Hansard — Wednesday, March 5, 2008 p.m.

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
		Page


Introductions by Members		10229

Tributes		10229
	Pamela Charlesworth
	D. Cubberley

Introductions by Members		10229

Statements (Standing Order 25B)		10229
	Importance of sanitation
	J. Kwan
	Olympic venues
	J. McIntyre
	Francophone minority communities
	D. Thorne
	Tynehead Women's Auxiliary
	D. Hayer
	Jumbo Wild initiative
	N. Macdonald
	Mining industry events
	D. MacKay

Oral Questions		10231
	Services at Retirement Concepts seniors facilities
	C. James
	Hon. G. Abbott
	Call for a seniors representative
	C. James
	Hon. G. Abbott
	G. Gentner
	A. Dix
	Haisla First Nation and B.C. Utilities Commission decision-making process
	R. Austin
	Hon. R. Neufeld
	J. Horgan
	Respite services for disabled children
	N. Simons
	Hon. T. Christensen

Motions on Notice		10236
	Committee of Supply to sit in two sections (Motion 37)
	Hon. M. de Jong
	M. Farnworth
	C. Puchmayr
	L. Krog
	J. Horgan
	D. Routley

Hon. L. Reid: I have three wonderful guests in the gallery today. One is my constituency assistant Katherine Hatlen, and I am very pleased to welcome her back to this place. She is joined by her mother Dorothy Hamilton and her little girl Allie Hatlen. I would ask the House to please make them very welcome.

Hon. G. Campbell: In this House we all know how difficult it is to actually be successful in an election of any kind. I think the House should recognize the incredible longevity of Scott Sutherland, of Canadian Press, who has been elected to his seventh consecutive term as the press gallery president. I'm sure everyone in the House will say that is an exceptional record of performance. It might be important for people to know, though, that there were no challengers to this particular election. Congratulations to Mr. Sutherland for his success.

D. Cubberley: With the House's indulgence, it is with sorrow that I rise to mark the passing of Pamela Charlesworth. Pamela was a committed and inspiring activist in our region here whom I and others in the chamber, I believe, and many people in the region had the privilege to know as a colleague and friend.

She was for two decades a driving force at the Provincial Capital Commission, whose job during those years was to enhance the amenities of the capital region. As PCC chair, she secured the buildings and grounds of St. Ann's Academy in perpetuity, oversaw the closing of a small street and secured the connection of those lands to Beacon Hill Park.

She also helped establish a regional greenways initiative and played a key role in this region in bringing about the Galloping Goose Trail, which is one of the treasures of the region today. In her professional life, Pamela was a very talented architect, and she's left a lasting legacy of residential buildings here that will be treasured by future generations. She was kind, bright, funny and wise, and I miss her badly already. I thank the House for its indulgence.

R. Sultan: In the gallery today we have representatives from several of British Columbia's private insurance companies. These are people covering commercial and residential, as well as automobile risks.

From the Insurance Bureau of Canada, we have Lindsay Olson, our vice president; Serge Corbeil; and Miranda Lee. From the ING insurance company of Canada, we have Brett Thibault and Norah Alexandre. From the Dominion of Canada General Insurance Company, we have Jehangir Sethna and Anthea Smith. From AXA Pacific Insurance Company we have George Bozanin, and from Aviva insurance company of Canada, we have Jim Robinson, as well as Yvette Boyling.

Collectively, the British Columbia private insurance companies and their agents employ more than 12,000 British Columbians, pay taxes of about a quarter of a billion dollars into our provincial coffers and, in the last two years, have paid claims of $150 million related to unusual and severe weather events alone. Would the House please make them all welcome.

A. Dix: I wanted to welcome to the legislative precincts — and, I think, to the galleries as well today — students from Windermere School in my constituency of Vancouver-Kingsway. In my own personal rankings of high schools in British Columbia, Windermere is either first or second. I want all of you to wish these extraordinary students from Windermere welcome.

I. Black: I would like the House to help me make welcome Buzz Knot, who's in the gallery today. I also owe Mr. Knot a lunch, because my duties prevented me from joining him, so I suspect I've got a tab coming at me later this afternoon. Would the House help me make him feel welcome.

Hon. M. Coell: I have two introductions today. Solomon Reece is the chief of the district aboriginal student advisory council. The council is representative of their authority on aboriginal jurisdiction and culture at the student level. Solomon is a grade 11 student attending Gulf Islands Secondary School and is working here in the Legislature for this week as part of his work experience. Accompanying him is deputy chief of the council, Ian McDonald. Would the House please welcome them both.

J. Kwan: World Water Day 2008 will be celebrated by the UN on Thursday, March 20. In 2008 the day will highlight issues on sanitation in accordance with the International Year of Sanitation 2008 People around the world are encouraged to celebrate the day, to draw attention to the world sanitation challenges.

In my constituency of Vancouver–Mount Pleasant hundreds of people do not have access to basic sanitation facilities, whether they're homeless or living in substandard housing. They're forced to use public

facilities at community centres and libraries and are regularly harassed by private security.

Every day people are forced to defecate in the streets, brush their teeth outside, and they do not have the dignity of privacy that many of us take for granted. The idea that this situation exists in a world-class city like Vancouver, steps away from million-dollar condominiums, should be embarrassing to all of us as policy-makers.

Sanitation is the most important medical advance since 1840. According to a reader survey in the British Medical Journal, improved sanitation reduces cholera, worms, diarrhea, pneumonia and malnutrition, amongst other maladies that cause disease and death in millions of people. Today 2.6 billion people, including almost one billion children, live without even basic sanitation. Every 20 seconds a child dies as a result of poor sanitation. That's 1.5 million preventable deaths each year.

Improved sanitation has positive impacts on economic growth and on poverty reduction. According to a recent WHO study, every dollar spent on improving sanitation generates an average economic benefit of $7. Without improving sanitation, none of the other millennium development goals to which the world has committed itself will be achieved.

I ask all members in this House to join me in expressing our commitment to both protect water resources for everyone and to meet our international obligations on sanitation standards for all of our citizens, regardless of economic status.

J. McIntyre: I rise today to pay tribute to a group of workers and volunteers who have made B.C. and Canada proud. Propelled by the honour of hosting the 2010 games, the Vancouver organizing committee committed to completing all competition venues well in advance of 2010, and I'm proud to report that this commitment is being realized.

The four mountain venues were not only built to top environmental standards, but we have completed them over two years prior and on budget. I believe that no other host city has these bragging rights.

This feat offers a strategic advantage to our athletes and volunteers who can now start to utilize these state-of-the-art facilities to train on a series of national and international events to ensure that we're all as good as we can be come 2010.

Here they are: the Whistler sliding centre in the heart of Blackcomb mountain, home to the bobsleigh, luge and skeleton events; the Whistler Creekside venue, showcasing the alpine skiing events. Upgrades to the men's downhill course, the Dave Murray, and the women's and paralympic course, Franz's run, will present a formidable challenge. The Whistler Olympic Park in Callaghan Valley will host the biathlon, cross-country skiing, Nordic combined and ski jumping events.

I'll be attending the opening ceremonies for the upcoming cross-country ski championships, the Haywood nationals, on Sunday, March 16, and I can hardly wait.

In West Van, Cypress Mountain will host freestyle and snowboard competitions. I recently spoke about the great opportunity West Vancouver had hosting the 2008 World Cup for aerials and moguls.

This achievement could not have been realized without the assistance of over 2,000 men and women who worked on these projects. Their commitment to excellence parallels that of an Olympic athlete — certainly, a gold medal victory.

Also, the completion of the venues could not have taken shape without a strong partnership with local businesses and first nations. The Squamish and Lil'wat Nations companies completed 50 percent of the construction work at the Whistler Olympic Park. Great feat in a short few years.

Fostering greater economic opportunities across B.C. while establishing greater cultural and social relationships is a strong foundation for the victories that lie ahead.

D. Thorne: During the 39th parliament, the Standing Senate Committee on Official Languages will conduct a study on the status of francophone culture in Canada and specifically in francophone minority communities. The B.C. Francophone Federation has asked that Johanne Dumas represent the province of British Columbia on March 10. Johanne is from Maillardville and is a great champion of the French culture, working tirelessly with the many volunteers from this dynamic French community in my riding.

The B.C. federation wanted the senate to hear from a person who is a doer, not just a theorist of culture. I believe they have made an excellent choice with Johanne Dumas and the community of Maillardville, a legendary seat of francophone culture in western Canada.

The committee will identify vulnerable areas where needs are most pressing and will make recommendations to the federal government after studying aspects of culture, such as the growing influence of anglophone culture, in general — and American culture, in particular — the increasing removal of culture from primary and secondary school curricula, and the failure to recognize culture as an essential, and not superfluous, part of the economy.

Will this House please help send Johanne Dumas off to represent B.C. with a large round of applause.

D. Hayer: There is nothing that brings people together more closely than its neighbourhood hall. No one runs those halls better than the ladies auxiliaries who help people in need, organize social events and community dinners, and raise funds to keep the halls operating. It is with those thoughts that I want to recognize Tynehead Women's Auxiliary, a group of ladies who operate and maintain the historical, century-old Tynehead Hall.

These ladies are constantly fundraising to help people in need, to maintain the hall and to upgrade its facilities. They are not just volunteering their time

and effort to our community. They are carrying on a tradition born 100 years ago when the first Tynehead Women's Institute — the first WI on British Columbia's mainland — took over the operation of this community gathering place. They are lovingly working to support this centre, the hub of the pioneer community of Tynehead.

Many are the members of original pioneer families or are longtime members of Tynehead, including President Andrea Terris and directors Maxine Wilson, Joan Parolin, Lil Stanbury, Margaret Smith, Bel Carter, Kim Adamson-Sharpe, Monica Matsi and along with many other volunteers who assist with functions, including Kathy Poole, Liz Milligan, Zina York, Nancy Kalinovich, Jackie Woods, Doris Hoffman, Leonora Bradley, Barry Shiles, Graham Sharpe, Baird and Bram Terris, Alexius Matsi and many other volunteers.

Without their dedication and support, our traditions would be lost, our neighbourhood would be a lesser place and our society would lose touch with its history. While I commend the generosity of the ladies of Tynehead, I know every other member in this House has similar organizations in their communities who selflessly volunteer many hours to their neighbourhoods.

I ask everyone to join me in saluting these wonderful people who do so much to make where we live a better and great place to be.

N. Macdonald: As members know, I live very close to the Alberta border, so I was particularly concerned, as I think most members would be, about the very low turnout in the Alberta provincial election. It was, I believe, 41 percent. It's within that context that I want to talk about a grass-roots group that has been politically active for over 15 years.

Jumbo Wild is a Columbia Valley–based community group. They formed to democratically resist Jumbo Glacier Resort, which has long been a contentious issue in the Columbia Valley. The resort is proposed for the Purcells, 15 kilometres west of Invermere. I don't want to talk about the specifics of the project. This is more to do with the issue of democracy.

Citizens, especially our youth, need to believe in our system. They need to see that it works properly. In Alberta and here in B.C. people are not engaging in the system the way they should. It's especially troublesome that it is the youth that seem to be most disengaged.

Like many members of the Legislature, I've lived in other parts of the world. From 1999 to 2003, I lived in Africa — wonderful at many, many levels, but it certainly reminds you of the importance of grass-roots democracy and the empowerment it brings. We come back from these experiences knowing that, in Canada, we are particularly lucky to be able to be democratically involved.

Jumbo Wild has done everything that citizens should do. They have done their responsibilities as citizens. They have worked democratically, using letters to government, using bumper stickers, manning booths, writing letters to the editors, attending demonstrations, setting up websites and a host of other activities.

When we make decisions as politicians, we all need to be aware and respectful of the people who put us here and do all that we can to strengthen British Columbians' participation in the public decision-making process. Jumbo Wild provides a fine example of citizens engaged.

D. MacKay: Following a record-setting year in the mineral exploration industry in the province of B.C., which topped $400 million, I'd like to spend a couple of minutes and talk about what has taken place, what is taking place and what will take place down the road here.

In the latter part of January of this year, the Mineral Exploration Roundup 2008 — which, by the way, was the 25th silver anniversary for that event — attracted over 6,700 participants from 48 countries.

What is taking place today is the PDAC International Convention, Trade Show and Investors Exchange. That's taking place in Toronto this week, and I noticed the Minister of State for Mining just returned today. That event is the most important event in the world of exploration, bringing together over 18,000 attendees from all over the globe.

Now, I'd like to talk a little bit about what will take place in April of this year at the community of Smithers, which just happens to be where I live. On April 16 to 18, Minerals North will take place at Smithers.

You might wonder if, in fact, it has attracted any interest up there. I can tell you that the trade booths sold out in the first hour on the first day of registration. So 350 people have registered already — although that's a far cry from 18,000 people — and 450 people have got tickets for the banquet that will take place on the 18th. By the way, we have some great luncheon and dinner speakers coming for that event.

The objective of Minerals North is to establish contacts and build working relationships, to inform communities about mining and exploration projects and issues, and to hold a dialogue on the impacts and benefits of mining.

So if any of you are considering coming up to Smithers on April 16 and 18, you're probably going to have to drive there, because all the hotels are full.

C. James: Once again, Retirement Concepts is at the centre of an investigation. Once again, the Minister of Health and the B.C. Liberals are trying to bury the incident reports. Once again, seniors are being neglected and abused, and the Minister of Health refuses to do anything about it.

Summerland Seniors Village, Beacon Hill Villa, Golden Ears seniors village — all these facilities are run by Retirement Concepts, and there are significant problems with all of them. Families are worried about the safety and the well-being of their loved ones.

