridge the gap, and we all know the power of education.

The time for rhetoric is over. It's time to make sure that all of our young people are given the tools they need to succeed, that the skills needed to prosper are provided and that education is seen as a priority. I personally do not believe going down the road of building larger reserves is going to provide for those needs or give any sense of comfort or finality to the issue.

When the treaties are signed, there must be an accountability component. There must be a way to ensure that we are all British Columbians and, in fact, all Canadians and that we live and work by the same rules and standards. Everybody must participate in the cost and the benefits of that society.

Native land claims play an important role in the economic recovery in this province. We need to ensure that this issue is dealt with in a manner that will be fair and just for all concerned. When I say "all," I mean native and non-native residents of this province.

In May of this year the people of this province gave us, the B.C. Liberals, an overwhelming majority. When asking for the support of the people, we had a party platform contained in the New Era document. As I said previously, we were committed to ensure that the people of this province had a say, by way of referendum, on the principles that will guide the treaty process in this province. This will be completed within a year.

We also committed to protect private property rights in treaty negotiations. I would suggest that this was not done, nor was it the case, for non-natives who lived in the Nisga'a core lands when that treaty was signed. We have committed, in the New Era document, to offer to negotiate delegated municipal-style self-government with any native group that wants to move itself beyond the failed Indian Act — not, I might add, another level of government, as was granted under the Nisga'a treaty.

In the New Era document we also committed to insist on equal non-discriminatory voting rights for all Canadians in respect to the government that rules their lives. Non-natives living within the core lands of Nisga'a do not have the right to vote for Nisga'a government, which has some control over their lives.

I submit to this House that the Nisga'a treaty should not be repeated in this province. The treaty is open-ended with ratchet clauses that allow portions of the treaty to be granted uplifts should another band get a better package than the Nisga'a did. I fail to see where there is equality or finality in the treaty. We need to move ahead as a society. As a society we must all be treated equally. We must all contribute to the social programs we all enjoy. We must see an end to the Indian Act, and there must be certainty and, most of all, finality to treaties in the future. I look forward to representing my constituents as we move to that end.

D. Hayer: Members of the Legislature, I am very pleased to speak to you today on the subject of volunteers. All of us here can appreciate the work that volunteers do in our communities. I know I was very pleased and grateful that over 350 volunteers helped me in my campaign by giving their effort and volunteer time in order to contribute to a common goal.

This is the International Year of Volunteers, 2001, as designated by the United Nations two years ago. The key objectives of this year dedicated to volunteerism around the world are to celebrate volunteers and promote volunteering, to expand the definition of volunteerism in Canada, to improve the infrastructure of voluntary organizations and to develop the voluntary sector knowledge base.

The voluntary sector in Canada consists of over 175,000 organizations at the national, provincial and local level. Millions of volunteers in this country have a huge impact on Canadian society. Over the years, their contributions have been felt in every organization that exists to provide a service to Canadian people or to advance a public cause.

Volunteering changes individual lives, is a measure of national progress and is an international measure of social development. People volunteer for as many reasons as there are volunteers. Three years ago a national survey about volunteers reported that volunteering was considered to be valuable work by volunteers themselves, with the motivating factor of giving them the opportunity to develop new skills and knowledge and the personal satisfaction of contributing to a cause.

These days volunteers don't just answer telephone calls or stuff envelopes. They serve on committees and

boards of directors. They coordinate events, raise funds, canvass, campaign, provide everything from information to transportation and serve as counsellors, teachers and coaches. Increasingly, the role of volunteers in the planning and implementation of activities is considered vital to good volunteer management.

One of the many non-profit organizations in Surrey is the Surrey Community Services Society, which helps to place volunteers into the entire community through its volunteer centre. Volunteers come to the centre from every part of society, including entire families who volunteer as a worthwhile family activity, unemployed and underemployed people looking for ways to gain more experience and improve their skills, students who need volunteer hours as part of a course requirement, seniors who are not ready to retire from society and have a lot to offer, and all those who wish to add meaning to their lives.

In February of this year the United Nations Commission for Social Development held a discussion on the role of volunteerism that resulted in the passing of resolutions on volunteering and social development. One of the seven resolutions passed recognized that volunteerism has proven to be a good way of helping to overcome discrimination and social exclusion. Another resolution emphasized that volunteerism does not imply support for replacing paid employment or employee downsizing.

New initiatives have been undertaken to help a government measure the economic contributions of volunteering in their countries and provinces. The International Year of Volunteers website, www.IYV2001.org, has a guide called Measuring Volunteering: A Practical Toolkit. This is currently the most frequently downloaded document on their site. The objective of this project is to convince governments and other decision-makers that volunteering deserves their support.

One of the new-era commitments that this government is delivering on is through Bill 9. This government is telling non-profit societies and volunteers that their role in the delivery of health care in this province is welcome and appreciated and that their hard work will not be expropriated.

We are also sending a message to parents, with new legislation in the form of Bill 8, that they are welcome as volunteers in B.C. schools helping out with activities that do not displace school employees.

Many organizations in my riding of Surrey-Tynehead are volunteer-driven. For example, the Tynehead Hatchery association has over 200 volunteers. It is made up completely of volunteers, doing the important work of increasing salmon populations in British Columbia. The Port Kells Community Association works with high schools, local art and sports clubs and Surrey parks and recreation to organize events to benefit youth and adults in the community.

The Tynehead Community Women's Auxiliary raises donations for the food bank, the Salvation Army and the South Fraser Child Development Centre, as well as in support of the Tynehead Community Hall.

Volunteers work tirelessly in many diverse service organizations such as the Fleetwood Community Association, the Lions Club of Guildford, SUCCESS, Surrey Crime Prevention Society, the Surrey Food Bank and the Taiwanese community association.

The Guildford Rotary Club has just funded a new program at the Surrey Hospice Society, a drop-in grief recovery program for children who have lost someone close to them. The Rotary Club of Surrey donated funds to start the RCMP bike patrol program in Guildford, in the Fleetwood area, and it supported, with funds, the Here for Kids campaign for the Surrey Memorial Hospital.

Hon. G. Abbott: First of all, I do want to congratulate the hon. member for Surrey-Tynehead for an excellent statement with respect to volunteerism. It's my pleasure to add a few of my own thoughts with respect to that very important issue.

In my hometown of Sicamous the volunteerism ethic is alive and well, as it obviously is in Surrey-Tynehead. Communities, whether they're a big city like Surrey or a little town like Sicamous, become very special places because of the volunteers that work hard in them to make them very special places.

Communities are only as strong as the spirit of the people who live there, and I'm pleased that the hon. member was able to provide us with so many examples of that spirit in action in Surrey-Tynehead.

People who volunteer their time and energy to the social and economic life of their communities are truly the lifeblood of those communities. Every day throughout British Columbia, in communities large and small, people volunteer for a wide variety of causes and concerns.

There is some measurement that's done in this area. One of the responsibilities of my ministry is volunteers, and I know that we do some work around that. We know that it's mostly in areas like arts and culture, recreation, sports, religious organizations and social service and health societies that people are volunteering their time for a variety of purposes.

In my experience, most people who are involved in volunteer activities never even think of themselves as volunteers. In my own case, I spent about ten years as a minor hockey coach. I did it in part because my kids were going through the minor hockey system, but I also did it because I enjoyed it. I never really thought of myself, at any point, as a volunteer. But I guess, in retrospect, I was. The moral of the story to me is that I was doing something in my community for a community group because I enjoyed it. I think that for the lion's share of people involved in volunteer work, that would certainly be the case as well. I would go so far as to say that without volunteers, our communities simply couldn't function as they do today in British Columbia.

There are a few statistics that would back up that contention. For example, one-third of all people 15 years of age or older volunteer in British Columbia — a pretty amazing statistic, I think. B.C. volunteers each

contribute an average of 169 hours annually. This is the equivalent of 88,000 full-time jobs, or close to 4 percent of the complete workforce in British Columbia. They make a tremendous difference to our communities and the kinds of programs, services and so on that we can offer there. With these facts in mind, I think it would be difficult to imagine how different our communities would be, how devoid of activity and organization those communities would be, without the selfless contributions of these volunteers.

This is the International Year of Volunteers. We not only want to celebrate that fact, but we want to encourage people to become volunteers to enrich their community in the very many ways that they can. With that, I just want to sum up by saying that volunteerism, from the perspective of our government, is an ethic that we should celebrate every day. Volunteerism is not a commodity that needs to be regulated or centralized or controlled. It's an ethic that exists in communities. If we can give communities the tools and the energy to support that ethic of volunteerism, I believe we all emerge the richer for it.

I thank the member again for his excellent statement, and I thank you, Mr. Speaker, for this opportunity to respond to it.

D. Hayer: I would like to thank the hon. minister, the member for Shuswap, for his comments and for providing this excellent information and for sharing his experience with volunteering.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to also inform you that today is the opening of the Surrey B.C. Seniors Games. This is the fourteenth annual event, which will have over 2,700 competitors, 55 years of age or older, from around the province competing in 20 different sports events. This will be the first time the city of Surrey has hosted these games. Thank you for the contributions of people like co-Chair Pam Glass, Bill McNamara and over 1,000 hard-working volunteers who will work hard over this week to make this event a very special and successful one.

Also, the PGA Air Canada open golf championship starts this month on August 27 and runs to September 2 in my riding. This event will raise nearly $4 million this year in contributions to 40 charities such as the Alzheimer Society of B.C.; the Heart and Stroke Foundation of B.C.; and the Surrey Foundation, which is chaired by Al Ecclestone, a past president of the Surrey Chamber of Commerce who has volunteered in many organizations. Over 1,700 hard-working volunteers will donate their time and money in this event. They will help in many ways, such as security, admissions, transportation, administration, groundskeeping, etc.

In my riding, Northview Golf and Country Club is hosting this event. Many business people and well-respected local business owners such as Chick and Marilyn Stewart of S&R Sawmills and owners of Northview Golf and Country Club and other business owners will give wholehearted support to this charitable event.

Next month, on September 20, the annual Terry Fox Run is another great example of community volunteer activity as part of the worldwide fundraising campaign to assist Canadian cancer research. This event will be hosted for the seventh year by the volunteers at the Fraser Heights village in my Surrey-Tynehead riding.

Volunteers in all of these events, and countless others like them, play a tremendous role in furthering the goals and aspirations of our society. The contributions of volunteers in bringing about responsible social development and change are inspirational. They are truly leaving their footprints in the sand. By recognizing volunteers as the backbone of a society which they are, in this International Year of Volunteers 2001, we will help create a social climate through which human needs are met and human values are enhanced.

B. Locke: It is appropriate that I follow the member from Tynehead, talking about volunteerism. It is indeed a privilege to talk about an outstanding event that is happening in the city of Surrey as we speak. Today — in fact, right now — the opening ceremonies for the annual Seniors Games are happening in my city.

Surrey is called the city of parks for a very good reason. Surrey boasts over 300 parks and nature trails. Each of Surrey's six town centres — Guildford, Fleetwood, Newton, South Surrey, Cloverdale and Whalley — will have a part to play in making these games great. We are very privileged to have so many parks and top-notch recreational facilities in our community. What better place to host the 2001 Seniors Games. Sport is so important to my government too. Our commitment of an additional $5.5 million to the physical fitness and amateur sports fund and our support of the 2010 Whistler-Vancouver Olympics are proof of that.

I would like to tell you a bit about the games. The B.C. Seniors Games are an annual event open to competitors over the age of 55. The Seniors Games are one of five multisport games to be staged in British Columbia each year. Other upcoming games include Smithers 2002 Northern B.C. Winter Games, B.C. Winter Games, Williams Lake 2002 B.C. Winter Games, Abbotsford 2002 B.C. Disability Games and Nanaimo 2002 B.C. Summer Games.

Surrey is proud to receive the torch this year from the city of Kelowna for the B.C. Seniors Games and will pass it to Prince George in 2002. In Surrey over 3,000 competitors will be welcomed to our fair city, along with their families and coaches. During this four-day event, 3,873 gold, silver and bronze medals will be awarded. The games are both competitive and recreational, but one thing is for sure: they're always fun for everyone.

The events include track, badminton, tennis, bocce, five-pin, carpet and lawn bowling, crib, floor curling — don't really know what that is, but anyway — cycling, darts, golf, horseshoes, one-act plays for those who aren't so active, slo-pitch, snooker, social bridge and whist, swimming and table tennis.