My question is to the Minister of Health. Will he commit today to put seniors and their families first and conduct a full investigation into Retirement Concepts provincewide?

Hon. G. Abbott: I don't believe that some residential care facilities ought to be held to the highest standards; I believe that all residential care facilities ought to be held to the highest standards. It does not matter to me — it does not matter to this government — whether that facility is privately owned, whether it's publicly owned, whether it's owned by a non-profit or anyone else. Everyone in this province will be held to the highest standards if they're providing residential care.

Every day thousands of British Columbians get up, and they provide excellent care to the people they serve. We work through our licensing officers. Wherever we see an allegation or a complaint, it is rigorously and thoroughly followed up on.

C. James: Seniors and their families deserve better than simply more words from this minister. They deserve action. They deserve change, and they deserve respect, which they're not getting from this government.

The minister just doesn't get it. The incident reports are very clear. There's a crisis in seniors care in this province, and the minister needs to wake up to that.

Just this afternoon we learned that another Retirement Concepts home, this one in Coquitlam, is set to cut care for residents by 115 hours per week. This will have a direct impact on seniors, but this minister refuses to investigate this company's practice. The director of care for Retirement Concepts was clear today. She said: "Health care is in crisis. We're trying to do our best."

Retirement Concepts gets that there's a crisis. Why doesn't the minister, and why won't he investigate?

Hon. G. Abbott: I congratulate the Leader of the Opposition on being sharp enough to pick up the HEU press release that was issued just prior, in respect of the Coquitlam facility that she referenced. I'm sure that was entirely a coincidence that it just happened to come out prior to question period.

I know that this Leader of this Opposition and this New Democratic Party don't like private providers. They are against private providers. They will do everything they can to discredit private providers, regardless of what the evidence is.

What we have in this province is a very thorough, very rigorous process around ensuring the highest standards. If anyone doesn't fulfil the requirements, the high standards that they are obliged to fulfil, we will come down on them like a ton of bricks, and that includes Retirement Concepts.

C. James: How many families have to come forward to get this minister to listen? How many seniors have to live with neglect before this minister and this government will recognize that they're providing poor care for seniors, and seniors deserve better in British Columbia?

Seniors have built this province. They spent a lifetime building this province, and they deserve better than a minister who is in denial. These are real problems. These are real investigations going on — Victoria, Maple Ridge, Summerland and now cuts in services in Coquitlam.

If the Minister of Health won't investigate Retirement Concepts, if he won't stand up and protect seniors, then will he take our proposal and establish a representative for seniors who actually will stand up and protect them?

Hon. G. Abbott: We will investigate Retirement Concepts. We'll investigate every residential care provider who doesn't meet the high standards that we set out for them.

Hon. G. Abbott: The sanctimony that I hear from this Leader of the Opposition and from this opposition…. They may want to think about some of the stories that we saw in, for example, The Vancouver Sun on July 13, 1998, entitled, "Vulnerable care home residents being abused." It details 14 care homes…

Hon. G. Abbott: …in Vancouver, Surrey, Burnaby and Delta, where incidents of physical, sexual and emotional abuse had occurred. Or they can look at The Vancouver Sun from 1994, which details 21 cases of physical, sexual and emotional abuse by care aides.

G. Gentner: In every case this dithering minister has known about the problems for months, even years, and he has done nothing about it. The accusations of abuse at Summerland date back to 2006. The deplorable conditions at Beacon Hill Villa date back to 2004.

The government has known about the understaffing at Golden Ears village for over two years, and now we hear about Dufferin.

The Minister of Health has known about the problems for years. He's hidden them away, and he's done nothing. The minister doesn't get it. The public does not trust him to deliver independent investigations. Will he bring in a seniors representative to conduct a broad investigation into all the practices of Retirement Concepts now?

Hon. G. Abbott: This member is absolutely incorrect. In every case where we receive an allegation, in every case where we receive any suggestion of impropriety or inappropriate care, we have a rigorous system of licensing officers, of standards. I challenge this member to come up with one that was ignored. In every case we receive a complaint, we follow up on it. We take appropriate action to remediate it.

G. Gentner: I represent the people of Delta North, but there are times I do indulge myself and look after people in Delta South.

The Minister of Health is pretty good at blaming others, but it is his policies, his funding, his neglect creating the crisis. Earlier today Leslie Karmazinuk, director of care at Retirement Concepts, blamed funding for their problems. They can't meet the needs of their residents because they do not get enough funding. They can't provide proper standards of care because they don't have enough staff.

Retirement Concepts is blaming the government and the health authorities. The health authorities are blaming Retirement Concepts, and the government and the minister are blaming a previous century. There is no accountability.

So to the Minister of Health: will he commit today to bring in an independent representative so we can finally have some real accountability and real investigations and real protection for our vulnerable seniors in the province of British Columbia?

Hon. G. Abbott: We don't take problems and throw pixie dust at them and suppose that that's going to make them go away. I challenge the member to come up with one example of one complaint that hadn't been rigorously followed up on. He can't name one. They have a pat answer. They don't have one example where the licensing officers have not followed through with rigour on every case.

In terms of the funding for residential care, it is up $200 million over 2001 — $200 million. In terms of facilities — up 12 percent over three years. To say that there hasn't been an increase is absolutely wrong and typical of this member and this opposition. They say a lot of nonsense. They have nothing to back it up.

A. Dix: Serious allegations of problems at Beacon Hill Villa came forward in 2005. The families of people at Beacon Hill Villa weren't made aware of those. The minister knew, though.

Summerland, May 2006…. They weren't published. The families weren't told about them. The minister knew.

The minister talks about a ton of bricks. Two months later he rewarded Retirement Concepts and the Vancouver Island Health Authority rewarded Retirement Concepts with a massive contract for the Casa Loma project. He didn't come down on them with a ton of bricks. He dropped a ton of cash on them.

The fact of the matter is…. The minister wants names: Nanaimo Seniors Village, Beacon Hill Villa, Coquitlam, Maple Ridge, Williams Lake, Summerland….

You know, these are pretty serious issues. Seniors are very important, I think, to every member in this House. The problem is that the Minister of Health isn't doing his job in informing seniors. He isn't doing his job in protecting seniors.

My question to the minister is this. If he's not going to do his job, why doesn't he take our advice and establish an independent officer for seniors issues — a seniors representative — so seniors have a place to go and someone who will follow up on their complaints and not bury them?

Hon. G. Abbott: I think the opposition may want to have a seminar on internal coherence for their question period questions. I had a comment from the member for Delta North saying that we weren't giving enough money to Retirement Concepts. Then I get from the opposition Health critic we're giving them too much money. They've got to get their act straight here, one way or another. Too much or not enough? Get it straight.

Hon. G. Abbott: If there was ever evidence that talk is cheap, it comes from this opposition every day of the week in question period — every day of the week. For all the big talk in question period, in ten years they were able to add 1,400 units of residential care. Since we took office, now 4,000 units of residential care and assisted living.

A. Dix: Of 79 members of the House, the only one who knew the full story about Beacon Hill Villa and

Summerland was that member, the Minister of Health. And yet two months later he rewarded this firm with a contract that was massive.

Oh, there was a press release. Oh, the government was praising Retirement Concepts. The Minister of Tourism was in the press release. Can't miss that out. There are priorities over there. Get the Minister of Tourism in the announcement. He's praising Retirement Concepts.

The minister knew different. Why did he at that time, when he knew what was going on in Summerland, when he knew what was going on in Beacon Hill Villa and he wasn't telling anyone about that, reward his pals at Retirement Concepts with that contract?

Hon. G. Abbott: Talk is cheap, so I challenge this opposition Health critic. I challenge him to get up on his feet now. I challenge him to get up on his feet and tell me one example of where the licensing officers or where this system did not operate as it is set out in law to do. Give me one example, Member, of where that happened. One. One example. One.

Mr. Speaker, the member claims to have ten examples. I challenge him to get on his feet right now and give me one example of where the licensing officers failed, where the health authorities failed.

Throw lots of dirt, but don't have anything to back it up. That's where you're at, isn't it? Get on your feet. Give us one example of that.

R. Austin: Yesterday two city councillors from Kitimat called me to say that they had met with Chief Steve Wilson last year prior to his letter to the Premier. The city councillors confirmed that Chief Wilson told them that, indeed, he had a deal with the Premier, a deal in which Chief Wilson would remain neutral on the Alcan energy purchase agreement in exchange for the Premier's support of his projects. For the past two days this government has denied that such a deal was made.

Will the Premier finally admit that he made a secret backroom deal with one of his friends to give away our water resource to a large corporation?

Hon. R. Neufeld: Well, for the third day in a row…. Hopefully, this member, who actually is taking a lead from the last two questions about throwing some dirt and having no wall for it to stick to….

We have never actually subverted any decision of the B.C. Utilities Commission. In fact, it was our government that re-empowered the B.C. Utilities Commission when we came back into office.

The Chief that this member refers to, as I had said yesterday and the day before, is a leader in his own right in the northwest, wants jobs for his people, wants economic activity for his people and will continue to actually advocate for that. And we should be supporting him instead of trying to subvert it.

R. Austin: I have also received a letter from the hereditary chiefs of the Haisla. They say they were made aware of Chief Wilson's letter to the Premier last December, and they were shocked.

The hereditary chiefs say that they provided a copy of Steve Wilson's letter to the BCUC, to B.C. Hydro and to Alcan. In their letter to me, the Chiefs say that they did this "out of concern for the integrity of the hearing." They say that Mr. Wilson's letter shows that not only is industry dealing unilaterally with Steve Wilson, but so is the Premier of British Columbia personally.

The Chiefs have called for an independent investigation into this matter, a call that I strongly support.

Hon. R. Neufeld: Well, I believe Chief Wilson is more of a leader in that part of the world than this member from….

Hon. R. Neufeld: You know what? It's easy to say words in here where there's immunity. When you have to go out in a hallway and actually accuse a chief from the northwest that he was actually going to do something illegal….

I would challenge that member to go out there and do that right now, right after question period. Go out there and actually accuse that chief of maybe doing something illegal.

This side of the House actually wants something to happen in the northwest part of the province of British Columbia. The Chief wants something to happen in the northwest part of British Columbia in employment. That opposition just wants to search and destroy — destroy every job opportunity that they may have. That's consistent with what they did when they were in office, and it's consistent with what they're asking for today.

J. Horgan: Well, we have representatives from the Kitimat council saying that this is inappropriate. We

have the four hereditary chiefs of the four houses of the Haisla Nation saying that this is inappropriate.

The Haisla chief sent the letter from Chief Wilson that was hand-delivered to the Premier, sent it to the chief executive officer at B.C. Hydro, sent it to the CEO of Rio Tinto and sent it to the B.C. Utilities Commission.

So apparently, the only people in British Columbia who don't know about this are on that side of the House. My question is to the Premier. Will he stand in this place and protect the integrity of the Utilities Commission and deny the allegations made by Mr. Wilson?

Hon. R. Neufeld: Well, if there's anybody going to respect the integrity of the B.C. Utilities Commission, it's members on this side of the House that re-empowered the B.C. Utilities Commission. It was that member as an adviser to the past Ministry of Energy and Mines that removed that responsibility from the B.C. Utilities Commission.

What we want to do, along with Chief Wilson, is actually have jobs and opportunity happen in the northwest part of the province. We want to have activity happen in the northwest part of the province.

We actually want to see an Alcan upgrade. I know that opposition doesn't want to see an Alcan upgrade. They've preached against it from day one; they continue to do that. But I challenge that member, too, to go outside of this House after and make a charge that a chief from the northwest part of British Columbia was actually accepting a bribe.

J. Horgan: With respect to Chief Wilson, the Haisla hereditary chiefs say as follows: "We confirm we have not delegated our authority to Steve Wilson. He does not speak for us."

So with respect to what the Haisla want in their territory, I can confirm, in the letter to the Premier, that the government has assisted in moving around some land to assist an independent power project in the region, but they've done nothing to secure a smelter in Kitimat. They've done nothing to secure jobs in Kitimat.

Instead, they've made a backroom deal with an individual. It's before this House, it's before the Utilities Commission, and it's before the CEO of B.C. Hydro. If he's not briefing you, who is? Stand in this place, Mr. Minister, and declare that this allegation is false, or investigate it. Get an independent body and investigate the allegations today.

Hon. R. Neufeld: I know that the opposition relished in the fact that the B.C. Utilities Commission actually turned down the first application from Alcan and B.C. Hydro. They relished that there wouldn't be any activity happen in the northwest.

I know that now today they're upset because the B.C. Utilities Commission, a quasi-judicial body separate from anything else, made a decision entirely unto itself to actually move ahead with the power purchase agreement between B.C. Hydro and Alcan. That means jobs will actually happen in the northwest part of the province. They were talking to a duly elected chief, Chief Wilson, from the northwest, from the Haisla Nation.

I challenge him again to go outside of this House after question period and throw a little bit of that mud around in the hallway out there, and see what happens.

N. Simons: Yesterday the House learned that a service to children with developmental disabilities is going to be no longer available to their families. For eight years Corner House has provided respite for children with severe disabilities. But on April 30 they'll close their doors because the government has instituted a 66 percent cut to their budget. This comes almost a week to the day after the Representative said that the ministry had to provide more responsive services to these families and children.

The minister says it's all fine, because he's moving to a cheaper model. Can the minister confirm that he intends to replace respite care with a scheme to hand families cash to find their own services?

Hon. T. Christensen: Corner House is a residential respite resource here in Victoria. It is a resource that has been funded by Community Living British Columbia. As members will know, Community Living B.C. is an authority that has been set up and is governed by a board, the majority of whom are from the developmentally disabled community, either self-advocates or family members. They are entrusted with determining how services are best delivered to persons with developmental disabilities.