The stories of the athletes are particularly inspiring. It's wonderful to hear of competitors like Aart Looye,

57, of White Rock, who will be swimming in this year's event. Harold Morioka, 58, will be sprinting, and the relay-running team of Norm Lesage, 72, Les Robson, 74, Ike Thiessen, 71, and Harry Palidwor, 77, are attempting to break the Seniors Games record. Another competitor is Eileen Vetter, 64 years young and playing tennis for the love of the game, not to mention Anne Fleming of Coquitlam, who at 82 is still competing in the running events, and Surrey's own Lenora Marvin, 81, who shines best at long-distance running.

You know, there's more to the games than competitive events. There will be a variety of entertainment at the main stage, where people can relax and watch all kinds of entertainment like the Langley Ukulele Ensemble, the Chilliwack Players Guild, the Way Cool Quartet and the Burnaby International Folk Dancers. Not only are the athletes from all over B.C., the entertainment is too.

Surrey is a great place to live, with a strong community spirit. The citizens of Surrey work hard to support the many events that take place in our city, and the Seniors Games are no exception. With all these competitors coming to our city, we expect over 1,000 volunteers to give their time and make this a spectacular success story.

I would like to make special acknowledgment of some of those volunteers. In particular, I would like to acknowledge Pam Glass and Bill McNamara for their dedication to the city of Surrey and the Seniors Games. The coordination of this event is a huge job but one that has been successfully orchestrated through the hard work of many Surrey volunteers. Many thanks to every single one of them.

These games not only bring a significant amount of business to the hotels, pubs, restaurants and shops in Surrey; they also bring a sense of pride to our city and show the real heart of our community.

Hon. G. Cheema: I am pleased to respond to the member for Surrey–Green Timbers regarding the fourteenth annual Surrey Seniors Games. The member from Green Timbers has presented her views for Surrey. As she has said, Surrey is a great place. Surrey is a city where we have 300 parks. Also, Surrey is a place which is a true model for the new global village. I would like to welcome all the participants, their families and the volunteers to our great city. I think that our city has a lot to offer, and that's why this place was chosen.

It's a great day for all of us in this House. We are speaking on behalf of our constituents. I would like to commend the member for Surrey–Green Timbers, who has been a very active participant in this area throughout Surrey. She has done a great job.

Games are a very important part of our lives. Whether we are young or we are old, we like to participate. It's a basic participation, and it also promotes community spirit. Games provide the opportunity for us to know each other better. Also, it's a way for us to respect our seniors. I personally want to pay respect to all the seniors of this province, who have built this province, and also the seniors from Surrey, who have built Surrey.

Surrey used to be a very small place. If you go to Surrey, you can see farmhouses, you can see businesses, and you can find persons from all over the world. They're all there.

It's going to be a great event, and they're going to enjoy the hospitality of Surrey. I have personal experience working during the last games, the 1998 B.C. Disability Games. I worked with many volunteers, and I know how difficult it is to take time off from your families. Basically, you want to give back to the community. I think that's the whole spirit.

It's going to be a great event, and I know that I'm going to enjoy it. I'm going to go along with my family. I'm going to go there and also make a presentation next Saturday. Mr. Speaker, the great thing is that we live in the best province, and I live in the best city. I think that's the message I want to give to the seniors: please, do enjoy our hospitality. Come and visit the many places we have. We have great places to eat; we have great places for recreation. We have a lot of places for enjoyment and a lot of places where they can go and just relax and enjoy the sun or the rain. I hope it doesn't rain. In British Columbia it's very difficult to predict the weather. That we can't grant you. We can only grant you one thing: we will give you a great time.

I want to welcome them to my riding of Surrey–Panorama Ridge, which is a very new riding. On one side I have ocean, on the next side I have 72nd Avenue and on the other side I have Scott Road. It's a great community to live in. I really enjoy working with many, many organizations, and I know they're all participating during these games.

I especially want to say thank you to the co-Chairs, Pam Glass and Bill McNamara, for their dedication and to the city of Surrey, the mayor and council. There are many, many volunteer organizations which have done a great job to put this event together.

I sincerely hope that seniors will enjoy these games and that they will enjoy our city, and then next time they go to some other place, they'll take a great message from us that our city is there to welcome you. I want to pay my tribute to the seniors and say thank you for participating in the games, thank you for building this place, and thank you for welcoming everyone from all over the world.

Hon. K. Falcon: I just want to say that I have the honour to share the response to the member for Surrey–Green Timbers's excellent private statement on the B.C. Seniors Games. I want to remind the member for Surrey–Panorama Ridge that though it may rain in some places, I assure you it does not rain in Cloverdale.

Tonight I wish I could be there for the opening ceremonies. It's tough. We've got the work of the people to undertake here, so I couldn't be there. I, too, just want to take a minute and recognize the fact that we're very proud, in Cloverdale, to be one of the communities within the great city of Surrey to be hosting the B.C. Seniors

Games. It's really exciting to know that these games attract some 3,000 competitors. There are, as the member for Surrey–Green Timbers pointed out, almost 4,000 medals that will be awarded at these games.

Most importantly, the success of these games is really a combination of the great participation we get from the athletes that participate and from the 1,000 volunteers that put in their time to make sure that these games will be successful. I think the fact that we have folks in their fifties, sixties and seventies competing in some very exciting categories, including such diverse categories as, of course, cycling; bridge; crib; my favourite, tennis; and badminton, which I used to play when I was a lot younger.

Nevertheless, I think it's a wonderful event. We're proud to have it in Surrey, Mr. Speaker, and I'm looking forward to a successful event.

B. Locke: The Seniors Games don't happen without the support of sponsors, and I would like to take just a moment to thank the key corporate funding partners of these events: Air B.C., the province of British Columbia, Human Resources Development Canada, the Royal Canadian Legion, the city of Surrey and the B.C. Lottery Corporation.

You know, the energy and enthusiasm of the Seniors Games is wonderful. These games are about sport and competition and going for the gold, but mostly they're about being active and social, meeting new friends and having fun. Getting involved keeps you young, and the 3,000 young seniors participating in these games are great ambassadors for all of us as we push middle age.

I would like to personally thank all the volunteers, sponsors, coaches and, most importantly, competitors for making these games wonderful. I wish everyone lots of good times during the games, and I hope everybody gets a gold.

B. Lekstrom: It's certainly a privilege to stand here this evening. The issue that I'm going to address is the issue of agriculture in the Peace River area. I'll touch briefly on what it means to the province of British Columbia.

I think agriculture is an industry that's been overlooked for far too long, not just by British Columbians but by Canadians and by the world in general. We take for granted the food that we put on our table each and every day. Far too often we don't think about how that food reached our tables. It didn't come from the grocery store where we bought it. It originated in a field, whether it be a crop or from the cattle industry or from the diverse sectors of our agricultural industry.

We have to get back to the roots, really, of what our society is about. And that's the people who broke this land and made it was it is, people who have invested their lives in the agriculture sector so that we could all enhance other sectors of society, from logging to fishing and so on.

When I talk about the importance of agriculture, it means more than just thinking about what it means about the food on our table. I talk about rural British Columbia. Our combined ridings of Peace River South and Peace River North contain 60,000 people. They encompass close to one-third of the province — a very vast area and very sparse in population, but a hardy group of people who live there because it's a lifestyle choice that they make.

Agriculture has changed greatly over the years. People have diversified the economies of agriculture. They have diversified the crop selections that they're putting in the ground to try and combat the low commodity prices that we face in today's environment. It's interesting: the overall food system in British Columbia totals $18.5 billion in sales and provides 259,000 jobs. It's a very, very large number — one that we may not be able to relate to or understand the meaning of — based solely on the agricultural sector and the diversification that comes from that.

Farmers, I believe, are some of the strongest people we have. I'm not talking physical but mental. They weather the good times and the bad. They weather the good and the bad weather that comes. You can be the best manager of a farm, be the best organized and have the best equipment, but if Mother Nature doesn't cooperate with you, all of your toils are going to be for nought. We've seen that occur.

In the Peace region four years ago we had two consecutive years of solid rain. Our farmers couldn't get on the fields to harvest their crops one year, and they were rained out the next year and couldn't get on in the spring to even try and salvage what was left of those crops. The crops lay there to rot, and they couldn't seed. They struggled through that time. They didn't struggle through it because they thought they'd get rich farming; they struggled through it because farming is a way of life for them.

When I talk about diversity, I relate that not just to the crops we grow; I talk about the cattle industry. We look at the diversification that's taking place there. In the Peace River area bison and reindeer are a very large industry, and there are many others. So the issue — when I hear some people talking about farmers and that they have to start thinking outside the box — is one that may be a misconception in British Columbia and in Canada. Our farmers are thinking outside the box. They're diversifying at a very rapid pace.

I think it's the numbers that we look at. In the Peace region we're very evenly split between our livestock sector and our grains. It's very close to 50-50. I think 48 percent of the land is put into crop, and 52 percent is used for our cattle, bison and reindeer industries.

Pigs. We have a very large hog operation right now in northeastern British Columbia, one that competes with the rest of Canada. That's new. Something interesting took place a number of years ago: this gentleman looked at locating a hog operation. I grew up with this gentleman. He's a very well-organized, well-managed farmer. He began looking around, and British

Columbia was the place that he decided to put his hog operation, not because this province had the best climate to invest in at that time but because of the land that we had available and because of the people that were in the region. Certainly, when you talk about hog operations, it's not something you want put next door to a large neighbourhood.

That's all taken into account in the Peace River area. It's very, very vast. We have some main centres, but right beside those main centres are agricultural operations. We don't face some of the challenges that some of our larger urban centres in the south face, with development encroaching on the farmland.

What we have is true cooperation between our urban and rural settings. It's an understanding that our communities such as Dawson Creek, Chetwynd, Tumbler Ridge and Fort St. John — all of them — don't survive on the economies that exist within our municipal boundaries, these imaginary boundaries that we draw lines around, but we exist as a region, because of our agricultural sector. They've always been there, and they will always be there.

One of the significant issues that our farmers face is the issue of commodity prices. I touched on that earlier. When you look over the years, like any industry, costs have risen. Our input costs in the agricultural sector have steadily climbed year after year after year, yet commodity prices have not kept up with that.

In fact, when you look at the times from 1978-79 to 1998-99…. I'll use one example. That's the example of No. 1 barley. A decrease of 60 percent in that commodity has taken place. Now, that's not a 60 percent reduction that you see on the shelves at your grocery stores and so on. That's a 60 percent reduction of the money that goes to the farmer, the individual who produces that commodity so that we can all survive and put food on our plates. To me, that's unacceptable. Somewhere, somehow there's been a wrong turn taken. There are people making money off this.

I can tell you, most farmers aren't in farming to get rich. It is a frustrating industry. They're in it because it's their heart and soul. They do it because they love it. Farm families are the key to survival of communities.

I've had the discussion with the previous government, talking about the issue of farming and its importance. I was somewhat disheartened when one of the responses I had was: "Blair, the land will always be farmed, regardless of whether it's farmed by family farms or the large corporate farm."

The issue of corporate farming is something that we realize, but the family farm is the key to survival of rural British Columbia and rural Canada. I will do my best to educate the people of this province and my colleagues in this House so that we can bring agriculture back to the important role that it once was recognized for. I will do my best to make sure it is there again.

Hon. J. van Dongen: I'm certainly very pleased and privileged to respond to the member for Peace River South on the very important subject of agriculture. As the member said, it is an industry that very often is not fully understood and is taken for granted. We assume that it's always there, because the farmers stay on the land. They're family operations. We were just dealing today with issues around farm safety net programs. In the discussion I pointed out that on a farm, the family lives on the farm. The family is a part of the farm. In that respect and in a number of other respects, that unit is different from some other small business.

The member provided a few statistics. I'll just mention a few more. The sales of farm products in British Columbia exceed $2 billion a year. It employs 30,000 people at the farm level. At the processing level, that translates into $4.8 billion in sales and employs another 25,000 people.

Of those numbers, I know that the grain industry in the Peace River is about $50 million, a very significant number. I recall visiting the Peace River. I think I've been there three times now. Certainly, in the years that the member mentioned, when we had the weather difficulties, it was important for government to be there with crop insurance programs and other safety net programs to help farmers deal with those one-time events.

If we look at the total sales of agricultural products or the net revenue to farms over the last 20 years, we see a gradually growing figure. We've had an increase every year in total sales of farm products since 1981, other than 1983. That gradual and steady growth within British Columbia doesn't necessarily recognize all price fluctuations or weather events that create problems for farmers. Those things are not recognized in the total figures.

When we look at individual commodities, individual products, as the member mentioned, then we see some significant fluctuations that can be very problematic to farmers. There are two characteristics that can create difficulty. One is the weather. No matter how much technology and how much equipment we can apply to a situation…. I've seen the situation of large tractors, large implements, sitting in the shed waiting for the weather to break because they just can't move. They can't do their job without having the appropriate soil and weather conditions.

The other is the biological cycle. The farmers in the Peace, the grain growers for example, get one paycheque a year. They get one crop a year, and it's a long time between crops, particularly when you get these weather events back to back.

This is why, over the years, governments have developed these farm safety net programs. Both the federal and provincial governments have attempted to provide tools — risk management tools, we call them these days — that farmers can use to help cope with these risk situations. I think that's appropriate public policy. I think it's appropriate that we share that risk amongst the populace — that weather risk, something that simply cannot be forecast, cannot be predicted — but that we share it in some appropriate way where it's a shared risk between the farmer and the public.

Part of the reason that we're seeing, in some of these commodities.... It's particularly true in grain,

where we are competing with some very highly subsidized entities. The United States and the European Union do subsidize particularly their crop enterprises very heavily. Hence, we are very active as a province and as a country in two things: providing support where necessary and providing transition programs and arguing very aggressively at the world trade talks to ensure that we try and develop a level playing field for our farmers. We have a very efficient and effective industry, and we just need to be sure that they have a fair opportunity to compete.

I thank the member for raising this issue, and I appreciate his support for this industry. It's a fine industry and one that will serve British Columbia well.

B. Lekstrom: I will try to be brief. I'd like to thank the hon. Minister of Agriculture, Food and Fisheries for responding to my private member's statement this evening. When I was the mayor of Dawson Creek, I talked about it often — every chance I had to spread the message of what agriculture means — and I will continue to do that. I'm not focused on one individual aspect, but I can tell you that agriculture is something I will do my best to make sure that British Columbians understand so that they can understand and tell their friends and neighbours what it really means when they have food on their plates.

When we talk about the issue of farming, many people think of the old days of pulling the combine or dragging the swather. I want to tell the members here this evening that farming is certainly a highly advanced technological area. No longer are the days of sitting down and running your open-air tractor. It's very highly sophisticated when you look at seeding or applying your fertilizer. It takes a lot of money, actually, to be a farmer. The downside right now in the agricultural sector is that for a young man or lady growing up and wanting to get into farming, it is virtually impossible. If you can afford the land, the next step is buying the equipment or working out some kind of deal. That's very unfortunate.

We're very fortunate in our area, Peace River South and Peace River North, where we do have many farm families, but more and more it's a struggle. When the children are growing up and graduating from school, many of them are seeing it as a tough job in which to make a living. No longer can they stay on the farm and help their mothers and fathers farm that land, because it truly is a big venture.

What we have to do is show that we care as British Columbians about our agricultural sector, let them know that we understand it and what it means. Through that kind of understanding and that kind of work by our government and by the people of British Columbia, I think we can truly have an industry that is sustainable and one that we can all be proud of and one that will have our farmers in British Columbia standing up and recognizing a government that recognizes them. The most important thing I can bring to this House is making sure that the agriculture sector is recognized and given the respect it so rightly deserves.

I'd like to thank the House for listening to my topic here this evening. It certainly is just the beginning of what you're going to hear from the north.

J. Kwan: I have a number of questions for the Premier, as does my colleague from Vancouver-Hastings, relating to his office. First, I'd like to ask some questions with respect to the makeup of his office — I know there are many areas of responsibility that have been transferred into the Premier's office — and how the line items break down in relation to each of the areas.

Hon. G. Campbell: Thank you for the question. I should introduce two of my staff who are with me tonight. The deputy minister for the executive council, Ken Dobell, joins me tonight, and the deputy minister of corporate planning and restructuring, Brenda Eaton, is with me here tonight as well.

Let me just try and outline some of the fundamentals of what we've tried to do in the Premier's office and in the government over the last 78 days. First, we thought it was important that we try and create some transparency in government. We have given direction to our agencies and our ministries to try and open up government so that the public can see what is taking place and exactly how it's taking place. There's a number of areas that, in fact, under the previous administration were controlled by the Premier's office and that we felt were important to bring into the Premier's office so that we could be held to account for those areas of endeavour.

We think openness beats hiddenness every time, and we want to be sure that people can see what's taking place, so I welcome this opportunity. We have said consistently throughout that we believe that intergovernmental relations are critical to the future of the province — our relationships not just with the federal government but with the provinces, municipalities and neighbouring jurisdictions, particularly in the United States. Intergovernmental relations is now under the Premier's office in this administration.

There are 21 ministries and seven ministries of state. I know there have been some questions with regard to the ministries of state. I'd just like to say that this was an area of accountability that I thought was critical as we move forward — not just that we wanted to be sure that we had political accountability for these areas of significant importance to British Columbians but also that we started to break down the barriers between ministries so we could think in terms of a more

In terms of the Premier's office, we thought it was important that we have a number of governmentwide initiatives led by the Premier's office so it didn't again become one ministry having an argument with another ministry. It became the Premier's office taking the leadership and moving, if you want, the government administration in a unified and comprehensive direction. We have moved intergovernmental relations under the auspices of the Premier's office. We have moved what we call the public affairs bureau under the Premier's office. That is just underway. I am sure that by the time the full report is prepared by the deputy minister for the public affairs bureau, there will be additional changes. Those additional changes will be reflected in future budgets. Obviously, when we were trying to put together a budget on the basis of the last budget that we had, we had to make sure that we cobbled together as well as we could to reflect the changes we'd made in the government structures.

There's a chief information officer who is now in the Premier's office. That chief information officer has a responsibility to drive the strategic technology agenda in the government. There is not a jurisdiction that has been successful in the application of the new information technologies and communication technologies that will not tell you that you need to have both leadership and standardization across the institution to maximize the benefits. The chief information officer out of the Premier's office, we believe, will do that.

We also believe that when you're not getting the results you want from an institution or a vehicle, you have to change the vehicle. We have undertaken a number of significant initiatives. The core services review is under the Premier's office. The Crown agencies secretariat has moved into the Premier's office. As I'm sure the member opposite will recognize, rather than burying the costs of the Crown agencies secretariat throughout government, you will see that the full cost of that has been brought into the Premier's office for the public to see and for the member opposite to hold us to account for.

There is a full review being undertaken for the 790 agencies, boards and commissions that are currently part of the government of British Columbia. The administrative justice review is being driven out of the Premier's office and the Attorney General's office. That will review institutions like the WCB, the Labour Relations Board, the Employment Standards Board. All of those things, we believe, are critical, as well as the service part of the government: the cabinet operations division, correspondence, scheduling. All of those are part of the Premier's office.

I know there's been some discussion about the increase in the budget of the Premier's office. What there really has been is an increase in the transparency of how the government runs and how the government operates. In fact, there are exactly the same number of FTEs, or full-time-equivalents, currently under the auspices of the Premier's office, when you readjust for what the previous government did and where they put those full-time-equivalents. Not one additional full-time-equivalent has been added. There were 198 under the former government doing these same functions. Those functions are now in the Premier's office.

We believe that over the long term there is a great deal to do as we move forward. The hallmark of this government will be openness. I welcome the opportunity to discuss the estimates of the Premier's office with the members of the Legislature, because I think it's important that they understand the direction we're going in so we can set standards for ourselves and we can meet them as we move through the months and the years ahead.

J. MacPhail: Let me begin by congratulating the Premier on his election victory, May 16. It was substantial, and certainly there was a solid mandate given to the Premier. I congratulate him on that.

We have taken an approach during estimates, to date, of examining the issues that are new since the election in terms of the budget, and we won't be examining any issues that were in areas that my colleague and I were responsible for. That may or may not shorten the estimates of the Premier's office. We'll have to see about that.

There are a substantial number of initiatives, some of which the Premier has outlined as him having direct responsibility, but there are others that flow from the letters of expectation that the Premier himself sent to various ministers. I wanted to start off by asking, in terms of openness and accountability: did you make public in any way the expectations that you have of yourself?

Hon. G. Campbell: Yes, I've made public the expectations for myself, both through the letters to the ministers and also through a fairly lengthy campaign process where I outlined what I believed the government should do and how the government should operate.

One of the dramatic changes, I would suggest, between what has happened in the past and what will happen in the future is that the budgets of the Premier will all be subject to Treasury Board review and perusal. There will be standards set for my office. There will be a service plan from my office that will be presented as we move towards our next complete budget, which will be February 19. I will expect my office to be held to account, just as I'd expect every ministry to be held to account.

J. MacPhail: I guess what I meant in the way of expectations made to the public…. There were very detailed letters given to each of the ministers, which certainly helped guide discussions during the estimates. Did the Premier outline for his executive council and the public what he himself will be achieving, and is it in writing? If it is, could I have a copy? I haven't seen it.

Hon. G. Campbell: First, I'm sure the member has had an opportunity to review the letters. You'll note

that the letters are pretty standard letters except for what's added to the letters. The additions to the letters in terms of the Premier's office are this entire platform. This platform is there. It's my responsibility to the public to perform according to it.

I must admit that after 78 days of the 90-day agenda, I'm pretty pleased with what we've been able to accomplish as a government, what the Premier's office has been able to accomplish. Over 60 of the areas that we undertook to do have been accomplished in less than 90 days.

This is the document; I'd be glad to send a copy to the member opposite. I think it's worth her keeping and reading, because I certainly hope that one of the things she will do is hold me and the entire government to account for the undertakings we made to the public. That's what I am accountable for. This is what I intend to deliver, as well as the standard format of the letter that she's received and that the public has seen through the website.

J. MacPhail: Mr. Chair, I'm sorry I spoke directly to the Premier. I should have done it through you. I apologize.

The reason why I started off by congratulating the Premier for his election is…. We understand what the election debate was about. This opportunity is for discussing the things that perhaps are not in the New Era document or where the New Era document said: "When we get in government, we'll examine certain ways of finding solutions for that." For instance, the softwood lumber dispute is clearly defined in the New Era document and is an issue that needs to be grappled with, but there's no solution in the New Era document.

We've also seen certain elements come forward to this Legislature that came not as a surprise but certainly as a signal to the members of the government caucus, even. "Oh, we didn't exactly know that this was going to be moved on so quickly, etc." Certain items in the New Era document weren't discussed.

I referenced, earlier on in the discussion on another matter brought forward by a minister, that when one achieves power and assumes power and responsibility for all activities of government, there is an experience that is gained very quickly. That experience should temper everything, whether it tempers it by reordering priorities, by setting aside commitments or by adding new commitments. That's what experience brings forward.

So while I know full well that the New Era document is the blueprint for the government, I assume it's only a blueprint, because the Premier has been in office now and knows of many of the difficult situations a government faces that don't form part of an election discussion.

I wanted to start in the area of intergovernmental relations. I see that the minister of state is here with the Premier, so it's appropriate that we start with that discussion. This is an area that British Columbians view with interest — intergovernmental relations, whether that be relationships with other provinces or whether that be relationships with the federal government or whether that be a relationship with a foreign power. Previous governments have had direct relationships with, for instance, the government of Germany. Previous governments have had direct relationships with the United States — through Alaska or with the federal government directly. All of us know that in a federal system, in Canada, the role of Premier is key to intergovernmental relations and the working of the federation.

I want to begin by focusing on a matter that I have felt uncomfortable about. I need help in understanding what the logic was behind the Premier in performing his first task in the area of intergovernmental relations, and that's the choosing of the deputy minister. We had raging debates today about the public service and the merit commissioner, but that's not where I want to go on this. There are so many important files of intergovernmental relations now that I really need to understand what the role is of the deputy minister. Through FOIs, we weren't given any answers. I'll confess: the FOIs were sent by the president of my political party, Bruce Ralston. But nevertheless, we're very open and accountable, as well, and that's the document that I'm relying on.