In the Victoria community they have been working towards providing individualized funding for respite services. They have determined that they will be able to serve close to four times as many children and families who require respite services by making this shift and allowing a more personalized approach to respite care.

N. Simons: I'd have nothing against that, were it to be true. But unfortunately, this is going to leave families in a more dire situation than they're already in, which has already been shown to this entire province by the Representative's report of last week saying that services were not accessible and were difficult to access and that waiting lists were too long. This is going to do nothing to help that.

Yesterday he said it was a mutual decision. It was not a mutual decision. The government is forcing these agencies to close, and it's not a mutual decision. The minister should stand up in this House and say they've got an unthought-through plan which is going to cause families to suffer.

Will the minister stand up and say to this House that he's not going to implement more cuts to services, when the services are so needed by families in this province?

Hon. T. Christensen: If the member is suggesting that the board of Community Living British Columbia doesn't care about the developmentally disabled, that people who have family members who are receiving those services shouldn't be entrusted with the authority…

Hon. T. Christensen: …to best guide the delivery of those services, then he should stand up and say so — because that's what he's saying.

CLBC has determined that they can better serve individuals requiring respite services by moving from a residential resource model to one that takes a more personalized approach and that allows more children to be served, something that certainly I have heard and take to heart — the fact that more families require respite services.

Direct-funded respite is something that CLBC has introduced over the last couple of years. It has allowed a significant increase in the number of children that are receiving respite services. Those are the right steps to take to ensure services are available. The government will continue to support CLBC with additional funding to ensure that more children and adults are served.

Passage of the budget vote and the motion to move to Committee of Supply triggers the commencement of what we call the estimates debate. The practice here in the Legislature has been to divide the Committee of Supply into two sections: Committee A, which we frequently refer to as the little House, and Committee B in this chamber. The mechanism that affects that split is a sessional order.

With one notable exception that I'm going to speak to this afternoon, this Motion 37 follows the model previously adopted by this House in past years with respect to effecting that split between Committee A and Committee B. The provision that members are aware is missing from this motion is that which would require three ministries to have their spending estimates considered in this chamber in their entirety. In my remarks today, I will endeavour to offer to the House the government's rationale for this alteration.

I should say, by way of a preliminary commentary, that we have participated in, experienced and seen many institutional reforms take place with respect to the operation of the Legislature. Members have, I'm sure, a variety of views, but I think on balance most of them have been well received — not all of them. We have had debates, some of them lengthy debates, in this chamber on a few of those changes. In other cases, we have been able to agree with unanimity on what some of those changes should be.

I suspect, based on what I have read and on the reaction today in the House, that this will not be one of those days when we are able to claim unanimity. That's fine. I will listen to the comments that are offered by members opposite, carefully, as I always do. I hope they will give me a moment today to offer my rationale for commending these particular changes to the House.

I should say, as well, that there are a few members in the chamber who have been here long enough, who will know that discussions around the operation of estimates and how that might change have been the subject of discussions, negotiations and observations for over a decade. I can think back to the time when a former colleague, Fred Gingell, presented a report in the mid-1990s laying out a series of options.

For one reason or another, it always has seemed to have been that component of the discussion that fell by the boards, and we haven't made any of the institutional changes with respect to the operation of the estimates debate that probably were warranted but have never come about. In part, I think that's attributable to the fact that there hasn't been agreement on precisely what the model should be. That's not a case of assigning blame. It just is a fact that we haven't come to that agreement.

I think, as well, that if we canvassed the views of members, most members would agree that the effectiveness and utility of the model we presently employ is lacking. I don't think we're going to change that today, but it is probably something that does need to be addressed. As other members have observed, there are times in the life of a parliament and I suppose in an electoral calendar that lend themselves better than other times to having those discussions and trying to address those points.

I'm not suggesting for a moment to the chamber that today we are addressing any of those larger questions around the effectiveness or utility of the overall process that we follow to debate the estimates in this chamber.

I will offer this to the House, and that is that the original rationale, as I recall it, for the requirement that three of the ministries have their spending estimates considered in this chamber wasn't particularly complicated.

It was because this chamber offered an opportunity to broadcast to people who were not here, who were not in attendance, whereas the little House or Committee A did not afford that opportunity. That was a logical rationale, and that was the case for many, many years.

That has changed. I think all members know that the days of seeking quiet refuge in the little House, away from the prying eyes of the camera — I think there's always been Hansard for the committee — have disappeared. For at least the last year and possibly two there has been broadcast capacity from the Douglas Fir Room.

I am reliably informed that there is a live feed by virtue of webcast and that proceedings from the Douglas Fir Room are rebroadcast on a daily basis. I'm advised that starting this week, or soon, an experiment involving the rebroadcast of debates from the Legislative Assembly on the weekend for those who aren't in a position…. So if Hockey Night in Canada isn't your thing, you can tune in to the rebroadcasts from the Legislative Assembly. That's fine, and that offers people who might not otherwise have a chance to see some of what goes on here an opportunity to do so.

I do want to emphasize this fact to the House. This is not in any way, shape or form an attempt to hide proceedings. They are as open, as accessible and as available to the public from the Douglas Fir Room as they are from this chamber by virtue of the broadcast that takes place.

I see the member for Surrey–Panorama Ridge seems skeptical about that. I'll be interested to hear his rationale for that skepticism, insofar as the broadcast capacity is there, utilized and available for everyone to see. If he has a different take on that, I'll be interested to hear his rationale for why he believes that this somehow constitutes an attempt to hide the proceedings or to keep them from the public.

I should say this as well. I suspect that members will accept this or not, and I'll hear about that later. The alteration to this motion is not intended nor designed to mean that there will not be estimates debate in this chamber. It does remove the obligation or guarantee that three ministries in their entirety would be debated in this chamber. It does do that. But it is entirely possible that portions of the estimates would continue to be held and debated and discussed in this chamber.

What it does do and what it is intended to do is send a clear signal that within this chamber legislation will be given the priority. It does do that. Members, I'm

sure, will come to their own conclusions, but that is clearly what the government is endeavouring to signal and intends to follow up on in the days and weeks ahead, should Motion 37 pass.

I have also heard — and I suspect I will hear some more — about how this constitutes an attempt to reduce the opportunity that the opposition will have to scrutinize the spending estimates and the budget. It is not intended to do that.

I should say this. There are, in my view, two fundamentally important functions that this chamber and the members serve, in addition to all the other things members do in terms of serving their constituents: first, to create the constitutionally-based laws by which people in British Columbia live; and second, and of equal importance, to grant to the Crown spending authority.

Those are the two primary functions for which this assembly and we as members gather, and they are important functions. The opportunity for the official opposition to scrutinize the spending estimates of ministries and government is a fundamental part of that and will remain so.

What I thought I would do for members is place on the record the calculation that I have done in asserting that an adequate opportunity will continue to exist in order for MLAs to fulfil that function, particularly that function as opposition MLAs.

Happily, someone other than me keeps a record of these things. I went back about six years. I hope that is representative, but others may take a different view. The average amount of time spent on estimates over that six-year period is 175 hours — 174½ hours. Now, it has been going up of late. For example, in 2005 we spent 154 hours; in 2006, 194 hours; and last year we spent 212 hours. It has been ratcheting up, but the average over the six years has been 174½ or 175 hours.

Were the estimates to begin in Committee A today, there would be 190 hours available for debate. That's excluding any additional time that might be made available in this chamber. I'll say that again. In the past six years an average of 175 hours has been spent on the spending estimates. If we commence debates today in Committee A, there will be 190 hours.

Admittedly, that is slightly below what was spent last year, but in my respectful submission, it is well within the range of what we have spent on spending estimates over the course of the past six years, at least.

I think the last thing that I wanted to convey in these opening remarks to the House…. I'm not sure how interesting or helpful members will find this. I did seek to conduct a bit of a survey on what takes place in other jurisdictions across Canada with respect to the spending estimates, which isn't to say that we have to replicate or feel constrained or bound by what others do. But in the context of what I anticipate to be a lengthy discussion this afternoon, I thought I would provide for members a summary of what I found. It has been influential to me and the government in terms of our thinking on this subject.

I'll just take a moment to relay the information that has been provided to me as a result of that survey. Let's start with the really big House. That is the one in Ottawa, in Parliament. I'm told they do this, and this is according to their rules. The specific rule, 81(4), says: "In every session the main estimates to cover the incoming fiscal year for every department of government shall be deemed referred to standing committees on or before March 1 of the then expiring fiscal year."

They have until the end of May to do their work. I don't know how often they sit, and I don't have an hourly component for that, but they are all deemed referred out of the House of Commons to their select standing committee.

However, it does include this provision. It says: "The Leader of the Opposition is permitted to select, in consultation with the leaders of the other opposition parties, the Main Estimates of no more than two departments or agencies for consideration in Committee of the Whole for up to four hours."

Now, I'm not aware of whether or not Committee of the Whole automatically translates into the House of Commons, but for the sake of this discussion, let's assume it does. So in Ottawa the opportunity does exist for the opposition to select two agencies or departments — ministries — and to have their estimates considered for up to four hours before the Committee of the Whole.

Our neighbour to the east, Alberta…. This is a theme that begins to emerge. There is either a reference out to select standing committees for the estimates or some very strict time limits, and in some cases both.

In Alberta the Committee of Supply is composed of all members of the assembly and spends a minimum of two hours debating each department's budget estimates. The estimates are considered for no more than 75 hours. That's what they do. That would seem to replicate what we presently have insofar as the Committee of the Whole, which places significant constraints around the timing available — 75 hours.

In Saskatchewan estimates are deemed referred to a committee, of which there are three. Detailed examination of the estimates takes place in committee, after which it is referred back to the assembly. So it would appear that in Saskatchewan they do all of their estimates before committees.

In Manitoba, when the estimates are tabled in the House, they are referred to a Committee of Supply with not more than 100 hours for the business of supply and debate. In Manitoba the Committee of Supply is actually authorized to meet outside of times when the chamber is sitting. That's an idea that has been bandied about.

Again, I spoke earlier about our collective inability to look at the broader question of how estimates should be conducted. But a maximum of a hundred hours, three sections of a Committee of Supply, and they're able to sit outside of the hours or the times that the chamber is sitting.

In Ontario, once the estimates are tabled, they are again deemed to be referred to the Standing Committee on Estimates. That Standing Committee on Estimates will consider between six and 12 ministries' and offices' estimates.

All other estimates — that is, the ones that are not selected for consideration by the Standing Committee on Estimates — are deemed passed by the committee

and will be reported back. So in Ontario's case, they don't actually get an opportunity to conduct a detailed examination of each ministry. They pick — I don't know how many ministries there are in Ontario, but I hazard a guess — 20-some-odd. They would review maybe half, maybe less, and the rest are deemed passed. That's the approach they have taken.

In Quebec the main estimates of expenditure are referred to several standing committees for consideration. In the maritime provinces, in New Brunswick, when the estimates or supplementary estimates are transmitted to the House, they are deemed to be referred to the Committee of Supply. The House may refer any departmental estimates to the Standing Committee on Estimates, which shall report back to the House. In each session in New Brunswick not more than 80 hours shall be allocated for the consideration of the estimates and the supplementary estimates — there again, fairly strict time constraints around the consideration of the estimates.

P.E.I. The only note I have is that estimates are considered during Committee of the Whole House on Supply. So they would appear to do what we do here. I don't know whether their House splits or not, but P.E.I. would seem to continue to do something close to what we have in British Columbia, although I suggest that the circumstances are somewhat different in terms of the magnitude of the task presented to members.

In Nova Scotia the members of the House constitute a Committee of the Whole on Supply to consider the estimates. The opposition leader determines which five ministers of the government's estimates are to be considered by the Committee of the Whole on Supply and the order that they're going to be considered. All estimates not determined for consideration by the Committee of the Whole on Supply are referred to the Subcommittee on Supply.

In that case, that too strikes me as being somewhat similar to what we have presently — or had, subject to the order of the sessional motion before the House — with this proviso. They have a maximum of 40 hours allowed for consideration of estimates by the Committee of the Whole. So the Committee of the Whole gets 40 hours, and the Subcommittee on Supply presumably has more time than that.

Finally, in Newfoundland the estimates procedure takes place in a Committee of Supply, and it's limited to 75 hours in total.

I confess that, as always, my preference on matters of this sort is to be able to come into the chamber and be able to convey a change or an amendment on matters of this sort that enjoys the support of all members. I know this one doesn't, and I anticipate that I'll hear much over the next hours this afternoon about why that is.

I would suggest that the adjustment here is warranted insofar as the original rationale for requiring estimates to be conducted in this chamber really is no longer applicable, insofar as the ability to broadcast the proceedings now exists from the committee room. The change that is being proposed here does not reduce the opportunity that the opposition has to perform an important function, which is to scrutinize the spending estimates by ministry.

In fact, based on the average time spent over the last six years, we are still well above that, the average having been 175 hours. If we commence in a timely manner, there being 190 hours and possibly more, if we were able to do some of the estimates in this chamber…. Admittedly, the government is saying that in this chamber legislation would be given the priority.

Lastly, when consideration is given to the processes that are followed in virtually every other jurisdiction, the amendment adjustment being proposed here is not out of line with any of those jurisdictions and therefore is worthy of support.

M. Farnworth: It's my pleasure to rise and take my place in the debate on this motion, and I have a lot to say. I have a lot to say on this motion, because this motion strikes right at the very heart of what this place is all about.