I know that government caucus members are very proud of the fact that Dr. Wilkinson is a physician and he's a Rhodes Scholar. We had our own Rhodes Scholar as deputy minister to the Premier as well. The skill of a Rhodes Scholar is unbelievable. But intergovernmental relations, I have learned, are very, very complex — arcane, at some point. I found that the choosing of the Intergovernmental Relations deputy minister actually took place before the election, that the selection was before the election. Therefore, the logic behind it is not subject to any scrutiny. So perhaps the Premier could explain the logic of choosing this. Why was it done before the election, and what other candidates did he consider for the Deputy Minister of Intergovernmental Relations?

Hon. G. Campbell: Thank you for that question. I think this does warrant some discussion. I would like to point out that this did take place prior to the election. It took place as part of a transition and a potential transition that we were hoping British Columbians would give us the support for so that we could carry it out.

When you're taking on responsibility for managing the government of a province, I think it's important that you do that. You don't just come in and sort of try and figure out what you're going to do after the election. I think it's important, in fact it's an obligation, to plan for your transition, just as I'm sure the member opposite's party tried to do. I know her party tried to plan for a transition prior to them being elected in 1991, with a fellow by the name of George Ford.

We started 18 months prior to what the eventual election date was, working with a number of search firms that were tasked with the following responsibilities. Look across the government of British Columbia. Look for people within British Columbia who have

experience, who are able to make a contribution. Look across the country at other provincial jurisdictions for people who would be willing to come and try and turn the economy around and turn the government around and turn the spirit of government around in British Columbia. Look in the federal institutions, municipal institutions and provincial institutions. Look to see where you can find people who are interested enough in public life that they may be willing to come and help us.

Part of our transition strategy was to recognize there are some very critical ministries that you have to deal with when you take on responsibilities of government, should citizens allow you to do that. We had a number. Intergovernmental Relations was one. Forests; Health; Education; Treasury; deputy ministers to the Premier; Competition, Science and Enterprise; and the public affairs bureau were all identified as critical, critical components of changing the direction of the government.

I'm going to be candid with the member opposite. She said that we all know what the election was about, and I think we do. We had a government that was failing British Columbians, in my mind and in the minds, obviously, of an awful lot of British Columbians. We had a government that was failing public servants. We had a government that had lost its sense of pride, lost its sense of confidence, and we wanted to restore that.

We started very early on. We had four separate firms in the lower mainland who were helping us — British Columbia firms, well established, many of whom had worked with the previous government — try to identify potential deputy ministers or potential assistant deputy ministers. We were looking for deputy ministers.

The four firms were Ray & Berndtson/Tanton Mitchell, Patrick O'Callaghan and Associates, Korn/Ferry International and the Caldwell Partners. They all went and they helped. We probably identified between 150 and 200 individuals who were potential recruits to come should we form government. We thought it was important that we outline the new-era commitments that we'd made — which we made well before the election, although many people didn't notice them until the election — and we focused on the ministries that I talked about.

Having gone through that search, those lists were filtered, were reviewed by the search firms and by many of the members of our transition team. Two of the members of our transition team, whom I introduced to you earlier, became deputy ministers to the Premier. Those two members then had a chance to review the people that were brought forward, and prior to the election — and we should be up front about this — we asked for commitments from people that they would be willing to come and serve in government should we be elected. Mr. Wilkinson was one of those people.

I think we are fortunate to have someone of Mr. Wilkinson's background. He has served as a medical health officer at the local level. He has served as a lawyer and a doctor. He has been actively involved in the community. He has been the president of the B.C. Civil Liberties Association. He also was — and I understand the member's concern with regard to this — a member of the B.C. Liberal Party. It was difficult to decide that what we felt he brought to the task would exceed what the political price might be for him being given this responsibility. He's been given the responsibility because we believe there are few areas that are more critical in terms of maximizing the potential of British Columbia than the area of intergovernmental relations.

I can tell you that since this government took office, the Deputy Minister of Intergovernmental Relations has built strong relations with the state of Washington, the state of Idaho, the state of Montana, the state of Alaska and the federal government, and he is working continuously with his provincial counterparts to build a strong and united provincial front as we move to start to deal with some of our common problems across the country.

As the member opposite will know, this year, through no fault of mine and actually through no fault of hers, the annual Premiers' conference was held in the province of British Columbia, in Victoria. I can tell the member opposite that the work that was done by my Deputy Minister for Intergovernmental Relations, by our intergovernmental relations department, was universally recognized by other deputy ministers and by other Premiers because of the quality of the work, because of the focus that we brought to the discussion. I think that in itself speaks volumes for the contribution of my Deputy Minister of Intergovernmental Relations.

J. MacPhail: I have a series of questions following that. Were the initiatives that the Deputy Minister of Intergovernmental Relations took with these other governments the first time that he had ever met with those governments? What experience does he have in intergovernmental relations? If, indeed, the Deputy Minister of Intergovernmental Relations was hired before the election, while he was president of the B.C. Liberal Party — he wasn't just a member; Dr. Wilkinson was the president of the B.C. Liberal Party — why didn't the Premier reveal that during the election?

Hon. G. Campbell: First, let me just correct the member. I'm sorry if I left the wrong impression. He was not hired prior to the election. Nobody was hired prior to the election. There was nobody in a position to hire anyone prior to the election. He was hired after the election. The recruitment process I talked about, which I was referring to, took place outside of our position as government. That's just what happened.

In terms of if the deputy minister had been involved with these various agencies and jurisdictions before, certainly he'd been involved in a number of health care discussions. Had he been involved as the deputy minister, an intergovernmental relations executive, prior to his appointment? The answer is no.

It's a little bit much to hear this member ask these questions when I tell you the state of intergovernmental relationships between the province of British Columbia, the state of Washington, the state of Idaho, the state of Montana, the state of Alaska, the federal government, the province of Alberta, the province of Saskatchewan, the province of Manitoba, the province of Ontario, the province of Quebec and the four Maritime provinces, plus the three territories. We've had to pick up a mess. We've had to try and clean it up.

Mr. Wilkinson has shown true leadership. I can tell you that the work he's done since he was made the Deputy Minister of Intergovernmental Relations has been universally recognized, as I said, not just by his provincial counterparts but by the people that we dealt with. Whether we were dealing with the PNWER conference, whether we were dealing with the western Governors' conference or the work that we've done already with the federal government, I think he has shown that not only is he capable of handling the task, but he's capable of leading the country in that task. I'm very proud of that appointment.

J. MacPhail: It's going to be a long night if the Premier wants to bash us for the previous government's record. I don't know why he continues to do that. These are legitimate questions that need to be raised, and so far the Premier wants to reinforce the fact that I've already congratulated him on winning the election and why it was that he won the election. That's a given. So now we need some solid answers.

This was one of the first acts of his government. It was one of his first acts. He spent many days in the seat right here — it's not a seat that I hold, but it's a seat that he held right there — bashing previous activities around partisan appointments. And the very, very first appointment that he makes is a partisan appointment. The Premier tries to cloud it by saying: "Let me be clear. He wasn't hired till after the election." Well, when we asked for information….

It may have been that the Premier didn't have the authority to actually give the guy a paycheque, but he had hired him during the election. Here's what we finally gleaned, after several attempts, from the Premier's office. This was specifically relating to Andrew Wilkinson. "Ms. Harvey also confirmed that the executive search activities were completed prior to the swearing-in of the new government, and none of these records, if they exist, were transferred or brought to the…." Now, I'm not going to refer to it as "oop"; it's OOP. I'm going to refer to it as the office of the Premier; they refer to it as OOP. That's what it says; that's what we got from the Premier's office.

So it was done during the election. I want to ask the Premier this. If on the campaign trail — if in Surrey — the now Premier had had a microphone thrust in his face and the question to this Premier was, "We have information that Ujjal Dosanjh, Premier of this province, has hired Bruce Ralston, the president of the B.C. New Democratic Party, to be Deputy Minister of Intergovernmental Relations," what would his response be?

Hon. G. Campbell: I'm glad to deal with the estimates of the Premier's office, and I will do so. I'm not going to comment on Mr. Ralston one way or another. I can tell the member this, and the member knows this: we're not in a position to hire anyone until we are sworn in as a government. Mr. Wilkinson was one of many deputy ministers that were hired on the day we were sworn in. He is qualified to do the job. His experience recommends him to do the job. The two deputy ministers to the Premier who were on contract prior to the swearing-in understood his capabilities of doing the job. I believe that's what's critical here.

We have a person of merit, a person of quality who's willing to serve in the public in British Columbia. I think the member opposite knows that. We should move on. If she's not satisfied with that, that's the answer, and there's not much I can do about that.

J. MacPhail: I'm wondering whether, in the executive search that was done by the firms that the Premier has listed, the fees were paid by the Liberal Party. Or were they paid by government for that executive search?

Hon. G. Campbell: First, the government wasn't in a position to pay them. It was executive search firms who were working on a voluntary basis because they understood the damage that was being done by the previous government.

J. MacPhail: So the executive search firm did the search for the Deputy Minister of Intergovernmental Relations who was hired during the election, and they did it as a contribution to the Liberal Party. Is that what he's saying?

J. MacPhail: Well, what is it? What is a voluntary contribution on behalf of a political party during an election? What is it?

Hon. G. Campbell: As the member knows, under the Election Act it is possible to donate time. For 18 months prior to the election, this group worked. Their work was fundamentally complete by, I would say, about February. There were interviews carried out with people that I hoped were going to become deputy ministers. Those people were all on contract.

J. MacPhail: I'm asking the Premier: the executive search firms he listed that hired the Deputy Minister of Intergovernmental Relations — the president of the B.C. Liberal Party — during the election and who were not paid…. Was it declared as a donation to the Liberal Party?

Hon. G. Campbell: They were working for the party prior to the election. As I've mentioned already, the Deputy Minister of Intergovernmental Relations was not hired during the election.

J. MacPhail: Well, I'm sorry. There's evidence contrary to that from his own office. The Election Act requires all voluntary contributions to be declared. Did the Premier or the Premier's party declare that in their elections filing?

Hon. G. Campbell: The searches were completed prior to the election being called. As I've mentioned already, the Deputy Minister of Intergovernmental Relations was not hired during the election.

J. MacPhail: I think the first thing the Premier has to do is come clean with the exact process that took place around the Deputy Minister of Intergovernmental Relations, because he can't have it all ways. He can't say that there was a volunteer group that he relied on, that his professional people relied on, to choose the president of the B.C. Liberal Party to be a deputy minister, and that took place during the election. The hiring certainly took place before he was Premier, according to the evidence of his own office.

Perhaps the government hasn't seen that FOI, but I just read from it. We didn't make it up. It was complete beforehand. I'm sure the Minister of Finance wants me to read it again. I'll provide him with copies. It actually came from the Premier's office. So we have a situation here where a partisan appointment is selected, and it's done on a volunteer basis by executive search firms for the Liberal Party because it wasn't government at the time. There's no declaration of that in the elections expenditure — none. Somehow this is the new era of the public service.

I bet the people over there are tightening up. I bet they're saying: "Oh my God. What have we done?" I bet they're going to run to the Election Act filing and see whether those firms are listed as a voluntary contribution to the Liberal Party. You know what they're going to find? It isn't there.

J. MacPhail: Sorry, I know a heck of a lot more than the Minister of Finance knows about this. So here we have a situation where the first act of the Premier — the very first act — was to hire a partisan through a partisan executive search before the election was over, and he didn't even reveal it. I expect that the Premier will be very concerned about the trail that's left with this hiring. And no wonder, because British Columbians were concerned. Nurses were concerned when that happened. They were concerned about the direction the Premier was going to take in the public service. It's only tonight that we find out the depth of the direction that the Premier took.

Let's move on, then, to talk about the specific issues of intergovernmental relations and the expertise that this government has brought. Let's talk about what exactly the contribution is that's being made by either the Minister of State for Intergovernmental Relations or the government department for intergovernmental relations.

By the way, let me just take a moment here to say that the annual Premiers' conference did run smoothly, and that's because there's an expertise of public servants who do that for living and have done it for most of their lives. It takes a great deal of expertise, regardless of what government's in power. As a minister, I had the privilege — sometimes it was an arduous privilege — to attend three annual Premiers' conferences. Every single time, there was a group of intergovernmental relations public service experts from across the country serving the politicians who were doing very important business. British Columbia was always known for intergovernmental relations expertise. It just so happens that part of that expertise was dismissed from the role of intergovernmental relations to make way for Mr. Wilkinson.