M. Farnworth: I can hear some moaning from the member, and I hear the member for Richmond East doing a big sigh.

It's really unfortunate about that, because one of my initial comments on this particular motion goes back to how it came about. The member for Richmond East, myself and a few others — the member for North Vancouver–Seymour, the member for Nanaimo, the member for Yale-Lillooet — were actually here then, when the change took place.

The Government House Leader indicates that it was about televising and the ability…. You know, issues that had previously been technologically not feasible had been addressed. Well, that's true to a point. It was part of the discussion. It was by no means the whole discussion, and I will get to that in a minute.

This motion gets to how we operate in this chamber, in this institution, and how we respect what it does. We respect the work that takes place here, and we respect the purpose of what we are supposed to do, which is to make legislative laws that are the framework from which government takes place and are how we govern in this province and to scrutinize the spending and the ability to spend and the approval of that spending by governments.

That's what we're here for. We're not here to see how short a session we can make. We're not here to make it as convenient as possible for a government party or an opposition party because we don't like the way things are structured. We're here to do the business of the people of British Columbia legislatively and by scrutinizing expenditures. If we don't respect and believe in that, then we really have no business being here.

Back in 1991…. This is the point I'm coming to that the hon. member finds problematic. The member for Peace River North was here back then too. At that time, he was on his first incarnation of a political party.

He's laughing, and I find it unfortunate that he thinks it's funny. I remember back in 1991 that he didn't think it was so funny. Neither did his leader, and neither did the opposition.

What took place back then was that government called the session. Government opened the session, and they came forward with a legislative agenda. The opposition decided when the session would close. The government didn't make that decision; the opposition made that decision.

We would start with a throne speech. We would go to a budget speech. We would break into estimates, and we would go. We would go, and we would go and we would go — quite often into July or August, till nine or ten o'clock, sometimes around the clock.

But the opposition always had the ability to scrutinize estimates for literally as long as they wanted to. There were no restrictions. The member for Peace River North would come in and talk about energy policy until the gas ran out.

M. Farnworth: As my colleague said — I'm sure he will make his comments from his own chair in the future, because he respects this place — the member for Peace River North sometimes could be a very deep well.

Sometimes, as a minister, it was hard and tedious. Other times it was fascinating when you got into the discussion about the spending estimates and what was going on in a ministry, because they're important questions to be asked — important policy questions, important issues related to expenditures taking place in that ministry.

We took the time — and the opposition was able to take the time — to make sure that they had scrutinized as thoroughly and as in depth as they felt able to. Now, sometimes it made you wonder, because you were talking about things as…. If I remember correctly, back then one member from Surrey-Cloverdale, not the current incumbent, spent time wondering about the size of napkins on B.C. ferries.

That's the right of this member, but there were other times when we'd seen very serious issues debated in the estimates debate that were able to be asked, explored and ministers held accountable because we had the time to do it. That was a very, very key part of the work that we do here as legislators.

In 1992 a change was made, and that was to put the estimates into what we call the Committee A room, the little House, in part because we had the ability to televise. So issues around broadcasting and questions being asked were able to be televised. That was part of it, but at that time, considerable debate took around even that — about moving a function which had been done here in this chamber out of this chamber, this heart of our institution, to an outside room.

It didn't pass overnight. It wasn't something done unilaterally. It wasn't something just dropped, and that's it. "We're talking about it the next day, and it's going to be done." There was a lot of debate around it, not all of it positive. There were issues raised that had to be dealt with. There were concerns by an opposition at that time about even the legality of being able to do it.

The Government House Leader's party, when they were in opposition back then, raised questions about the actual legality of being able to do it — to move spending estimates out of here. We had to have answers to those questions.

There were questions raised about the ability of members on this side of the House scrutinizing legislation at the same time that estimates were going on — very valid questions. A lot of discussion took place. In the end it was a negotiation — discussions with the Opposition House Leader at the time, David Mitchell, and the House Leader for Social Credit at the time, Jack Weisgerber.

It was agreed that if we were to do this, one of the things that was required and that gained some acceptance was a recognition that this is still the fundamental chamber — still the heart of this institution, still the seat of our legislative democracy in this province — and that the opposition would be able to call three estimates and the Premier's estimate for debate in this chamber.

We know how our system works. Government has most of the power — some days it feels like all the power — but the opposition still had the ability to ensure that some of those estimates were debated in this chamber, in this House and not pushed aside, not squeezed up against a deadline.

Back then there was no deadline. Opposition could take as much time as they wanted, but you were able to ensure that those estimates were in this chamber in full view of the public galleries, in full view of the legislative gallery, in full view of the public of British Columbia — not Alberta, not Nova Scotia, not Prince Edward Island, not Nunavut, not the House of Commons but the Legislature of British Columbia.

Since 1992 that has been the practice in this House, and it has worked. Generally — in fact, without exception, I think — what happens is that regardless of who is in government and who has been in opposition, it has traditionally been many of the big, important ministries of the day or the ministries that are front and centre at public attention that the opposition has chosen to call in this chamber.

Invariably, it has been that Health estimates, the largest expenditure of the provincial government, have taken place in here. The largest social policy function in this province — the estimates — has been debated in here.

The other one, more often than not, has been forestry. Forestry — the largest, single most important, historical and, I think, evocative of this province industry — has been debated in here. At a time when 10,000 jobs have been lost so far this year, it seems more important to me than ever that we would want those estimates debated here, not pushed aside into a small chamber — no matter how well it's set up to broadcast, no matter how well it is set up for Hansard. This is our chamber. This is where those debates should take place.

The other estimate that usually comes in here more often than not reflects public policy that is front and centre in terms of public interest. The last few years it's been Environment. Given that the government has made so much of its climate change proposals, it would seem to me that again, this is the appropriate place to do that. Or Children and Families, when that was front and centre. It was symbolic of what was front and centre in this province. They took place here.

Finally, the Premier's estimates. The head of the executive council came in this chamber and answered questions from the Leader of the Opposition on expenditures from the Premier's office and expenditures of the executive council — again, in this chamber, which is the seat of our legislative democracy.

So that's how it came to be the current situation. It changed in 2001. The Government House Leader has put forward some statistics and numbers about the last six years. I think that if we're going to be fair in that discussion, we should recognize a couple of things. For three of those years we didn't have an official opposition. Government didn't recognize two members as being an official opposition. As heroic as the work that was done by those two — and then, subsequently, three — members was, there is no way that we can say: "You know, let's look at those years as being indicative of how estimates debate should take place."

I see I'm being handed…. I think the question was about a designated speaker, and I am certainly the designated speaker.

M. Farnworth: And as my colleague the House Leader said — that's right — he's the designated listener. I know, as I said before, that I've got lots to say.

Anyway, the point I was making was that to say that somehow this has been the average, when in fact for three of those years we didn't have an official opposition…. We didn't have the ability to scrutinize estimates in the way that they should have been done. I notice the….

M. Farnworth: I know the member for Comox Valley just made a comment. I won't comment on when he heard it, other than to say…. I've recognized the ability that my colleague from Mount Pleasant and the former member for Vancouver-Hastings so ably did. But it was two people.

We also didn't have a parliamentary calendar. As I said, we had a different parliamentary calendar then, one that allowed…. The government opened the session; the opposition closed the session. Now we have a fixed calendar with a fixed date that says that we will start on this day, and we will end on this day for a spring session. [Applause.] The member applauds, and quite rightly. There is a lot of support.

You will not get argument from me, hon. Member, about the desirability of a fixed calendar date. Where we will disagree, hon. Member, is the fact that that means we should observe that fixed calendar date, both spring and fall.

M. Farnworth: Once again, the member for Kamloops–North Thompson gives me the opportunity to educate him. What he forgets to say is….

M. Farnworth: The member for Fort Langley–Aldergrove was here in those days too. Hon. Member, back then, you decided when the session ended, so it went on for several months. You didn't have the requirement for a spring session and a fall session.

You went for months at a time, and quite often, when you were in opposition, you had 350 or 450 hours of estimates debate. You debated the legislation till the cows came home. There wasn't the need for a fall session, hon. Member. When there was a fall session, it was to debate another treaty.

There was more time than you could shake a stick at. That's why you brought in the calendar — because you thought you didn't like that system. That's fine.

But please, don't try and somehow say that we only brought in three sessions. There wasn't a requirement to. You didn't demand one. We had more than enough time to debate. In fact, it was literally getting close to two and a half times the amount of time spent on estimates back then than we have the ability to do right now.

If you're going to make those comments, hon. Member, at least make sure you've got your facts straight and you know the history of this place.

So we got to a fixed calendar, and that's a great thing — having the fixed calendar. It requires a number of things, though. First, it requires some discipline on the part of the opposition in terms of how much time it spends on estimates debates. It also requires discipline on the part of the government in terms of the amount of legislation that it brings forward, and it requires discipline on the part of the government to actually follow a calendar.

The rationale that the Government House Leader offers up, or one of the rationales, is that we need to ensure that in this chamber legislation takes priority. Well, it already does take priority. The Government

House Leader and the government decide what legislation to call and when to call it. They have that ability right now to say that legislation is the priority.

Do you know what? Nothing illustrates that more than if we look at what is on the order papers, what's been tabled in this House.

Here we are, almost at the end of the fourth week of the session, and we have eight bills tabled in the House — eight bills. And many of these bills are pro forma budget bills.

If the government's worried that they don't have the time for the legislation, bring it forward. You've got a whole army of people drafting legislation. You've got more ministers than, I think, just about any government in this province has had that wants to bring forward legislation.

I've sat over there. I know how it works. You don't just do legislation two weeks before the session goes in. It's being done back in the fall. You're planning your legislative calendar. You know what you want to bring forward.

I see some shaking over there. Maybe it's a little different. I don't know, but I'm pretty sure it's not: "Let's pull a bill out of a hat and see that that one gets to go in," or "It's a lottery." Given some things we've seen with the way school playgrounds have been funded, maybe that's how it's done. I don't know. but most legislatures start well in advance of the session in terms of the amount of legislation they want to bring in and the timing of when they're going to table that legislation.

So here we are in week 4, almost at the end of week 4, and there are eight bills. Now, we know that the number of bills doesn't necessarily indicate the amount of time spent on the legislation, because if they're bills that have general support by both government and opposition, they will pass quickly. If they're bills that are controversial, they won't pass quickly. Opposition will take the time to scrutinize them.

If, by the end of the spring session, we haven't got through those bills, the government has a number of options. They can carry them over to the fall, or they can invoke closure, both of which have been done in this House. Despite protestations by the opposition, neither has caused a dramatic uproar in the public, by and large, because with the calendar of a fall session the government has the ability to do the work they need to do if they don't have the time to do the legislation in the spring session.

Which brings me to some comments I'd like to remind members of the House of. I'd like to remind them of why we have that opportunity in the fall to deal with legislation if there's not time in the spring.

A speech that the Premier gave to the B.C. Liberal convention, April 17, 1999, in The Vancouver Sun, page A12: "Instead, the place would be organized" — that's the Legislature — "on a fixed schedule, with a fixed budget date, a regular spring sitting for financial measures and a fall sitting for legislation."

A regular spring sitting for financial measures. Well, if budget estimates are not financial measures, I don't know what is. That's one of the fundamental things that we do here. In the Premier's own words, that's what the spring session is about — financial measures. This motion before us limits us, limits the opposition in its ability to deal with those financial measures and places considerably more power in the hands of the government.

The Premier said it again on July 21, 2001, about restoring public trust in government. The Premier says he's unafraid to make another vow. "The 90-day agenda, particularly, was put in place to show people that we actually meant what we said. You do it in big ways. You do it in small ways, like saying we would have a fixed parliamentary calendar."

Unafraid to make the vow. Sure, he's been unafraid to make the vow, but the government has certainly been afraid to follow through on it. They've certainly been afraid to follow the parliamentary calendar.

The government made commitments. They made changes to the calendar in this place. Trouble is that they haven't followed it through by keeping to those changes that they proposed and made. Where before that calendar came in and where before there was never much of a debate about the amount of time spent, other than questions about: can we do it differently….?

I was a member of Public Accounts and looked at ways of making and using estimates differently. The one thing that was never done was that we would impose something. We didn't impose changes in the estimates process in the way that this motion that's before us today does.

Last year we sat 78 days because we had a fall session. But prior to that, in 2006, we sat 46 days. Over the last few years we have sat, on average, 48 days less than the Senate of Canada. The unelected Senate over the last few years has sat more than we have — the Senate. What a damning indictment — the Senate. We've sat less than Manitoba, New Brunswick, Ontario, Quebec, Saskatchewan and the House of Commons.

Now, I don't think it's too much to ask that the government follow on its commitment on a parliamentary calendar. I don't think it's too much to ask the government, if they've got a legislative calendar that they think is heavy, to get the bills in on time. Get them tabled earlier on in the session. They've got the priority. They've got the ability. They've got the power. They decide when the bills will be tabled. They decide when they'll be called. So I'm really quite surprised at why the government feels it needs to make legislation the priority, that it doesn't have sufficient time.

As I pointed out, there's a whole fall session which has been intended and which has been used before to carry legislation over. In terms of the actual hours, the Government House Leader says that we may be around 190 hours if we pass this motion in a timely fashion and that we can go forward and have that time in estimates.

The member says that's right. The member forgets a couple things, though. First off, we used to have a lot more time in this place to scrutinize estimates. Under

these changes, we will lose 62 hours of estimates debate that last session, or last spring session, was done in this chamber — 62 hours.

Just so I'm not accused — and I know that no one on the government side would accuse me — of fudging the figures, I will take out the four hours that were done by Agriculture, because it was by consent that we did that here. So technically, 58 hours — 14 hours on Forests, 17 hours on the Environment, 19 hours of Health estimates, and nine hours for the Premier's estimates — were done in this chamber.

As I recall, the government had some concerns about our ability to get some legislation through in a timely fashion, and the opposition agreed and said: "You know what…."

M. Farnworth: My colleague from Malahat–Juan de Fuca says "magnanimous to a fault."

We agreed that we could put some of the…. I think it was either the Forests estimates…. I think it was the Health estimates. We would do them in the little House, because we wanted to make sure that we could get as much done as we could, particularly on those areas that we agreed to. Then the government was free to do what it felt it needed to do in terms of its priorities, whether to bring closure on a bill or to carry them over to the fall. The opposition was willing to work with the government in terms of ensuring that the business got done.

The same in the little chamber. We may have had our dust-ups over legislation, and we may have had our disagreements about whether or not it was right for the government to use closure on a bill or felt that a bill should be carried over to a fall session. But one thing this side of the House has been clear on since the 2005 election is that we've made every endeavour to ensure we got the estimates passed by the end of the spring session.

We did our work and got the estimates passed, because while we can have our disagreements over the legislation, we recognize our responsibility as an opposition and the government's right as government. We got the estimates passed by the end of the session.

One of the things that made that work was those 58 hours of estimates that were done in this chamber. To somehow suggest that we'll have the same amount of time is just not right. Under this resolution, the 58 hours that were spent in here now have to take place in that chamber.

It's by the sole discretion, the magnanimity, the willingness of the Government House Leader to agree, to allow, to deign to permit, to be munificent, to be benevolent, to sort of shower down on the opposition that: "Maybe we will have…. I'm in a good mood today, so we can do some estimates in here."

I see the Government House Leader laughing, and I share his laughter. But the problem is that that's not how it should be done in this place. It should not be on the basis of whether someone is in a good mood or whether someone, regardless of political party, wants to punish an opposition or reward an opposition. That's not how this type of decision should work.

Changes should be done on the basis of consultation. They should be done on what is best for this institution and what is best for the public of British Columbia. What is best for this institution is to draw upon our historical ways of dealing with issues, which have evolved over the time to meet our needs and our conditions. I appreciate knowing what goes on in other provinces. I appreciate the fact that Prince Edward Island has 150,000 people, and they probably do things a little differently than we do here. I understand that.

The same with Alberta, a wonderful province, but at the end of the day, no matter how democratic, it's still a one-party state. I'm not sure that's the model I want to choose for our province. It may be good for the people…. The people of Alberta may like it, but hey, this is British Columbia.

The people of British Columbia do things in a British Columbian way. We don't need to do them the Alberta way, the Saskatchewan way, the Prince Edward Island way or the Quebec way. We do it our way, which reflects our political culture, which reflects our historical way of doing things, which reflects our parliamentary traditions.

Our parliamentary traditions saw that the opposition historically had a very strong role and had the ability to question, to debate and took the time it needed. Rule changes came into place. We're not opposed to that, as long as the ability and the rights and the privileges of opposition, regardless of who they are, are protected.

Fifty-eight hours may not seem like a big deal to people, and outside this chamber it probably doesn't. "What are they arguing about? What are they debating about?" But it's a fundamental principle of why we are here. Fifty-eight hours allows us…. Well, last session 19 of those 58 hours were spent discussing health care in British Columbia.

M. Farnworth: And he did a very good job. He was a very good critic, and I enjoyed my time with him as critic. I enjoyed it for two reasons. One was the questioning that took place, because it allowed issues to be dealt with, it allowed the critic to ask questions, and it allowed issues to be aired and expenditures scrutinized the way they needed to be. It allowed the minister….

M. Farnworth: The member for Kamloops–North Thompson does make life somewhat interesting sometimes with his comments.

I'm in a good mood, Member, so I won't get into your time as critic, not in my ministry but in other ministries.

The Health estimates debate. The member who is now the Minister of Economic Development would ask questions, and he took and he had the time he needed to do his job. Likewise, on this side of the House my colleague the critic from Vancouver-Kingsway is able to ask questions about long-term care facilities, about government policies regarding wait-lists, about the state of hospitals, about what the plans are for health care in British Columbia.

What does the government mean in its Conversation on Health? What are we doing with Pharmacare? What's our plan for Pharmacare? What's happening with particular drugs? To raise particular cases of constituents and get them, sometimes, answered by the minister….

There's a fundamental difference between question period and estimates debate. Question period is just that. It's question period; it's not answer period. But in estimates debate, in estimates….

M. Farnworth: The Minister of Education says that she'll have to read that back to me someday. Well, maybe after the next election she'll be able to.

The fact is that that has been historically the criticism of this chase. But in estimates debate, you don't have that luxury. It's not two questions per member, then sit down and go on to the next. It's not a 30-minute time limit. You have the ability to get into an issue. You have the ability to question that issue. You have the ability to dig down into that issue, and the minister has the resources at her or his disposal to answer the questions or to commit to getting back to the member or to this House with the answers to those questions. Those are the types of things that happen in this House with 19 hours of debate on Health estimates.

With 14 hours on Forests estimates last spring session, again, the Minister of Forests and Range sat on this side of the House. The Government House Leader also sat on this side of the House. I asked questions on Forests issues. It wasn't done in an hour, two hours or three hours. It took a lot of time.

We're in a constricted calendar now. We don't have the same amount of time as in those times before the fixed calendar. But we had the opportunity, those 58 hours in this chamber, to devote to one of the most important industries — and the most important industry, historically, in this province — forestry, to ask questions about forest and range plans, tough questions.

M. Farnworth: I hear the Minister of Forests and Range talking. He says that he didn't get those questions.

M. Farnworth: The member wants to make another comment, and I will resist the temptation of getting into debate about people being away, people not being here, just the scheduling of estimates and an inability to get it back on, to reopen another estimate, but the point is: those are the questions you can ask. Those are the questions that would be asked.

Not just forest and range practices, but practices regarding logging roads, about safety practices, about the impact of mill closures on communities, about government programs to assist those communities, about the state of the coastal industry, the state of the interior industry, and what the long-term plans of the government are. Has there been a reduction in the number of forest employees? Had they recovered from the cuts that the government made in its first term in office? Those are the types of important questions that were asked in this House.

On the environment. Questions in here took place, in the 17 hours of Environment estimates that took place in here last spring session, about fish habitat, about air quality, about the government's green agenda and about tail-pipe emissions. I've asked constituent questions in this chamber in Environment estimates, about B.C. Hydro's role on the Coquitlam River; the potential to restock sockeye salmon back in the Coquitlam River; the need for water — secure water, year-round water supplies — in some of our streams that are endangered by urban developments that result in runoff far too fast, and in streams being dry in summer and not enough water flow for fish.

Those are the types of questions that were asked in here. Those are part of those 58 hours. Those are the types of questions that were asked in here — important policy questions that it's the opposition's right and responsibility to ask. What the government is proposing takes away those 58 hours, takes away 58 hours of scrutiny, and that's not right.

The Premier's office — nine hours. I mean, the Premier's schedule is hard enough on the opposition. We're told: "Oh, we've got a day available, maybe two days." Well, we take advantage of it in here to ask questions that need to be asked. Why is the Premier's office budget significantly larger than just about any Premier's office in the country? If I'm not mistaken, it's like three times the size of the Premier of Ontario's office budget. We get to ask those questions.

We get to ask: why the dramatic increase in public affairs bureau employees? We get to ask questions about protocols relating to what happens when the police come and raid the Legislature.

M. Farnworth: We get to ask about Premier's staff. We get to ask about the role and relationship of Ken Dobell and the contracts he's got.

We get to ask all those questions. We get to ask them in here, and those are the types of questions that 58 hours of debate time in this place occupies — key important issues. That 58 hours is being ripped away

from the opposition. Not just this opposition, but it sets a dangerous precedent. I think it sets a dangerous policy change.

At some point the government will be on this side of the House, and they will be wanting to exercise their rights as an opposition. I'm sure they would want to have the opportunity to ask the Premier's estimates in this chamber. They would like the ability to bring into this chamber the three estimates they get to choose.

We don't just make these changes to suit the needs of today, to suit the political expediency of today. The changes that are made are impact and stay in this chamber. That tends to be what happens. I think it's unfortunate that that's how this change is being done, because the bottom line is that it's the politically expedient thing to do.

It's the politically expedient thing to do to try and avoid a fall session, to condense the calendar, to reduce the amount of time and exposure the Premier has here and the cabinet has here. We relegate this institution to reduced status at our peril. The member says at our peril. Well, if we don't respect this place, if we don't respect what we do here, then why should the public? Why should they care?

I believe it is important. We on this side of the House believe it's important. We believe it's important that we respect this place, that we respect why we're here. That means that arbitrary change like this, imposed change like this, is not right.

Members have said, "Oh, you still get to debate it in the little House — Committee A room," and technically that's right. But we're short-changed 58 hours.

M. Farnworth: The Minister of Forests and Range says: "Not really." Well, yeah. No, it is, because that time is no longer done in here. It's done in the little chamber. It means a number of things. It means it's more challenging for the opposition to ensure that we've got the time to debate because, again, it's the government that decides when the estimates will be called. It's not the opposition.

It's the government that decides when legislation will be called, not the opposition. So if the government doesn't want to spend much time on health care estimates, they don't have to bring them in here anymore. They just have to save them up for the last three or four days of the session. They hold over the opposition's head the threat of not being able to get the Premier's estimates in. That's what happens.

If the opposition believes we need to spend time on the Health estimates because that's where the largest expenditure of government goes and if, in the government's view, we're spending too much time there and coming up too tight at the end, then all they have to do is deem the spending estimates passed, and ministries will go through unscrutinized.

Those are real scenarios, and let's not kid ourselves. This is a partisan place, as it's supposed to be, and that's what happens. It means the opposition now is under not just a time constraint, a time constraint that is further reduced by the elimination of the 58 hours, but they need now to be getting through estimates very quickly, depending on the order in which they are called, so that they've got the time, and the ability, to spend on some of those key areas or some of those very politically sensitive public policy areas that come up during a session.

Quite frankly, when it comes to question period, the government can't wait for the session to end or for the break to come in because they don't have to deal with those uncomfortable questions anymore. Or in the case of estimates, they can't wait for the session to end so they don't have to answer questions in estimates. They may not like it, but that's their job. That's our job to ask those questions. We should have the right and the ability to do that, and it should not be constrained by motions like this.

It might be a little different if, for example, the opposition got to call the order of estimates in the little House. That might make a little fairer footing so that the opposition decided the order in which estimates are called. That might be something worth considering. The opposition might ensure that its priorities are the way to go, and we would have to govern in the calendar. That's a possibility. But what's before us is just something that rips away 58 hours of the opposition's time.

While estimates were going on in this House, the Committee A— the little House, as we call it — was also dealing with estimates. During those 58 hours here we also were dealing with estimates in there. In the case of the Solicitor General's estimates, I'm sure it would be no surprise to the Solicitor General to know that this year I would be asking questions on crime, the allocation of resources to fight crime and the allocation of resources for public policing. I'm sure it will come as no surprise to him that I will be asking questions on that.

The Attorney General says: "We need more resources to fight gangland violence in this province." The Solicitor General stood in this House and said: "No, we don't need more resources to fight gangland violence." We can see in their budget which one won out. It clearly wasn't the Attorney General. So there will be time spent on the Solicitor General's estimates, asking questions that people in my riding, in Surrey, in Vancouver and right across this province…. What's this government doing to tackle gang violence?

Now, because we've been asked — not so much asked as being dictated to, told to squeeze that 58 hours into the current calendar…. Because this government doesn't want to abide by its own legislative calendar that would require a fall session, we have to either constrict severely the time spent on some individual ministries or — I hope this is not the case — with regards to some ministries, eliminate areas for discussion altogether so that we can try and make up that 58 hours that would have taken place in here, that every opposition party, whether Liberal or New

Democrat, has enjoyed the ability to do since 1992: to have those key estimates in this chamber.

I'm not sure if I heard my colleague over the way say: "Why is he going on?" I would say: because, as I promised when I took my place, I have a lot to say on this issue.

M. Farnworth: I am keeping my promise, because this is important. I wish this government had kept its promise on their fixed calendar and recognized when the Premier said, "I'm unafraid to make a vow of a fixed calendar," that he was unafraid to abide by it. Thank you for the opportunity to get that point on the record.

This is about our ability to do what we here as opposition are elected to do. It's to ensure scrutiny of expenditures of significant amounts of money and government policy and that the public knows that that takes place. And that every time we constrain that ability, we lose something.

You know, when we gained the nice and sort of civilized structure that came from a fixed calendar, which brought some more civilized work hours to members in this chamber, we were able to know that, okay, the House will finish at 6:30 instead of how we used to go till nine o'clock or ten o'clock or sometimes two o'clock in the morning or even later. That was great, but it did come at a price. It came with the opposition no longer being able to end the session, no longer being able to talk till it felt it had asked all the questions that it needed to ask, until it had exhausted all of its concerns. No. It changed and brought some structure, and it reduced that time.

Some people say that's great, that the trade-off was worth it. But at some point we need to recognize what our primary purpose in this place is. It's to pass legislation. It's to scrutinize legislation. It's to make sure that the laws of this province have been debated, discussed, examined and, if need be, amended, so that when they do receive royal assent, when they are, in fact, the law of the province of British Columbia, we know that it's the right law, that it's a just law and that we've done our job as legislators.

Likewise, it's the same with spending estimates — when we have finished scrutinizing those estimates, when we have finished our examination of the estimates of the Ministry of Energy, Mines and Petroleum, that he has answered all the questions we have for him; that he has answered in detail about British Columbia's energy plan; that he has answered about the issues around transmission; that he has dealt with issues around IPPs; that he has dealt with the issues around B.C. Hydro; that he has answered all the questions we have; and that we have not had to leave something on the table because we've had to choose between this priority and that priority.