So there are questions that are not answered. There's been information received that's disturbing. Let me ask, in these files of great importance, what Intergovernmental Relations is doing and what progress is being made on behalf of British Columbians. One is the softwood lumber dispute and the role that the Intergovernmental Relations minister is playing in finding a solution with Ottawa and the other provinces for companies in dire straits.

Hon. G. Campbell: Let me say that one of the things that happened prior to actually being sworn in was the Western Premiers' Conference. The previous government had forgotten that when we speak with a united voice as western Premiers, we have much greater strength with the federal government than when we speak with a divided voice. So one of the first things I did was suggest that we bring all of our Forests ministers together from the western provinces. That happened. The Minister of Forests for British Columbia attended. The Ministry of Forests has taken the lead with regard to this.

The Intergovernmental Relations secretariat in the province has made a point of being sure that our American bordering states, as well as the western Governors, understood the impact of this. I can tell you that the previous government had done nothing with regard to that, so we have had to pick some of this up. I know the member doesn't like to hear some of these things, but the fact is that this file was not well developed by the previous government. A number of issues that we've dealt with, whether it was with consumer groups yesterday or with the provinces as we've moved forward, were not handled prior to the new government coming in.

One of the things that Intergovernmental Relations has been able to do is start to take British Columbia's message out to the states and the provinces that we've been building relationships with. That's one of the critical things that we have to do. I believe that as we move forward, the Minister of Forests has taken a leadership role with regard to this on the national stage. As he mentioned to the member opposite this afternoon, he will be in Ottawa and Montreal on Thursday and Friday taking British Columbia's position and indeed

helping shape Canada's position. We will continue to work in that regard, and our Intergovernmental Relations secretariat will be a critical component of that as we build allies with our neighbours, with our friends and with those who share our mutual goal of open access to the American markets.

Hon. G. Halsey-Brandt: Just further to the question, I want to, in particular, relate some of the efforts we've made in the softwood lumber dispute. Some of those have been covered off by the Premier, but I want to particularly mention the ones we had in the conference that we had in Whistler with the Council of State Governments. We had the Governors of Idaho and Wyoming and the U.S. ambassador there. We had the opportunity to meet individually with these gentlemen to explain our position on softwood lumber. We had the opportunity to meet with the Canadian consuls general in Seattle and in Los Angeles and explain our position as well. As a matter of fact, this Friday we have a large delegation of Alaskan legislators — both state legislators and Senators from the state of Alaska — coming to Vancouver. Again, we'll be explaining to them our position on softwood lumber.

J. MacPhail: Did the Minister of State for Intergovernmental Relations attend a meeting with Minister Pettigrew earlier this week?

J. MacPhail: Did the Deputy Minister of Intergovernmental Relations attend a meeting with Minister Pettigrew?

Hon. G. Campbell: The Minister of Forests simply brought Minister Pettigrew and Minister Anderson into my office so I could impress upon them the importance of this to British Columbia.

J. MacPhail: One of the roles that intergovernmental relations play across the country is that of a corporate memory. That's why it's so very important that that particular aspect of the public service be professional, expert and, frankly, long-serving. It's been my experience that intergovernmental relations public servants are the senior public servants of a province. Very often one will meet public servants in intergovernmental relations who have been there for decades. They carry a corporate memory on these files.

The Premier made reference to the fact that nothing had been done on this file, or very little had been done — that it had been left in shambles by the previous government. There was a meeting that took place between Mr. Pettigrew, the federal minister; the then Minister of Forests, now defeated; and the member for Shuswap. There was much done at that time, but the federal government had a particular position about how they could not act at that time.

Did the Premier discuss that meeting, which took place earlier this spring, and subsequent actions that could take place as a result of changed circumstances?

Hon. G. Campbell: Just so I understand the question, do you mean at the meeting with Minister Pettigrew yesterday?

J. MacPhail: Yes. This is where intergovernmental relations are so important as a corporate memory. There were discussions that occurred in the spring, which the member for Shuswap, the Minister of Community, Aboriginal and Women's Services, attended. That meeting took place with Mr. Pettigrew, and there were discussions about the softwood lumber dispute at that time. Did the Premier raise those discussions and follow up at his meeting yesterday with Mr. Pettigrew?

Hon. G. Campbell: On June 8, I visited Mr. Pettigrew with the Deputy Minister for Intergovernmental Relations. We outlined the position that we felt British Columbia should be taking. Minister Pettigrew was very receptive, and I thought we had a very productive meeting yesterday.

J. MacPhail: Well, let me fill in more details. Maybe I can provide the corporate memory. The discussion that occurred with Mr. Pettigrew back in the spring was about the advisability of a provincial bond, previous to any decision made by the U.S. Department of Commerce. The decision has been made. Was there any follow-up discussion with Mr. Pettigrew about actions they could take as a result of the decision already being made?

Hon. G. Campbell: We've had a number of discussions with the minister, and as the member opposite knows, the Minister of Forests has been preparing a plan of action that he intends to take to Ottawa tomorrow and to Montreal for Friday. The critical thing here — and this is a bit of intergovernmental relations memory — is, I think, all the professionals in Intergovernmental Relations will tell you that it's important that we do this in unison, in concert — that we speak with a focused voice, in a leadership voice, from British Columbia, but we recognize that it's our allies in the other provinces and the federal government that we have to work with. The challenge is to bring that voice together. I must say, I think the Minister of Forests is doing an excellent job of looking at the broad range of opportunities we have to both protect Canadian workers, Canadian industry, and attain free and open access to American markets.

J. MacPhail: That's exactly why I raised the question about follow-up to Mr. Pettigrew's meeting in the spring, which one of his members attended. It was exactly the promise of a unified voice that was made at that meeting by the federal government. It was exactly the reason why the then government took a member of

the opposition with them. And it was exactly at that meeting where the federal government made a commitment to speak with one unified voice — that it was all for one and one for all. Since then we've seen the Maritimes make an exemption for their situation, even though the agreement was not to do that. It was to be a pan-Canadian — that was what it was called — approach. That's what the discussions were with Minister Pettigrew back in the spring.

Then the pan-Canadian discussions broke down, because the Maritimes went off and made their own application for exemption. Now the Quebec government is making its own plans for an exemption based on the de minimis rule. The border towns in Ontario are making their own case. So the discussions that Mr. Pettigrew and the federal government had with British Columbia about a pan-Canadian approach are falling apart. It's becoming clearer that the goal of the United States is to isolate British Columbia. The pan-Canadian approach was to take care of that. It's not happening.

So I'm wondering whether the Premier approached Mr. Pettigrew, on the basis of the commitment that had been made in the spring around a pan-Canadian approach and its failure, to ask him what happened, what changed from his commitment that he made then.

Hon. G. Campbell: We had a very productive meeting yesterday, I think, with Minister Pettigrew. I had a very good conversation with the Prime Minister. While the member opposite may think it's a good idea for us to start having these discussions in public, I think you don't execute your battle plan until you're ready to go with it. The Minister of Forests is working on that now. He will be in Ottawa tomorrow; he will be in Montreal on Friday.

I can tell the member opposite that our interest is solely to protect the interests of British Columbia's workers and British Columbia's industry. What we are doing is working to unite all of those interested parties to make sure that we speak with the strongest, loudest and clearest voice to the Americans.

J. MacPhail: Those are sentiments that we can all agree with and that we all support wholeheartedly. But the fact of the matter is that the clock is ticking, and other provinces are moving on with their own agendas in this dispute.

We're not having any discussion here that isn't in the public domain. We know that the Atlantic provinces broke away and got their own exemption based on private lands, special circumstances. The opposition has raised questions about applying for an exemption for western red cedar. Bernard Landry, the Premier of Quebec, is right now working on the de minimis rule being applied for an exemption for Quebec.

So I don't think this is a secret or a discussion that somehow is inappropriate. If we all want the best thing, then we need to understand how long it's going to take for the government of British Columbia to put in place a solution that works. Part of that is putting pressure on our federal government to represent the interests of British Columbia. That was exactly what the meeting was about when it occurred in the spring.

By the way, I think the federal government is taking a very, very active interest in this file now. I think it's wholly appropriate that the Premier cooperate as much as is possible with the federal government on behalf of British Columbians. But the fact of the matter is that commitments that were made by the federal government in the spring have broken down, to the detriment of British Columbia.

These are only questions that need to be answered for British Columbia. If the Premier doesn't want to discuss them in public, then I don't know where British Columbians get comfort that their interests are being represented either at the federal level or in the United States.

Let me ask a couple of other things, then, on this file. This will cause great alarm, I know: I have to leave at five to eight and will come back at 8:30. I knew it would cause great alarm.

What is the nature of the initiatives that deal with the softwood lumber dispute that the Deputy Minister of Intergovernmental Relations is taking with Washington and Oregon?

Hon. G. Campbell: We attended the Western Governors Association meeting, as the member knows. I think it was August 12 or 13, something like that. We spoke with all 13 western Governors. I will be following up with those Governors, pointing out some of the facts with regards to British Columbia.

Again, while I don't like to dwell on the past, one of the amazing things to me as I have tried to deal with this file that's very important to British Columbia is how little was done to put British Columbia's message out — not this month, not this spring, but two years ago and three years ago, when we knew this was coming up. I can recall asking the previous government to join with the opposition as we spoke with a united front, and we were rebuffed until this spring. People have known this was a huge issue that was facing us. It's been like a train coming down the track for the last three and a half years.

I was surprised to go to the western Governors and find that no one from British Columbia had taken the time to explain to them that our lumber is not subsidized, that all of them in all of their states are going to pay the price of this unwarranted, unnecessary preliminary duty that's been imposed by the commerce department. No one has pointed out to them how their consumers are going to have to pay this price. No one has pointed out to them the number of jobs that are going to be lost in the west so they can support an ineffective and non-competitive regime in the southeastern part of the United States. That's something that should have been done; we've started doing it.

There will be correspondence that will be entertained between those Governors. I will continue to keep in touch with those Governors. It will be part of our overall public campaign to inform consumers in

the United States of how they are going to pay the price for this. Having said that, let me say this. The Minister of Forests for British Columbia has been actively involved in promoting our interests and our file in the softwood lumber issue since he was sworn into office on June 5. This government took three days before they were in Ottawa telling the Prime Minister and telling the Minister for International Trade that this was the Canada-U.S. issue. They agree with us. We are working with them because we believe that's how we're going to protect B.C. jobs, that's how we're going to protect B.C.'s forests.

J. MacPhail: I don't think it's responsible of the Premier to mislead on what has been done on this file in the past couple of years. He has no corporate memory of it. He wasn't aware of the meeting that took place with Mr. Pettigrew in the spring. Perhaps he's not aware of other activities that took place. But let me remind the Premier that the forest industry itself did not speak with one voice on the softwood lumber dispute. The industry itself was divided along regional and product lines about how a government should approach the softwood lumber agreement's conclusions, whether that be to do anything, to do nothing, to negotiate, to litigate, to see how it works — to see how the absence of a softwood lumber agreement under NAFTA works. All of those issues were being explored at length with an industry that had not come to a conclusion.

The matters were discussed in Ottawa, which the Premier somehow doesn't know about. I find it interesting that the Minister of Forests, who did not have that file previously as the critic, has not had a briefing from the Minister of Community, Aboriginal and Women's Services. Or else maybe he's had a briefing, and he hasn't told the Premier about it.

There were initiatives that took place in Washington and Oregon in terms of lines of communication. For instance, there is a company in Oregon that uses only western red cedar products. They employ 2,000 people. It's in a town…. Oh, sorry. My memory has gone blank.

I will get the information for the Premier. I was just reading its name today, but all they do is use western red cedar from British Columbia to remanufacture housing products. A liaison was made with that industry, and a liaison was made to say that 2,000 jobs will be lost in Oregon as a result of the softwood lumber dispute. Has the Deputy Minister of Intergovernmental Relations made contact with the Oregon government on that basis?

Hon. G. Campbell: First, I want to comment on the member's revelation that the industry was not speaking with one voice. Anyone that looked at this issue years ago would have understood that. That was the failure of this government to recognize it. Their job wasn't to find out whether the industry spoke with one voice; it was the government's responsibility to speak with one voice on behalf of all British Columbians and all British Columbia's workers. They failed to do it.