Taking these 58 hours out…. That's what it does. It increases the likelihood that questions which should be asked don't get asked. And that's not right. It applies to the Minister of Economic Development in his role as Minister Responsible for the Olympics — to be able to ask questions, for him to be able to answer those questions. I mean, we've had lots of discussion around venues and construction of venues, but there are important and huge expenditures that have yet to be addressed.

One of the key ones, for example, is around security. This is no small expenditure. This is no small item of a ministerial budget. This is an important expenditure that reflects not just on the success of the Olympics but on the success and how British Columbia is viewed in the eyes of the world. The fact that we have 58 hours' less time to ask those questions is shameful. It is just shameful. It's like that with a host of other important issues that need to be dealt with.

As I said earlier, over the last four years we have sat, on average, 48 days less than the Canadian Senate.

M. Farnworth: My colleague from Cariboo South says that's shameful, and he's absolutely right. He is absolutely right.

The Senate of Canada. We should at least be willing to spend the time scrutinizing estimates and legislation that the Senate takes. I know — and I'm being generous here — that when asked questions, I am confident that government ministers would be more than fulsome in their answers than any government senator would be, and I am sure that the opposition would spend more time asking the questions that need to be asked than any opposition senator would.

I've seen this House when it's working at its best, whether in government or opposition. When that's taking place, the public knows that the questions that are on their minds are being asked, that the government isn't avoiding the answers and that the government isn't avoiding the issues.

The trouble is that this motion does just that. It builds on that issue of cynicism. It creates a climate of: "Well, why are they there?" If the government is afraid or wants to take away 58 hours of time that they would have to answer questions in…. Why? They've got the fall session calendar which they were so committed to.

This motion is not necessary. We have plenty of time on the calendar. We have plenty of time to deal with legislation. After all, we've only had eight bills so far, and we're in week four. I keep hearing…. We heard in the throne speech that there was this tsunami of bills to come. There was all this legislation to come….

M. Farnworth: My colleague the member for Kamloops–North Thompson says: "Wait for it, brother." Well, I'm happy to wait for it, hon. Member. We're just wondering when it's going to come.

I mean, last session we had — what? — 40 bills, give or take a few — somewhere around there, not a

huge, overburdened number compared to times past. Many of those bills, the opposition will agree…. "You know what? This is a good bill. It's a good piece of public policy. It's a good piece of legislation, and we will pass it quickly."

We will stand up, we will vote with the government on those good pieces of legislation, and we will hear in this chamber that phrase that the Government House Leader loves so much — nemine contradicente.

The trouble is that that is not a phrase he is going to hear on this motion, and on other pieces of legislation he may not hear that either. But that's what this place is about — to ask those questions, to air those differences, to scrutinize those bills. Once they're here, we can do that.

As I've pointed out already, and will point out again and again and again if I have to, until the government realizes…. It's not too late, government members, to recognize the error of this motion. You can still live by those proud words the Premier uttered in 1999 and 2001. You can still live by that vow that he was so proud to make, that we will have a fixed parliamentary calendar. You can still live by that.

It just takes a little bit of courage. Now, I don't know if they've got it, but I ask them to look inside themselves. I'm sure if they do, they'll find it — a little bit of courage to live by that calendar that they said that they were so proud of, the one that committed to a fall session.

You know that if we don't get through the legislation this session, we'll table it. We can table it till the fall. We'd have the summer to scrutinize it. Gosh, we could even have a committee, a legislative committee, go out on the road. Imagine that. What an innovative idea, and one that you wouldn't get hostility from this side of the House on.

We could put together a legislative committee. What a novel idea. We could get that together. A piece of legislation that the government is concerned…. They're concerned. "We don't have enough time to do it. We could put closure, but we don't want to." And I'd say, as Opposition House Leader, that I'm fine with that.

We could breathe life into a legislative committee. We could have it travel the province, talk to people about the proposed piece of legislation and come back with, you know, either it's great and it doesn't need any changes, or we could have some thoughtful amendments that have been brought about because the government and the opposition sat on a legislative committee that went and talked to people in British Columbia — towns large and small — came back with some good amendments, put those amendments in place, and the bill passes. That's what you could do in a fall session.

You could do that, and at the same time you could ensure that the estimates are properly debated. I'm sure that the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum would hate to have his estimates pass with there being outstanding questions unanswered. I've known that member far too long, and I know he would not like that one bit. He'd be devastated if he thought for a minute that his budget estimates had outstanding questions that had not been asked.

I know, hon. Member, that you…. You've sat over here. The member for Peace River North has sat over here. He sat over here in the days when he could stand up and talk, and the opposition could talk for as long as they wanted. He could do that to his heart's content.

M. Farnworth: And he was good at it. You know what? I bet you there wasn't a question that a constituent in Peace River North had that that member didn't ask in this House either during legislation or estimates debate.

M. Farnworth: Oh, and I do have to just make sure the member heard the comment that his good colleague said, that the only problem was that the member for Peace River North never responded or answered any of those questions.

But it does raise a really important point in this debate. What it's all about. It's about asking the questions. It's about asking the questions that need to be asked, about asking the time that it has to do it. If the Senate of Canada can have more time available to it to ask the questions and — who knows? — provide the answers, then surely the province of British Columbia can do the same. Surely we can keep in place a measure that has served this House and this chamber well since 1992.

I see the Minister of Health, and I know that when he sat on this side of the House, he was never shy to ask questions. He may sometimes be shy of providing answers, but he was never shy of asking questions. He was able to ask that because the time was there on the estimates debate for him to ask those questions. We didn't come along and rip out 58 hours of the opposition's time to ask questions, so the opposition didn't have to make a choice as to who got to ask questions.

M. Farnworth: …and Forests or the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum didn't have to…. They were both able to ask their questions.

That's what this is about, as I keep coming back to. My central point is really clear. The opposition has an important role to do. It's the role of asking questions, holding the government to account and scrutinizing the estimates. It's having the ability to do it in a way that you're not being jammed or that you're having to make choices or that you're not having to worry about….

If we spend 19 hours on Health, which we did last spring session, where are those 19 hours going to come from? Which ministries aren't going to get questioned?

Are we going to have to eliminate those questions, as I said earlier, to the Solicitor General on why he feels that we don't need any more resources to fight gang violence in this province? Or is it going to have to come from the questions to the Attorney General, who says we do need more resources to fight gang violence in this province?

Is it going to have to come out of the Solicitor General's ministry in terms of not being able to ask the questions about if the changes he has made in terms of the Lottery Act are working, if the changes to how the lotteries function are working and if we have sufficient resources in place to ensure that the public have confidence that when they buy a lottery ticket and get it checked, the result they get back actually will be valid?

Are we going to have the opportunity to ask questions of the Solicitor General about the RCMP contract that comes up in 2012? And is he serious when he says that he's prepared to look at issues around regional policing? Do we have the resources to allow that to take place?

Are those the questions that we're going to not be able to ask? Are we going to have to make up for the 19 hours of Health questions that we can't ask in here?

Are we going to have to go to the Solicitor General and maybe not ask the questions around issues regarding correctional officers and around issues on recruitment and retention and why we have significant problems in our ability to keep corrections officers in our system? They're going to other jobs — higher-paying jobs in the provincial government service, other police departments or the federal prison system.

Are those the questions that we're going to have to not ask because of 19 hours of Health estimates that we've got to make somewhere else? The time has got to come from somewhere else, because that's what's going to happen. The government may not have thought about those consequences, but those are the consequences, intended or unintended, that will occur because of this piece of legislation.

You've got to find 58 hours, and that's a significant amount of time. It applies to every ministry. On top of that, one of the things that we've had the ability to do when government and opposition can cooperate is to be flexible, to take into account that there's enough room built into the way our schedule worked that we could accommodate some of the issues around…. A minister's away, a critic is away, let's move this estimate up, let's put this one back a bit.

Ministers and opposition critics need to think about that. It will make it a lot more difficult and a lot more challenging, because the opposition is not going to give up its ability to ask the questions on some of those key priority areas.

The opposition is not going to want to have to stand and decide that if we put something off — we've got the time now — it may not get called again until the end of the session. Then we're jammed for time, and we're not able to get the questions asked or the issues asked that need to be raised, because this government doesn't want to abide by the calendar that it brought in.

It doesn't want to abide by the changes that they made, that they championed, that this government campaigned on, that the public believed when they were told it. That is something we all should think about.

Now, I can understand why the government doesn't want a fall session. Answering questions from the opposition is tedious. Flying over here sometimes is not the most fun thing to do. But guess what. That's what we signed up for. That's what the voters, the public, sent us here to do.

They sent us here in our respective roles, whether opposition or government, to ask questions, to answer questions, to scrutinize the accounts of British Columbia. They did it under the belief that there's a parliamentary calendar that says there is a spring session, and according to the words of the Premier, the focus was primarily financial matters — and that's estimates — and a fall calendar, which would be legislative, because of course the budget is passed, the estimates are passed and the focus can be legislation.

I know the government has said it was really only intended — this is the argument they've used before — for maybe special legislation. That's their line. Well, no, it was pretty clear when it was introduced, but if that's the line they want to use, I can understand that. But if they know ahead of time that they have a huge legislative agenda….

Now, you wouldn't know it from the fact there are only eight bills on the order paper right now.

M. Farnworth: The member says: "Wait for it." Well, jeez, hon. Member, four weeks — right? Maybe there's something in the Ministry of Health you guys can use to clear the pipeline. We got the Minister of Health. He's going on about "wait for it."

We're into almost the end of the fourth week. We're at the end of the fourth week, and we expect a bit more than just the budget bill and the forest and range statutes acts. Those are pro forma ones that are done every session. There's nothing we've seen particularly imaginative from the government on its agenda so far.

Hon. G. Abbott: What about the bill recognizing the supremacy of parliament? That was a big one.

M. Farnworth: And that comes every session. Bill 1 doesn't even have to get debated, which is what makes it even more unbelievable that, with eight bills on the papers, many of them pro forma — and in the case of Bill 1 doesn't get debated — they are going: "You know what? We are so unable to get eight bills passed in the remaining time that we've got to rip out 58 hours that the opposition would spend on asking questions, on scrutinizing estimates. We've got to rip out 58 hours so that we can get our legislative agenda through without having a fall session."

That's exactly what this is about. They can deny it all they want, but the fact is that that is the truth. They know it, we know it, and the public knows it. We are not going to let that happen. We are not going to let that happen without considerable and vigorous debate.

I look forward to the Minister of Health joining the debate. I look forward to the Minister of Health entering the fray, because we know how much he likes to. The same with the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources and the same with the Minister of Forests and even the Minister of State from Richmond East. I look forward to her entering the debate.

I look forward to hearing their rationale as to why it's okay to take out 58 hours of the opposition's time; why it's okay for us to sit less than the Canadian Senate; why it's okay not to follow the fixed calendar, the fixed schedule; why it's okay to do that. I'd really like to know: why are they so concerned about not having a fall session? Why are they so concerned about taking the estimates from here and making sure they're done in the little House? Why are they so concerned about that?

I've already, I think, explained to the members opposite that it cannot really be about making legislation the priority in here when it already is the priority in here. The bulk of our time in here is spent on legislation. The government decides when to introduce legislation. The government decides when to call a particular bill or pull a particular bill. So they have their very considerable amount of power and ability already to influence how much time is spent on a piece of legislation. They can do that.

The opposition has indicated, and past practice has shown, a willingness and a flexibility on our part to take some of that into account, as we did last session when we allowed, I think, a day of estimates or a number of hours of estimates from here to take place in the little House so that we could accomplish some of that legislative calendar.

We've made it clear to government that, look, there are bills in the past, there are bills that need scrutiny. If you push them over to the fall, you won't get criticism from us on that. We'll be quite happy to have….

M. Farnworth: I hear the member wondering how long I'm speaking for. Well, as I said, as designated speaker I think I have two hours to speak. I'm not sure how far into the debate I am. But I've got a lot to say, and I intend to say it.

M. Farnworth: You know what? I'm an optimistic person by nature, and I know that if I speak long enough, if I repeat the message long enough, sooner or later you will get it. You will get it that we have to respect this place. You will get it that we have to respect what we do here. You will get it that there is a value in the work that we do here, and you will get it that if we don't respect what we do here, then why should the public?

You will get it that there is an important principle at stake, that when you want to arbitrarily rip out 58 hours of debate time that the opposition has and constrain it, the ability of this place to do the job it's supposed to do will suffer.

You will get that, hon. Minister. You will get that. I'm an optimistic person. As I have said before, earlier on, it is not too late. It is not too late.

M. Farnworth: The member says it is not too late. Don't hold my breath. Well, I won't hold my breath, because I need it to talk to convince you. I need it to convince you of the error of your ways, the error of what is going on here.

M. Farnworth: Well, actually, just to inform the hon. member, my blood pressure is 110 over 70, so….

You know what? That's an example. Questioning — asking questions and giving answers. It's a novel….

M. Farnworth: I know that for some of these members that's a very novel approach. It's something that the Minister of Health may want to think about in

Anyway, back to the main point at hand, because I know that the rules of the House are "Speak to the motion." In speaking to the motion, the points I'm making….

We've heard earlier about what other provinces do — Ottawa, for example. There the opposition has the ability to have ministries, departments, come to the main chamber in Ottawa and to be scrutinized by Committee of the Whole for four hours. That's a really great idea. That's a great idea in Ottawa. I'd probably be open to it if…

M. Farnworth: Well, one, if I was in Ottawa. Yeah, I would probably be open to it if I was in Ottawa. But if we also followed the Ottawa practice of having the fall sitting and observing the full parliamentary calendar — the parliamentary calendar which this government introduced.