So let me be clear about this. It is the Minister of Forests who is driving this agenda. Our task in Intergovernmental Relations is to work with the provinces across the country to make sure they are included in B.C.'s agenda. We act, as our Intergovernmental Relations ministry and the minister will act, in concert with, but under the direction of, the Minister of Forests. We have acted to inform other governing institutions across the west of the United States, and indeed across the country, of British Columbia's position. There is both a consumer and an industrial alliance that is being built up at this time, thanks to the work of the Ministry of Forests and a lot of work that happened prior as well.

But I think it should be clear that what has taken place over the last 78 days has been that British Columbia has taken a leadership role in this, as it should have. The member opposite, I'm sure, understands that this American preliminary ruling is aimed at one province in Canada: British Columbia. Our Minister of Forests is doing an exceptional job of taking our case forward. He will continue to do that, and our government will be foursquare behind our forest workers and our industry as we move forward to develop a public forest policy that protects British Columbia's forests, our opportunities and the potential of our forests for the future.

J. MacPhail: I find it very interesting. Maybe the Premier can enlighten me about how to say that to consult with the industry is silly and that the government should act unilaterally. That's what he just said. "It's not the job of the industry to come together with one voice. Government should act." Well, I bet you that's news to all of the businesses in this province — that this government will act unilaterally regardless of the advice they receive.

The industry, up until March 31, was divided on whether to litigate or negotiate. Those are two distinct and contrary strategies. The industry was divided on whether to renegotiate on the basis of the previous quota system or on a different system.

All I'm saying to the Premier is that there was much activity on this file. It is a very complex file, and to somehow suggest that the industry should not have any role in this — that the government should've known what to do — is to really, I think, say to the business community: "We know what's best and will do what's possible." Really, the proof is in the pudding. The government hasn't got a plan of action

yet — fair enough. Time is ticking, and the rest of the country is resolving their matters, but they don't have a plan of action yet because of the complexities and the different voices within the industry.

By the way, the Minister of Forests and I have been trying to meet to discuss these matters before he leaves tomorrow, but I'm hoping he will read Hansard and get some direction from my views on that.

Another file I want to talk about with the Minister of State for Intergovernmental Relations — and they can perhaps think about it over the course of the next half hour — is health care funding and a referendum on treaties and intergovernmental relations with the federal government on that matter.

In the meantime, unless other members want to ask the Premier questions, I'm going to turn it over to my colleague the member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant.

Hon. G. Campbell: Just before the member leaves, if she believes that I am saying we shouldn't consult with the industry, she is absolutely incorrect. In fact, what our Ministry of Forests did was bring every member of the industry and every interest of the industry together to talk about British Columbia's position — a position not of an individual segment of the industry but of what the province was trying to accomplish.

A former — and I imagine still — friend of hers, Dave Haggard of the IWA, said: "It's about time we have a government that brings us all together in one room at one time and says it's time for us to move forward." As a result of the work that's been done by the Minister of Forests, we now have an agreed strategy that will move British Columbia and the country forward. And I believe we'll gain access to the American markets in a far more rapid way than the way the previous government was handling it. I think the Minister of Forests has done an exceptional job in that regard.

J. Kwan: I'm going to ask some questions relating to the referendum process. Critics of the government's plan for a referendum on treaties constantly point to the fact that subjecting minority rights to a vote by the majority is undemocratic. It's inappropriate, yet the Premier persists on this track. I wonder if the Premier could explain to the House how he justifies this action.

Hon. G. Campbell: First, let me correct the member. Minority rights are not at risk here. Aboriginal rights are protected by the Canadian constitution. Indeed, one of the reasons that the Attorney General now has responsibility for treaty negotiations is because that is a shared responsibility with protecting aboriginal rights. The one-time referendum on principles has nothing to do with minority rights, has nothing to do with eroding aboriginal rights and has everything to do with bringing British Columbians together as we move forward on this vital and important issue.

J. Kwan: With all due respect, aboriginal issues have everything to do with minority rights. The aboriginal peoples of British Columbia are in the minority. They were not, of course, prior to the assault, if you will, through the history of British Columbia. We have learned about the assault on aboriginal people and on their culture and the attempt to extinguish aboriginal peoples altogether. They have lost much over the years. The history clearly lays it out.

They're now the minority population of British Columbia. On the referendum question, it's clearly a minority rights issue. There's no question about that. Bringing a minority rights issue, as it relates to aboriginal people, to the majority of British Columbians, who are non-aboriginal people, to vote on is, in my mind, without a doubt bringing a minority rights issue to the majority of the people by a vote.

The business community has long been concerned about the economic uncertainty that prevails in British Columbia because of the lack of resolution of treaties. Can the Premier name one corporation that supports your government's plan for a referendum on the aboriginal rights issue?

Hon. G. Campbell: Let me say that during the election — and the member opposite and members of her party tried to make this an election issue — we certainly engaged in a discussion about that. The referendum issue was not something that was not front and centre during the election. At that time the members of this government said they would give all British Columbians a say on the principles that should guide B.C.'s approach to treaty negotiations through a one-time provincewide referendum within our first year. We said that we would ask an all-party committee of the Legislature to consult with British Columbians, including first nations, to draft the referendum question.

I know that in public polls that have been taken and reported on by a number of the well-known public polling firms, over 60 percent of British Columbians want to be included in the provincewide referendum. I also know — and I will accept the member's comments on this — that there are a number of aboriginal leaders who have expressed their concern about it. Again, I want to reiterate: the referendum is not about in any way shrinking aboriginal rights. It's about in every way providing a mandate to the province of the principles that it should be informed of for treaties.

Let me be clear with the member opposite so she understands this. This government stands foursquare behind aboriginal rights. We stand behind the constitution, and that is why the referendum will in no way undermine either one of those two fundamentals of Canadian life.

J. Kwan: I must admit that if I were an aboriginal person, it would frighten me when the Premier stands up and says, "I'm there. I'm standing there to support you," when prior to the election, as the opposition leader, what he did on the Nisga'a treaty process was

take them to court to argue that they don't have these rights. During the election campaign they downplayed the issue of a referendum, but now he's going to proceed with a referendum process of having the majority determine the rights of the minority people, the aboriginal people of British Columbia.

In spite of all this action, the Premier is saying: "Don't worry about it. I'm there for you." Well, if I were an aboriginal person, I'd be very worried about it. If you were there for me as Premier, if I were an aboriginal person, I would not expect that the Premier would take the aboriginal people to court about their rights, and I certainly would not expect the Premier who's there for me to say to me as a minority group that my rights should be voted on by the majority of British Columbians.

The question I had for the Premier was about the business community. I was asking if the Premier could name one business, one corporation, that supports the government's plan for a referendum, given that the economic uncertainty of a referendum and the lack of resolutions on treaty will undoubtedly continue to impact our economy. Given that the economy is the number one platform of this government, is there one business association, one business, one corporation that the Premier is aware of that supports the referendum process?

Hon. G. Campbell: I'm sure there are many, because you don't get over 60 percent of British Columbians agreeing that we should move forward to include them in the treaty process without having some people who are involved in business agreeing to that.

Let me also point out that the referendum we're talking about, the one-time-only referendum, embraces the principles of the treaty negotiation process that was laid out by the government and was supported by this government, the federal government and the First Nations Summit.

I think it's also important to point out that we are encouraging aboriginal people to be involved with the Aboriginal Affairs Committee of this Legislature as we look at potential wording and different questions that may be asked. I invite the member opposite to join with us as we try and unite British Columbians around this issue that's critically important to our future.

We just spent last Friday with the entire cabinet and the First Nations Summit. Again, I'm surprised that that had never happened in the ten years the member opposite was in government. At no time was the whole cabinet brought together to work with aboriginal leaders to look at solutions to the problems they face on a day-to-day basis, as well as the huge problem of treaty negotiations, which we're going through.

There is a great deal of frustration with regard to the treaty process within the aboriginal community, within the Treaty Commission and within the federal government. What our government is trying to do is revitalize that process, to re-engage and give all British Columbians the opportunity to join us in this vital public endeavour of resolving treaties so that aboriginal people and non-aboriginal people alike can look forward to the future with a sense of hope and opportunity, with an understanding that our children, regardless of where they live, have the same kind of opportunities — the same kind of education, the same kind of health care and the same kind of economic opportunities. That's what we're committed to. I invite the member opposite to join with us, with aboriginal leaders and with people across this province as we move forward to resolve this matter in a way that engages and includes British Columbians and counts on the goodwill, honesty and integrity of British Columbians to move us forward in this important issue for all of us.

J. Kwan: In terms of addressing and moving forward on the resolution of treaty-making for British Columbia, there is no doubt that this is one of the most important tasks that we all need to embark on. But there is a fundamental question with respect to approach. One does not embark on negotiation in a balanced approach, wanting to create partnerships, by bringing the other party to court or subjecting the other party, who opposes the referendum process, who feels that it is a violation in and of itself and that it would not resolve the matter…. There is a fundamental question in terms of the different approach with respect to treaty-making and resolution.

Under the previous government it was the first time ever in the history of British Columbia that the Nisga'a treaty was brought to this House and was voted on. It was most unfortunate that the current Premier, then Leader of the Opposition, voted against that piece of legislation.

I recall very well sitting in this Legislature and feeling very moved having Chief Joe Gosnell come and address the assembly. He talked about the history of his people and the pains that they had gone through to arrive at the day that we had arrived at in the legislation around the Nisga'a treaty. He talked about how he was a young person then and how he then appeared before the House as an old man.

I do believe that every British Columbian wants to ensure that there is reconciliation and that we move forward on the treaty process and that we build British Columbia from a strength perspective. But on the question around the referendum, I fear that what we'll do is divide the community and divide the aboriginal people versus the rest of the community. That process, I think, will hurt British Columbia, will hurt the progress that we've made to date and hurt the ultimate goal of reconciliation in this aspect.

On the question, back again to the opinions of the business community — because I know that is of the utmost importance to this Premier — I would be very interested in knowing whether or not any business community leaders, organizations or corporations have expressed to the Premier that they support a referendum on the treaty-making process. I know that just yesterday, Jock Finlayson said on CBC radio: "There is a bit of nervousness about how this referendum proposal will play

out." For another quote, here is what one of the Premier's favourite business people had to say:

So again, my question to the Premier is: does he know of one business person, organization, community leader or corporation that supports the referendum process?

Hon. G. Campbell: I'm shocked to hear that David Bond and I might be on different sides of an issue. It's a revelation.

The member opposite will stand up in the House and say that all this government ever cares about are businesses. Obviously, if all these businesses are supporting us, they must support the initiative that we've taken with the referendum. The member opposite, I'm sure, knows this. The referendum idea from our party is not something that was invented halfway through the election. It's been there for a good three years now.

Let me just go back and point out one of the challenges we've had in trying to build public confidence in the treaty process. The previous government constantly broke their word to the general public. There was going to be a full debate of the entire Nisga'a treaty, clause by clause. We were going to have an opportunity to vote on each and every clause of the Nisga'a treaty.

Well, first the government broke their word on that. Second, they broke their word on whether or not the Treaty Negotiation Advisory Committee would have a look at the treaty before it was brought forward. Third, they broke their word that we would have a full opportunity to debate the entire treaty. So it's not surprising that there are some members of the public who are a little skeptical. They want to be included. I believe that aboriginal leaders, like non-aboriginal leaders, would like to know that when a government says it's going to do something, they actually carry it out.

I know there are many, many aboriginal leaders who don't agree with the idea of a referendum. I also know there are aboriginal people that do agree with a referendum. At the meeting we had on Friday, as I walked around the room, there were people that came up to me — aboriginal community leaders at the First Nations Summit — and said: "This isn't a bad idea. We think you're right." So I think the idea that aboriginal people are united as one and that there are never any differences of opinion is a pretty shocking idea. They're just like all the rest of us. There are different opinions; there are different ideas.

I'll tell you that this is what I believe: the vast majority of British Columbians, aboriginal and non-aboriginal alike, want to resolve treaties. They want to move forward. Just as the principles that advise the treaty process are used by aboriginal leaders in working with their communities, so do we have an obligation to work with the broad provincial community, aboriginal and non-aboriginal alike — aboriginal people that are in the treaty process, aboriginal people that are not in the treaty process. I believe this is the way we can create a solid foundation that will move us forward.

I can say to you that on Friday, during our meeting — the cabinet meeting with the First Nations Summit — one of the speakers got up and said: "The problem with the treaty process is it feels to us like neither the government of Canada nor the province of British Columbia has a mandate. We don't know what they're negotiating for. They don't seem to know what they're negotiating for." So what we're saying to all British Columbians of all political persuasions, of all regions of the province, of all backgrounds and of all beliefs is: "Join us as we move forward to come together, identify principles that we're going to pursue and give our negotiators the mandate we need so we can resolve treaties in the best interests of aboriginal and non-aboriginal British Columbians alike."

J. Kwan: Nobody's suggesting that aboriginal people don't ever disagree or have differences of opinion. Nobody's ever suggesting that. But what is clear is that the issue around the referendum process is of grave concern for aboriginal people and that they do not think this will be helpful. In fact, they feel that this would be divisive. I don't pretend that I speak for all aboriginal people in British Columbia, but I will take a quote from the B.C. First Nations Summit, from Bill Wilson, who represents aboriginal people in his capacity. He has spoken very clearly on this issue.

This is from the Vancouver Sun, July 27, 2001. The headline reads: "Referendum reaction reinforces fears, not hopes." The quote I want to make around his thought on the referendum process by the government is this:

That's the crux of it around a referendum process that I, too, fear would result for British Columbians. Mr. Wilson has been clear in his thoughts around this. Although I don't often agree with the editorial of the Vancouver Sun, in this instance I think it's right, around the referendum question and its potential impact for British Columbians. Even Vaughn Palmer has thoughts around this, and he sums up the attitude of the business community to the government's plan for a referendum on treaties as follows:

This is quoted from the Kamloops Daily News, May 18, 2001. The fact of the matter is, Mr. Speaker, that there is very little support for a referendum. Let's face it. It is an idea that the Liberal Party peddled when you were needing to bring the Reform Party onside. It is no doubt tied to one of your top aides, Martyn Brown, who went from being an aide for the Socreds to the Reform Party, to the group called Citizens' Voice on Native Claims — a group that Martyn Brown once described as opposed to the scope and expansion of aboriginal rights as proposed in the Nisga'a blueprint for native treaties.

Now, despite the fact that this is going to cause great conflict and uncertainty for British Columbians and that the business community specifically, I believe, is opposed to the referendum, you are going to forge ahead anyway. At the level of intergovernmental affairs, how is this entrenched ideological position that you have taken as the Premier, as this government, affecting relations with Ottawa?

Hon. G. Campbell: Our relations with Ottawa, I think, are building and strengthening as we put the interests of British Columbia first and speak with a united voice. That's the direction we intend to carry on in.

J. Kwan: During the estimates with the Attorney General I asked a question on the referendum approach that this government is now pressing forward by putting on the table, again, the principles of treaty-making that were already agreed to by three parties: the federal government, the provincial government and aboriginal people in the treaty process. I asked a question of whether or not, by doing that, there would be any legal liability questions that could be brought about as a result of the referendum process, thereby creating a legal problem on the treaty-making process and principles that were already agreed to by the three parties. I want to ask whether or not the Premier agrees with his Attorney that there are no legal issues, that he's not worried about any liability questions on this matter.

J. Kwan: Just so that I'm completely clear, has the Premier sought advice, a legal opinion, on this from his chief of staff, his deputies and so on?

Hon. G. Campbell: As the member opposite, who was formerly a member of a government cabinet, knows, the Attorney General is the legal adviser to the government, and I agree with the Attorney General.

J. Kwan: On the question around the referendum process, constitutional experts have also weighed the issue. Peter Hogg, dean of Osgoode Hall Law School, has said that as a matter of policy, in his opinion, it would be undesirable to hold a referendum every time a treaty is entered into with aboriginal people. These treaties are intended to provide clarity and certainty to aboriginal rights and have been held by aboriginal people since before European settlement. The treaties are long, complicated documents reflecting years of negotiations and much compromise on both sides. It would be very difficult to communicate all the issues in a balanced way in a provincewide referendum campaign.

If a referendum were held and the treaty was defeated, the problem of achieving clarity and certainty would not go away. The aboriginal people would have to use the courts to vindicate their rights to land, resources and self-government. The Supreme Court of Canada has already said in the Delgamuukw case that it was willing to do that, but the courts have made it clear that matters as such should not be brought before the courts and that it would be much better for governments to reach negotiated agreements and settlements with aboriginal people, and Mr. Hogg says he agrees with the court.

On the basis of this opinion from, actually, many, many different sectors — from aboriginal people, constitutional experts, the business community, social activists, people who believe in equality and social justice…. All believe that the referendum process is a divisive process and is the wrong way to go, yet the Premier persists with it. So if the referendum is held and the response from British Columbians is such that they reject the idea of putting land and self-governance up for negotiations in treaty-making, then how is this government, the Premier, going to respond to that?

Hon. G. Campbell: First, let me say that much of the opinion on public policy that Dr. Hogg presents — and it was just read by the member — we concur with. We are not proposing for a second that there should be a referendum with every treaty. Unlike aboriginal communities who are involved in the treaty process, who have a referendum on mandate prior to negotiations and a referendum on approval, we are not suggesting that for the province of British Columbia. We are suggesting a one-time-only provincewide referendum on principles, where aboriginal rights will be protected, where British Columbians will be included.

We are not presuming what the questions will be. That's why we have charged an Aboriginal Affairs Committee of this Legislature, an all-party committee.... The members opposite have been invited to be part of that committee. It will include discussions with aboriginal as well as non-aboriginal people. That's why we've asked them to come forward with their proposal for the referendum.

Let me just close with this, hon. Chair. We do take the commitments we made to all British Columbians seriously. Regardless of what the member opposite may think, when we put something forward in our platform, we believe we have an obligation to deliver on that. If we're going to re-establish and restore the trust that was lost over the last decade, we intend to be a government that keeps our word, not a government that breaks its word. So that the member opposite understands this, the proposal for a provincewide referendum is completely in keeping with the 19 principles which were passed and accepted by the provincial government, the federal government and first nations leaders of the First Nations Summit.

J. Kwan: The first nations leaders are calling for British Columbians to boycott the referendum process. What would such a boycott do to the legitimacy of your results?

Hon. G. Campbell: We are going to do everything we can to encourage British Columbians to be part of this process. We think it's vital to the future of treaty-making. We think it's a way of uniting British Columbians, aboriginal and non-aboriginal alike.

J. Kwan: So the Premier disagrees with first nations leaders, disagrees with constitutional experts on this issue and with the business community that the referendum process would actually divide the community, divide British Columbians, as opposed to uniting them. It is a fundamental approach that this Premier has adopted, and the risk he's taking is enormous. It's enormous for all British Columbians and for the future of British Columbia. The question around the referendum process in terms of the committee…. I understood that there could potentially be some 12 questions on the referendum. Is it still the Premier's intent to proceed with that?

Hon. G. Campbell: There has been no prejudgment on how many questions there should or should not be or what the questions should or should not be. One of the things we have said as we build toward the referendum is that those issues will be dealt with by an all-party committee of the Legislature. I invite the member opposite or her colleague to join that committee. If they decide not to, we will carry out our obligations to all British Columbians. That will be brought forward, and recommendations will be made by that committee.

J. Kwan: Is there a time line that the Premier has set out for the work of the committee?

Hon. G. Campbell: We have just charged the committee, as the member knows, and the terms of reference have been prepared for the committee. We have committed to carry out the referendum within one year of taking office, so that would be by June 5, 2002. I am hopeful that we can move much more expeditiously than that, and I'm looking forward to the report of the committee.

J. Kwan: How long does the Premier anticipate that the work of the committee will take — one week, two weeks, three months?

Hon. G. Campbell: I will await the recommendations of the committee. I think this is a serious matter, and I think it requires serious consultation with people across the province, people from all regions of the province. It's a serious matter that will require a great deal of work on the part of the committee. I'm looking forward to the committee's workplan.

One of the things I undertook was that this would not be something that was dictated by the cabinet. This is something where the resolution will be brought forward by the all-party committee working with all British Columbians.

J. Kwan: The time line is open, I understand from the Premier. But on the question of the work of the committee, is it the intention of the Premier to see that the committee travels to every community throughout British Columbia on this question?

Hon. G. Campbell: I'm glad to have the opportunity to engage the member opposite in this discussion, but let me remind the member that a legislative committee reports to the Legislature. I am not dictating to the legislative committee. They will decide what their travel schedule is, what their timetable is. They know what the commitment of this government has been, and I'm looking forward to their report and their recommendations.

J. Kwan: To date, has the Premier himself or his office received correspondence, opinions or thoughts on the referendum process from the broader community

Hon. G. Campbell: I'm hesitating only because I'm sure we have, but I can't think of specific letters we've received. I have received letters from individual first nations. I have received letters, I'm sure, from the public — some encouraging, some disagreeing. I'm not sure where the question is going, but we've received all kinds of correspondence.

J. Kwan: Has the Premier's office or the Attorney General's office a list of stakeholders that they intend to consult with on the referendum question through the work of the committee?

J. Kwan: The budget for the committee is also open, then. Or is there a set budget for the work of the committee?

Hon. G. Campbell: In this government, as with the last government, the committee will set its budget, the committee will execute its plan, and the committee will report to the Legislature.

J. Kwan: I'm going to conclude on the issues around the referendum question simply by saying that I have grave concerns about it. I disagree with the approach. I think that it would be divisive for British Columbians. I fear for the future and what this could do. I hope that it does not divide the community further, but I fear for our community greatly. The editorials and others that have expressed strong opinions around that…. I think we share the same concerns and feel that the referendum process, certainly in my opinion, is not one that will bring hope to British Columbians.

I have a question now for the Premier around his cabinet. During or prior to the election when he was Leader of the Opposition, he criticized government continuously about the size of government. He had said that he would reduce the size of government, yet the Premier has created the largest cabinet in the history of British Columbia. It is larger than that in the United Kingdom, which has 15 times our population.

My question to the Premier is: in his new era, how does he justify this bigger government?

Hon. G. Campbell: The cabinet that we have put in place is, I believe, known already for its talent and its competence. One of the critical components that I wanted to be sure we did have in our government was political accountability. It was clear, for example, when you looked at a ministry like the former Health ministry, that there had been an awful lot that had slipped off the table because of the way the cabinet was structured. Now in this government for the first time in Canada, there's a Minister of Health Planning, a Minister of Health Services, a Minister of State for Mental Health and a Minister of State for Intermediate and Long Term Care. We want to be sure those ministers can be held politically to account for some of the very critical areas of endeavour that we have to pursue in this government to restore the damage that was done by the previous government.

J. Kwan: The ministers of state were not part of the election platform for the government. It is evident from the estimates process that several of the ministers of state, who are receiving nearly the pay of a full cabinet minister and even a full-fledged ministry like Provincial Revenue, have little responsibility and do little work. Given the core review of all aspects of government, how do you justify these extra ministries with their associated budgets and staff?

Hon. G. Campbell: Let me review the ministers of state. We have a Minister of State for Community Charter. The community charter is probably one of the most fundamental restructurings of government and government responsibilities and resources that we're going to see in the province. It is of critical importance, and it's critical that there be a minister of state who can be held to account for that, who will focus on that and who will be sure that we're doing that in a way that's constructive and useful to the future.

The Minister of State for Women's Equality has the responsibility of ensuring women's services across government and that women are treated in a way that provides them with the opportunities they need and that they have the kind of support to build the family and future lives they need.

The Minister of State for Deregulation is working across government, across ministries again, to make sure that one of the fundamental challenges we face as a government and a society — the elimination of useless, thoughtless, expensive regulation — takes place in all ministries and, again, that someone is focusing on that.

The Minister of State for Intergovernmental Relations is clearly a critical lynchpin of our endeavours to make sure that we have strong and positive relationships with our brother and sister provincial governments and territories, with the state governments that touch on the province, with our international friends and with the federal government.

As you look across the board, you see the Minister of State for Mental Health. A Minister of State for Mental Health is clearly a requirement. Let's assume that the last government cared about mental health. They failed; they failed people with mental illness miserably.

I would suggest that they did it because there was no one focusing on mental health issues.

We have a Minister of State for Intermediate, Long Term and Home Care. That is clearly an initiative that should have been taken long ago so our seniors and people in need of palliative care…and so that our home care services were created in a constructive and positive way that would provide people with the care they need. I don't apologize for a second that we are creating a government that will be accountable for performance and for results to the people of British Columbia.