If change is to take place that the opposition, for example, would buy into, if the opposition was consulted on…. In some of the ways, we have done a lot of change in this place. Much of it is good change, much of it through consultation — some of it not, but debate has taken place.

You know, we might be able to make some changes. But I think a framework for that is a fundamental recognition that when we have a calendar, we follow the calendar.

I see my friend, the member for North Vancouver–Seymour, whom I recognized earlier on. He was here in 1991. He was here in 1991, when he was able to ask as many questions as he wanted.

M. Farnworth: Well, actually, I know that his colleagues, when they were in opposition, may have thought his questions on mining in parks were a waste of time. We, of course, on the government side at that time, thoroughly enjoyed every time he got up to talk about how you could mine in parks. That is something that we used to enjoy immensely.

M. Farnworth: Oh, thank you. That was in 1994. He subsequently would continue after that, but in 1991 it was other issues. In 1991, as we heard earlier, it was the member for Surrey-Cloverdale at that time, about the size of napkins on B.C. Rail. I know the member for Peace River North remembers that.

The thing is, the members had the time to ask those questions. They had the time and the ability to ask those questions, whether they were simple, small questions that gave an easy answer or whether they were strange, interesting questions that gave some inkling as to the Liberal Party's thinking around mining in parks.

We loved questions like that. We loved hearing those questions. But we also liked it when there were questions that delved deep into policy issues, kept government on its toes and ensured that government didn't become sloppy, didn't become lazy and didn't become arrogant. That's an important function of the opposition, a fundamental part of being opposition.

What this does — this decision, this motion, to rip out 58 hours of estimates debate time — is it plays into the worst instincts of governments. It plays to the worst instincts of governments to be secretive, to hide things, to try and make a schedule so something that we really don't want to discuss for a very long period of time doesn't have to come to the front. That's what this does.

That's what it does. It means — as I repeatedly said in this House over this last, I think, 90 minutes — that we have a responsibility to ask the questions. We have the responsibility for the answers. But it means that governments had that temptation, as much as they may deny it. They may deny it, but the fact is it's there, and they can't help themselves.

Maybe they think they can resist temptation in this House, but I know one thing: the unelected circle around the Premier's office can never resist temptation. They never have, and they never will. If there's a way to use the rules to ensure that something doesn't come up for debate, if there's a way to use the rules to ensure that something is never discussed, you can bet your next paycheque they'll find a way to use it.

That's what this is about. It's about removing the right of the opposition to get those three ministry estimates in here, to take out 58 hours of estimates debate time, to ensure that the decision on when those estimates are called rests solely with the government — and that the ability of the opposition to decide that they want to spend more time on a particular estimate is significantly constrained.

They know that the opposition has to judge between how much time they're going to spend on exploring an issue and the threats of not being able to get up the ministry estimates that they also need to get up, not being able to ask the questions that they know need to be asked, and having to decide on which estimates and which issues are not going to get to be addressed. Hon. Speaker, that is not right. That is wrong.

That is why we are standing in this House and we are opposed to this particular piece of legislation. We were opposed when it went on the order paper yesterday or the day before. We were opposed today when it was called, and we will be opposed when we finish debate. When this comes up for voting, we will be voting against this particular piece of legislation.

I am now ready, having done my best to convince that side of the House of the error of their ways, to let other members stand up and have their turn at bat to show this government just how wrong they are.

Anyway, I do see the Minister of Environment, and I see the Minister of Agriculture and my good friend the Minister of State for Mining.

Mr. Speaker: Member, I want to remind you not to refer to whether members are in or out of the House.

M. Farnworth: No, no, hon. Speaker. I'm not making comment about whether they're here. I'm just saying I see them. I have not made and will not make any reference to absence. I'm just saying that I look across….

M. Farnworth: I know deep in my heart that the Minister of Environment would feel shortchanged and disappointed if he did not get the opportunity to stand in this House and answer questions during estimates about the government's IPP process and impacts on fish habitat. I know that he would feel shortchanged about that, and I know that he does not agree with ripping out 58 hours of estimates time for debate.

This 58 hours of time was in fact 17 of those hours where he answered questions, where he got to stand in this House and show his constituents just how much he knows about the Ministry of Environment. He got the opportunity to show just how much he cares about the environment.

He got the opportunity for 17 hours in this chamber to show just how much he knows about marmot habitat — you know, the marmot breeding program. He got 17 hours to say what he's doing in terms of what his government is trying to do to improve air quality. He had 17 hours to answer questions about environmental policy, to deal with issues about the Great Bear rain forest and what's happening there.

He got to be able to answer questions and show members on this side and his constituents just how much he knows about the state of the environment in this province, the impact of the cuts of his predecessors when he was in government, the damage that was inflicted on the environment. He got to answer questions on that for 17 hours. I know he would feel cheated if there was anything less….

M. Farnworth: "Cheated and broken-hearted," he says, if he got anything less than 17 hours. It's our duty on this side to ensure that the Minister of Environment has that opportunity to show us just what he's doing for the people of British Columbia — the good, the bad and the ugly. He's got to have that opportunity. That's why we're standing here.

Sometimes I'm in jest about it. Sometimes I'm serious about it, but it's because it is serious. It is important. It's a principal issue. It comes back to why we are here. What's our role here? You know?

M. Farnworth: Well, hon. Member, if you need to get an answer to that question, you're in the wrong place.

It's about scrutiny and asking questions. I know the Minister of Environment wants to do that. I know he wants to stand and answer the questions on his portfolio — the same with the Attorney General.

I know that the Attorney General wants to be able to stand in this House, and I know he wants to tell us why, when we question him, he is right that we need more resources to fight gangland violence in this province and why his colleague the Solicitor General is wrong when he says we don't need more resources to fight gangland violence. I know the Attorney General wants that opportunity. But if we rip 58 hours of estimates debate out of this House, then he may not get that opportunity to say why.

He is right that we need more resources to fight gangland violence, and the Solicitor General is wrong when he stands up in this House and says: "No, we don't need more resources to fight gangland violence." That's a really important issue. Those are really important issues. They're issues that matter to people.

People are concerned about public safety. They're concerned about what's going on in their communities, and they believe it's the role of government to deal with those issues. So when we get statements like that, when we get answers to a question such as we had with the Solicitor General saying we don't need more resources, and subsequently we've got the Attorney General saying yes, we do need more resources, it is incumbent upon us as opposition members to ask those questions, to explore the rationale for why the Attorney General is saying what he is saying and why the Solicitor General is saying what he's saying.

M. Farnworth: I know the member says, "Never," but I have speculated that this could be because it is a way of keeping balance within the two wings of the government — the conservative side and the liberal side. But without our ability to actually ask those questions and explore the issue and take the time to deal with it in the estimates debate, it remains just that — speculation.

The public is left wondering, scratching their heads, going: "Where is this government coming from? Just what is this government all about when we have the Solicitor General saying we don't need more resources to fight gangland violence and the Attorney General saying we do need more resources?"

That is one of those issues that you would want to explore. I would think that the government would welcome the opportunity to get that question resolved. I guess not. I guess they don't. After all, if you're going to rip out 58 hours of the opposition's time, then surely you must realize the impact that has.

I'll speculate again. Maybe that's what they do want. Maybe that's what they want. Maybe — just maybe — they know that after seven years in power, things start to clog up a bit. The gears start to creak a bit. The cracks start to show a bit. The dead bodies start to pile up a bit. Things start to stink a bit.

Maybe they know that the only way those things come out is if questions start getting asked or if questions get asked. While they don't have to answer them here in question period, they do have to answer them in estimates. If they choose not to answer them in estimates, it's on the record as to why they don't want to answer them, and we get the opportunity to ask again and again and again.

It was something that, when this government was in opposition, they did very well. They did it on a regular basis, and it was the right thing to do. It was the right approach to take, to say to ministers: "I'm sorry, but you didn't answer the question. I'll ask it again." I remember being there. I remember sometimes having to answer those questions, and sometimes it's not fun. It's fun for the person asking it but not for the minister being asked. But you know what? It's how our system works. We get to ask those important questions.

One of the things that I think is unfortunate…. It applies to all kinds of organizations. They have their core responsibilities. They have their mandate. But what happens is that sometimes that gets whittled away in one area, and other organizations go: "You know what? That's great. Let's do it here. It makes things a little easier, makes things a bit more convenient."

It's something that I think happens with legislatures. Part of the rationale for this is: "Oh well. You know what? Most provinces don't do this anymore. That's how they used to do it. Times have changed, and it's time to move on."

Well, our system has been in place, has been evolving in the form of Westminster democracy, since the Magna Carta in 1215. Here in British Columbia, this is our 150th anniversary as the colony of British Columbia. The union of the Vancouver Island colony and the colony of British Columbia came in 1866. We'll celebrate that quadricentennial in a few more years.

Our parliamentary democracy in this province has been evolving over time. I get concerned when…. "Well, they don't do it in these other provinces." Well, maybe — just maybe — they're the ones who have it wrong, that what we're doing is the right way of doing things, that the approach we have taken which we have developed in this province is the right approach.

It strikes that balance between the government's ability to do what its job is, what the rights and responsibilities of being a government give it — to legislate, to get its legislated agenda through in a timely fashion — and the opposition's job to scrutinize, to question, to hold to account and that we have the time and the ability to do that as well. It's a balance.

Just because other legislatures have decided a different path is what suits them, just because legislatures in other areas have decided that's not how they will operate, it does not mean we should go down the same path.

Finally, in closing, I would like to say that this motion is wrong. It is wrong for this institution. It is wrong for the government to bring it forward. It would be wrong for the opposition to vote in favour of it. It does nothing to enhance the reputation of our institution. It does nothing to enhance the reputation of democracy in this province. It is wrong, and we should vote against it. That's why I and every other member on this side of the House will be voting against this legislation.

Hon. Members, it is not too late. Withdraw this resolution. Let's ensure that we respect this institution, the work that we do and what our democracy is supposed to do for the people of British Columbia.

C. Puchmayr: When I was elected here to this House, I certainly…. I still take it as a privilege and an honour to be elected by the people of New Westminster. One of the things I really noticed, which was sort of a true form of democracy — certainly more true than question period, where we ask the questions and the other side gets up and does a little jig; often you don't get the answers, and you have to sort of drag it out of them, kicking and screaming — was that at least we have what's called the estimates process.

It's not just us asking the questions. It's the people of British Columbia that are asking the questions. People contact me, and they ask me questions that I try to get answers for, questions that we try to do freedom-of-information requests on. We're not successful in getting those answers.

The estimates process is a process where we can go into the House or the committee room, we can discuss and we can put the questions to the minister. The minister has her staff surrounding her. Often it takes a long time to get those answers from the ministers, especially if they're reluctant to tell you what you deserve to know.

Taking away so much crucial time from the estimates process or putting that estimates process at risk is, to me, something that is extremely significant. It certainly warrants this debate in the House, and that's why we are rising here in opposition to this motion. To me, this is sort of a dark reversal of democracy in British Columbia.

It's something that I don't see only through this resolution. I see it also through a lot of bills that were introduced last time. Many of those bills were introduced at the eleventh hour. They were rammed through the House. They were put in play without adequate debate. There was a closure of the debate, and we are now forced to live with those rules.

I'll give you two of the significant ones. One certainly is the southern transportation act — TransLink — taking away a democratically elected board of governance and replacing it with a handpicked group that is really faceless, that represents different business interests and that doesn't qualify for the same scrutiny that elected political officials do.

Again, this is a step away from democracy. It's a step into having an organization that is really dealing with matters that are of great importance to this region, which is the growth of British Columbia and the growth of the southern region, and putting it in the hands of a few selected people — selected by, basically, the Minister of Transportation. That is very concerning. When you start dismantling a democratic process and taking away the rights of those elected officials and replacing that with people who are handpicked to do that bidding, it's a very dangerous direction that we're heading into. I'd certainly have to oppose that direction.

We go back to Bill 75, the streamlining act, which was where governments could come in on significant projects and bypass municipalities and bypass a public process. At least there still had to be consultation under that act. It was certainly going to be difficult for a government to come into somebody's community and try to impose something that had very significant opposition to it.

I don't recall that section or that bill ever being utilized. But new legislation has come in since then, which has basically cut out the ability of municipalities to have an input and a say in how they want their developments or how crucial developments are happening in their regions and their communities.

One of the pieces of legislation that came in at the eleventh hour…. I think it was the last bill of the session prior. It was a bunch of miscellaneous bills, and it was the one that basically took away communities' rights to really play a significant role in opposing independent power projects, the run-of-the-river power projects.

These projects were hailed as this great way of addressing the future shortfalls of hydroelectric power in British Columbia and having the private sector provide it at no cost to the taxpayer. Basically, it was an end run — "end run" almost sounds like Enron, doesn't it? — on B.C. Hydro. It was taking away the public's ability to create power and giving it to the private sector.

We look at some of those contracts that were signed through legislation that was really rammed through by closure, by the calendar actually ending and by that legislation coming to a close. The impact of that — which this side realized, but the opposition didn't seem to be too concerned about — was the fact that the purchase of power from the holders of these licences was significantly high — higher than what we purchase power for at night, when we're buying power from the American operators or from the operators on our grid, while we let our dams fill up.

The other impact was the impact it is going to have on the environment around you. People can absolutely go into your community and put hydroelectric projects in some of the most pristine areas of your community, your rivers and streams.