J. MacPhail: I have received correspondence on the ministers of state, particularly around the Minister of State for Women's Equality, and there is dismay at the Premier not living up to the promise he made that there would be a free-standing ministry of women's equality. And it was made clear by debate in this Legislature that the Minister of State for Women's Equality doesn't have any control over any money in the government. I think it's fair comment that the member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant makes: why ministers of state?

Let's look at another government committee structure that the Premier has put in place. I'm becoming very cognizant of the Premier's style. It's one that he used when he was mayor of Vancouver, which is to create a lot of committees, do a lot of restructuring, have everybody do a lot work, ask for lots of advice on various matters — some of the committees being assigned the same responsibility — and the then mayor, now Premier, would choose exactly what he wants to do. The committee structure that the Premier's putting in place — the initiatives, the task forces, the reviews — is key, because it's a pattern of a style that the Premier has. It's important that we understand where the Premier is going with this particular style.

Let's look at the government caucus committees, which we didn't talk about during the election. I had a very interesting exchange with the Minister of Health Planning about government caucus committees. We now have the largest cabinet in the history of B.C. — 28 ministers — and then we find out that the government caucus committee is, to quote a minister, a committee of cabinet and has access to cabinet documents. I asked: "The government caucus committee is staffed by cabinet operations staff?" The Minister of Health Planning said: "Yes, because of the nature of the documents that this committee scrutinizes and holds the government accountable for, they get support from a cabinet officer."

So we have government caucus committees. We have cabinet ministers, ministers of state, government caucus committees — all of whom operate in isolation from anyone else. What is the purpose of the government caucus committees in operating as support to cabinet, and why are they funded out of the Legislative Assembly budget?

Hon. G. Campbell: The member is incorrect when she says we didn't talk about this in the election. I will refer her to page 30 of the New Era document: "We will give all government MLAs a meaningful new role in policy development and service planning through a new system of cabinet decision-making."

The government caucus committees are a critical component of the cabinet's decision-making process. They bring together people from all walks of life, from all corners of this province, to make sure that the cabinet is informed about the position of the government caucus committee and so that we can see the impacts of decisions prior to their being made.

I know the member opposite doesn't like to go through some of the decisions that her previous government made, but I can tell you that none of them would have made it through a government caucus committee if we had active…government. I should also say to the member opposite that she has been invited on a number of occasions to view how the government caucus committees work. There is a chair waiting for her at the open cabinet meetings. There was a discussion by the deputy minister responsible for this process, so it was outlined clearly to the public. This is a way we make sure that the decisions brought to government are decisions that have full input of a broad range of interests and talents. I think it's an important innovation in how the Legislature works, in how the cabinet works and how decisions are reached.

J. MacPhail: My gosh, the Premier has just confirmed that he is unalterably mixing what has been a longstanding separation of the executive council and the Legislative Assembly. He stands up and says "a government caucus committee." He refers to the New Era document where he says, "There will be a new way of cabinet decision-making," and he says: "That's what the government caucus committee is." I'm absolutely fine with that. Pay for it yourself; government should pay for it itself. It's an executive council operation. Don't take money from the Legislative Assembly. Don't mix the two duties. Don't abuse the majority you have to take away the resources of this Legislative Assembly to do cabinet work.

So the Premier is agreeing with the Minister of Health Planning. The government caucus committees are not open to my colleague from Mount Pleasant and me. I quizzed the Minister of Health Planning on that. They're not open. The meetings are not in public, and there's no system of invitation. This Legislative Assembly is paying for it. What an abuse. What else does the Premier think Legislative Assembly money can be used for to pay for his cabinet operations?

Hon. G. Campbell: I'm the first to admit that this is a new concept. This is a concept where government caucus members are included in the cabinet decision-making process, similar to when a government caucus

Chair gets paid a stipend. Her former government caucus Chair got paid a stipend. We are going to include legislators in helping us form policy. We are going to continue to expand the legislative committees as we have done over the last few days, and we invite the members opposite to be members of the legislative committees. But most importantly for us, we want to make thoughtful, sensible decisions that include the voices of a range of British Columbians from all over this province, and that's what government caucus committees are allowing us to do.

J. MacPhail: Why are government caucus committees, if they're part of the budget of the Legislative Assembly, staffed by cabinet operations staff?

Hon. G. Campbell: The government caucus committees are staffed by cabinet operations staff because they are part of the cabinet decision-making process. They provide advice to the cabinet. We want to make sure that they're effective. We want to make sure that their agendas are properly carried forward, and that's what the staff are doing.

J. MacPhail: How is it possible that the Premier thinks that government caucus committees are open to the public and members of the opposition when they deal with confidential cabinet documents? Is the Premier suggesting that the Members of the Legislative Assembly and the public can have access to confidential cabinet documents? That's what the Minister of Health Planning said happens in the Health committee.

Hon. G. Campbell: I hope the member opposite doesn't go away for another half hour; she'll be in really great form.

First of all, the government caucus committees are there to make sure that the caucus is included, that we have their advice as we move forward. That's a critical component in making cabinet decisions that are sensible and that reflect the broadest interests of British Columbians. I think it's important we understand that that's one of the failures of the previous governments of this province. Too often MLAs have felt like they've been left out. We want to include them. We were clear about that. And we intend to continue including our MLAs in helping us make the best decisions possible.

J. MacPhail: Actually, I was away talking to people from around the province who said they were very concerned about the haste with which the government is moving. So that's what I was doing in the half-hour that I was away.

Let me just say, then: if the Premier is suggesting that somehow his cabinet decision-making takes over this Legislative Assembly, where was he during his history lessons? Where was he? There are provisions that that government caucus has to the tune of $4.3 million to carry out their operations. Somehow this government thinks they can set up government caucus committees and use the resources of the Legislative Assembly for that. The mix between what this Premier thinks are executive council duties and Legislative Assembly duties is completely out of whack.

The Premier has said that this a new way of doing things. It's a new way from anywhere else in the tradition of Westminster that government caucus committees that are subject only to government members and are actually serving the cabinet are not funded out of Legislative Assembly funds. There's a very specific role for the Legislative Assembly. Maybe I'm misinterpreting the Premier's body language, but the model on which he bases this from other Westminster traditions….

Hon. G. Campbell: First, this is new for British Columbia. It is very similar to the model that is used in the province of Alberta. Let me be….

Hon. G. Campbell: Perhaps, hon. Chair, if the member would like to ask the questions as well as answer them, we could wrap this up right away. I'm glad to answer the question if the member would like to listen to the answer.

We recognize that this is new for British Columbia, but it is an important part of the cabinet decision-making process. It is not a legislative decision-making process. It is a cabinet decision-making process so that we can provide the Legislature with the best decisions possible so the Legislature can review them, can discuss them, can vote on them and can decide whether they want to move forward with them.

It's also clear that there are times when these government caucus committees are, in fact, dealing in confidence with issues that must be kept in confidence because they are part of the cabinet decision-making process. However, when there is a public presentation from a public body to a government caucus committee, those government caucus committees are open. They are open to the media, if the media cares to attend, and they're open to the public, if the public cares to attend.

Now, the member opposite may quickly say: "Well, how does the public find out?" I am the first to admit that we have been moving through this.... We are trying to develop Internet capacity for the legislative precincts so that we can put out these agendas beforehand and so the public would know there is going to be a presentation if they are interested. I am very pleased to make sure — and I will commit to the member opposite that we will ensure — that when there is a public meeting of a government caucus committee, there will be a chair waiting for them in the gallery so they can listen to the presentations and hear the comments that are made.

J. MacPhail: The Premier completely misunderstands my point here, and I'm not sure if it's deliberate that he misunderstands it or not. Government caucus committees are fine and good, and he can certainly test his theory about how they will work well in his new

era. Have at 'em. Take your $4.3 million out of your government caucus budget and have government caucus committees. Pay for it out of the government's own operations. If they're cabinet committees, pay for it out of cabinet operations. If they're government caucus committees, pay for it out of your government caucus.

The Premier somehow thinks I'm suggesting that the government caucus committees are doomed to fail and that they're a dumb idea. That's not where I'm headed at all on this. But I will tell you that the Premier must inform his Minister of Health Planning about what his intention is on these government caucus committees. When I was saying, "You're using vote 1, Legislative Assembly funds, and yet you're doing secret business, confidential business for cabinet," I said: "Well, how does the public know?" Exactly what the Premier anticipated. I said: "So what about the minutes?" "Well, the minutes aren't made public because the committee does advise cabinet." That's what she said. In fact, there hadn't been any public meetings. So I wonder whether the Premier sought advice from the deputy minister of cabinet operations on the advisability of paying for government caucus committee Chairs out of Legislative Assembly funds.

Hon. G. Campbell: I am aware of at least two times when the government caucus committee meetings have been open to the media, thereby to the public. There will be more in the future. When there is a public presentation made to a government caucus committee, those committee meetings will be open to the media and to the public. As I just said to the member opposite, we will be sure that when those public items are on the agenda, either one of the members opposite are in a position where they can attend, if they see fit.

J. MacPhail: Let me repeat my question. Did the Premier seek advice from the deputy minister responsible for cabinet operations about the advisability of paying out of Legislative Assembly funds for government caucus committees advising cabinet?

Hon. G. Campbell: This was a recommended course of action. Just as government caucus Chairs are paid out of Legislative Assembly funds, so are government caucus committee Chairs paid out of Legislative Assembly funds.

J. MacPhail: I hope that the Premier understands he didn't answer my question. The public service plays a very important role in ensuring, from a professional and expert's position, that there's a separation of executive council duties and Legislature duties. That's the role of the public service. So I asked the Premier whether he sought advice from the deputy minister responsible for cabinet operations on the advisability of mixing the two for the very first time in history.

I know the Minister of Finance brought up the fact that this is like the caucus Chair, etc. It isn't; it isn't the same at all. The traditions of Westminster parliamentary practice have incorporated that role for a long, long time — as has the Whip, the deputy Whip. There is no other jurisdiction. Oh, and what is the parliamentary tradition? It's to ensure that Legislative Assembly funds go to the government caucus to do their job. That's why the government caucus gets $4.3 million. The previous government had government caucus committees. No one got paid for them — no one.

So the Premier didn't seek advice, or I assume he didn't seek advice, from the public service on the advisability of doing this, or he would have answered the question. I think this is an area…. You know, it is interesting that we are exploring matters that weren't discussed during the election. If the Premier thinks that the new-era promise that said a greater forum of cabinet decision-making would lead the public to believe that this is what the government was going to do, he wasn't in the same election that I was in. That's not what was discussed during it.

The other aspect that the Premier has done, in terms of an abuse and a mix of the Legislative Assembly role and cabinet, is to say that the merit commissioner — even though the merit commissioner is going to be a deputy minister in the public service, subject to the rules and regulations of the Public Service Act — has to have the approval of the Legislative Assembly. Somehow, that's telling people that that'll be an independent…. I guess, because they don't admit that they broke their promise…. A deputy minister of the public service that requires a recommendation from the Legislative Assembly somehow gives it independence and somehow is useful work for the Legislative Assembly to do.

Did the Premier seek advice from the deputy minister responsible for cabinet operations on the advisability of a deputy minister of the public service having to be recommended by the Legislative Assembly?

Hon. G. Campbell: When we are in cabinet or when we are looking at developing legislation, we seek the advice of a number of members of the public service — deputy ministers from many different ministries, including the deputy minister for the cabinet secretariat. I think the critical thing to understand here is that we have developed a model that will raise the quality of review for merit in the public service. Again, we've done something that's different from before. We have said, and the legislation recommends, that an all-party committee of the Legislature make a unanimous recommendation for the appointment of the deputy minister for the public service and the merit commissioner. We are making strides to improve the quality and public trust in the public service, and we'll continue to do that.

J. MacPhail: Where did the Premier get the advice to have government caucus committees reporting to cabinet paid out of the Legislative Assembly fund?

Hon. G. Campbell: We were very clear, I think between May 16 and June 5, that we intended to do

this. We were clear that we intended to reimburse the government caucus Chair to the amount of $6,000, the same amount that parliamentary secretaries receive. We were clear that we had to have legislative authority to do that, just as we do for caucus Chairs or deputy caucus Chairs in the government. That's why we moved forward in the way we did.

J. MacPhail: Yes, it's quite clear that this was revealed to the public after the election, and it was quite clear that the government was going to use its massive majority to take money out of the Legislative Assembly.

Mr. Chair, this finishes this section, so I would ask that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

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