Then when you look at the length and duration of the contracts and you look at the close-out clause of the contracts, at the end of the contracts — and I've been told some are 15 years, but I believe some are 20- and 30-year contracts — at the end of that 30-year window, that power belongs…. It's no longer an obligation to sell it back to our grid. That power can now go to the highest bidder.

There are numerous power projects that are already being developed as we speak. Thirty years from now, what's going to happen is that all of those projects will be able to sell that power to the highest bidder.

Deputy Speaker: Member, I'd like to just remind you to try to keep your remarks relevant to the motion that's being debated.

C. Puchmayr: It is absolutely relevant to the motion, Madam Speaker. I'm talking about why it is dangerous to impose this bill, this legislation, and deny the ability for scrutiny. Right now we risk the potential of losing hours of debate in the estimates debate. Some of that debate will surely be a scrutiny of those contracts — something that the government does not want us to do, something that the government does not want to answer to.

We need to be able to have the minister sit there, surrounded by his staff, and be able to ask the pertinent questions and show the public — through the questions that we ask — the impact of these deals on the future of British Columbians.

In 30 years from now, our children and grandchildren are going to be scrambling for power. If these go to the highest bidder and they go on to an open market, that will not only mean that the power is gone from our use. It will mean that it will set the new cost of power in British Columbia.

That is a serious breach of democracy, just as this bill is a serious breach of democracy. It takes away the democratic rights of the people of the province, decants them and puts them in the hands of independent corporations.

We know how independent corporations ran power. You just have to look at Enron. As a matter of fact, last week or two weeks ago three more employees were sentenced to prison terms for their abuse and for how they operated and ran that company and the many millions and billions of dollars that were lost and people's life savings that are lost.

You need democracy. You need legislation so that we have an ability to come in and ask the questions of the government. If the government is being misled by their…. I won't say by their friends, but by their advisers. If they're being misled, then sometimes it's good to have a fresh approach to it, to have the people of British Columbia represented by the opposition right now ask the right questions and put things on track so that there's openness and full disclosure, so that people understand what's happening.

This bill will take it away. This bill will again start to limit, start to strip the ability of a legislative session.

There will be very little legislative session if this bill passes. Right now there are eight bills. Most of the bills are technical bills that have to pass. There are only eight.

They say there are all these bills coming. Where are they? Where are the bills? I hear that they need to do this because of this…. I think one speaker referred to it as a tsunami of legislation. Where is it? Four weeks, and we have some technical bills and a supply bill. Where is this tsunami of bills?

My sense is that it is in the pipeline. It's waiting. It's delaying the House until they get closer to the end of the calendar, because the end of the calendar closes the House. Then the pipeline is going to burst, all this legislation is going to come in, and there will not be ample time to deal with it. There will not be adequate time to deal with it. That is precisely what is happening.

And a fall session — that side doesn't want a fall session. There is no way they want a fall session. They want to be here as little as possible. They don't want to be accountable to the people of British Columbia. They don't want a fall session.

There's this term "banana republic." I know that Joy MacPhail used to use it a lot in the House. Boy, imagine what she thought the banana republic was then and what the potential of it is now.

The term banana republic came from the days in South America where the American fruit growers company, or the fruit growers, used to go into countries. The bananas were being harvested and put on steamships and brought up into the United States. When the people of those countries decided there was a lot of value in that fruit and they were really being exploited for it, they took charge. They started to bring in legislation and laws to protect some of their own resources. That's when governments were overthrown and there were influences from across the border, especially — specifically — the United States, which is very well documented. These governments were overthrown.

So that's where "banana republic" came from. When you think, now, that the Premier has, at the last estimates, 211 people in the Premier's office…. I think under Clark's government there were 36. From 36 to 211? What are these advisers…? Dobell, I believe, is one of them. We need to know what kind of salaries these people are being paid, what performance they are doing for the people of British Columbia.

So here we go. We have 211. It could be more. We need to know how many people are working for the Premier right now. What is the necessity for 211 people? It's no wonder he wants to close down the Legislature. He doesn't need the Legislature. He has all the shots being called in his office.

Even some of the ministers, when they receive bills that they have to introduce…. I can understand some of the frustration. I can understand some of the frustration from some of the ministers, because they don't really have an input in the development of those bills. They don't. It's all done by 211. Almost three times the elected body in this chamber works in his office. Almost three times what the people of British Columbia have sent here works in his office. That's pretty shocking.

Who needs a Legislature? We can just have a banana republic. Why not? Just call all the shots there, bring in the legislation at the eleventh hour, ram it through, close the window and then let the chips fall where they may.

Who pays for it? My children will pay for it. My grandchildren will pay for it. They're going to say: "What did you do about that, Grandpa? What did you do about that, Dad?"

This is what we're doing about it. We are going to oppose this legislation because it is just another breach of democracy. It is taking away democracy from the people of British Columbia. We are the opposition, and we're going to continue to fight this bill. We're going to fight it tooth and nail, because it is wrong. It is absolutely wrong.

I was involved in an inquest recently, which to me was quite a shocking revelation on the government side. I was at the Frank Leroux inquest in Prince George. He was a logging truck driver. It was this opposition that fought strongly to try to get a coroner's inquest that strictly dealt with logging fatalities, and we were able to get two inquests. One was the Gramlich inquiry and the other was the inquest into the logging truck fatality.

One of the things that was really shocking to me…. I have a little bit of arbitration experience, and I had been at a couple of inquests as well, so I sort of knew what the legal procedure was. Everybody that's there is represented by legal counsel. I think the Steelworkers were represented by lay counsel, but a very learned individual that really understood the law.

There was a young man on the stand giving evidence about the forestry roads and who should be in charge of the forestry roads, who should sort of govern the forestry roads, because it was very confusing for people. The people that were involved in forestry sort of had their authority taken away from them.

The young man, who was a logging truck driver, said that the government should play a greater role in forestry roads, that it should be the government that is controlling the flow and the volumes that are going in and out, making sure there is safe movement, making sure the roads are properly graded and sanded. I thought that was very good evidence.

Now, there was no legal counsel there at the time for either of the two timber companies, but suddenly the person that got up to cross-examine this young man actually — and the transcripts will show — had him change his deposition to end up saying: "Yeah, maybe it is in better hands with the forest companies."

You know who that lawyer was that got up and did the cross-examination? It was a lawyer for the Attorney General. A lawyer for the Attorney General is getting a person that is being deposed in a coroner's inquest and having him change his evidence to make him agree

I thought: shouldn't the forest companies have legal counsel there? There certainly are some consequences that could happen for the forest company. There's Bill C-45. There could have been criminal charges laid against the forest company. There could have been up to and including jail time. Yet it took legal counsel from the Attorney General to really represent the interests of the forest company. That is bizarre. That is where we're heading.

We are heading toward more of the corporations moving into the Premier's office. There's less accountability here with the people of British Columbia. And that's where accountability lies.

I'm sure that if the tides were turned, if it was the NDP in government trying to do this, this other side would be as, if not more…. They would be lighting their hair on fire if they could.

C. Puchmayr: He's already done it. He's so concerned that he's already done it in advance, retroactive.

This is just another dismantling of the democratic process, and we can't accept the dismantling of the democratic process. We can't. We're taking away municipal rights. We're taking away regional districts' rights, and now we're taking away the rights of the elected opposition to ask questions of the government. We're curtailing that.

What is it going to be next time? What is it going to be next year — another rule?

Somebody said that we sit less than the Senate. The Senate…. They're the same as this side. They're just Liberals and Conservatives — right? They sit more than we do, which is amazing to me. The Senate sits more than we do here, if you strip the fall session out.

I heard a scrum in the lobby there yesterday, where one of our members said that the Premier spends more time in Maui than this House sat in the year we didn't have a fall session. Get out your calculator and maybe ask the Premier — ask one of his 211 advisers — if that's true. I'm sure there are a lot of calculators up there.

When you look at this direction that we're heading…. I'll look at it just in my community, how it affects my community. I know, as Labour critic…. I think my Labour estimates are scheduled fairly early. I think last year we were up first. The year prior, we were up last. I think we're up second this time.

A lot of the labour issues that I have to explore aren't only with the Minister of Labour. They cross over into the Ministry of Forests, where there needs to be a lot of questions asked about the report from the Auditor General that sort of directs towards the Forests Minister. There are also issues with mines, after the Sullivan mine inquest and the fatalities in the Sullivan mine. They cross over.

If some of those estimates get cut short because of timeliness, because of lack of time, those questions aren't going to be asked. And people are asking. People who lost loved ones in the forests are asking us questions. They want answers from the government. They do not want question period, where you're not going to get an answer. They want concrete answers. They want us to stand up and engage the other side and say, "Have you looked at this? Have you attempted this? How about looking at it at this angle?" and try to get some cooperation to make the workplace a safer place for the forest families.

Sullivan mine. Two paramedics and two mine workers perished in Kimberley. Those families are asking us questions. They have questions that they want us to take to the estimates and ask. Their fight, now that they've had the inquest…. They go forward now….

C. Puchmayr: The member across says that they've done it all, I believe. I think he woke up and said that he's done it all. But I don't believe that file has had very much done to it at all. So again, maybe that member will be able to sit in that estimate and learn about how little has been done on the Sullivan mine file.

This is just another example of why you need that interaction. Both sides can come into that chamber and they can listen, or they can come into this chamber and they can listen, so it educates them as well. Question period doesn't educate the backbenchers. It just gives them a workout. It doesn't educate them. But estimates can educate them. It can make them smarter. It can make them come out of there knowing that there are some good reasons why we need this democratic process. It's to make things safer.

A record number of young people died on the job last year. Since I was elected, and seeing the statistics and the absolute reckless deregulation of the Employment Standards Act and the reckless deregulation of the WCB regulations…. After seeing that and then being able to get into estimates and put things forward and have the Labour Minister work with WorkSafe B.C. or identify issues to WorkSafe B.C. as they're gathered around the Labour Minister has been fruitful, I think, because we've seen changes. We've seen changes that are fruitful.

When I rose in question period about worker deaths, gas station attendants, the Labour Minister wasn't prepared to do anything, didn't think there was a need to do anything. So the continuation of going through estimates, having people involved, showing the government that there is a problem and that there is a solution…. There is now a solution to working alone.

That solution isn't going to happen if you curtail this House to one partial session and then don't call it back for the fall. There isn't the ability to educate or to share with the government the directions that they need to go in order to make this a better place for our children.

C. Puchmayr: I hear one of my members saying that maybe it isn't supposed to work. I'm not as cynical.

I want to believe that there is a reason we're here, that there is a difference that we can make. But I understand what he's saying, and he has been there a long time. I'll probably be like that too, if I ever run again.

But you know, the young people that died on the job last year…. We have to make sure that that stops. How do you do that? Do you just go there and say to the Labour Minister: "There's this magic wand. Stop the young people from dying on the job"? No. You have to look at the whole package.

One part of it is the apprenticeship. This government has a record number of people registered for apprenticeships who aren't even pursuing that apprenticeship anymore. They're gone. They've gone past the six-month window that used to exist. They're gone.

They keep piling them on this list so that they can come in here and say: "Wow, look at all the British Columbians getting apprenticeships." Yet the numbers last year were dismal. I mean, it's shocking to have all these….

The construction field is booming right now. Mind you, the construction field started booming right after the Barrett inquiry into leaky condos. Now it's booming into the Olympics. At one time it's going to stop. It's going to curtail. When it's booming is the time that you invest in it. You make sure that it's safe. You make sure that people are trained properly, and you make sure that those people who are trained are able to train other people.

Well, our kids now are leaving. I know kids that have left. They've gone to Toronto. They've gone to Alberta. They're getting their apprenticeships quicker. Now we've got one of our ministers who has just come back from Toronto, and he's gone there to try to get people to come back. Well, that's really not fair. We should be training our children here, not sending them to other provinces for training.

We had a model training authority here in British Columbia — a model. Even Alberta took it. Alberta came and looked at it and said: "Wow, this is brilliant. Not only are you training people, you're training them in such a capacity that they're able to train someone else immediately after."

Now we have kids that have seven years of work hours, enough to have a technical qualification two or three years ago, and they've only been to class once. Every one of those class components does have a bit of safety in there. So we have children, young people, who are dying on the job unnecessarily. We have a dismantled training program, and we're heading in a direction where we will not even be able to get up in this House to ask the questions because that side wants to shut it down. They don't want to debate, and that is sad.

It is a colossal breach of people's democratic rights. We're in a political system that goes back 900 years. I have never seen anything like this. I have never seen a more vigorous attempt by this government to shut down debate in this House, to shut down debate on bills and now to shut down debate on estimates.

It is shocking, and I am proud to stand up here and speak in opposition of this motion. I am proud to stand up here and speak in opposition to this because this is the wrong direction to go. This is taking away the democracy that we thought we were born in.

We're sending young people to Afghanistan. We're sending young men and women to Afghanistan. Why? To fight for democracy in another country, to establish democracy in another country. And at the same time, we're dismantling it here. Shame on you. Absolutely shame on you.

L. Krog: We're here debating a motion, Motion 37, brought forward by the Government House Leader. You know, for the average person out there in the streets of British Columbia, it probably doesn't mean too much. However, it means a great deal to the people in this chamber, and it means a great deal to those who respect the traditions of parliamentary democracy — how long, hard and difficult the road was that led us to this place today — that we indeed do have the rights to stand up, as elected representatives of the people, to speak in this Legislature.

The motion itself proposes what the government would probably think of as a reform, something to make the speedy business of the House proceed even more speedily, which, frankly, is what I've always sensed about this government — that this place was, well, gravel on the smooth road that the government wants to travel to the next election. This is a place where we inhibit their desires to get re-elected, where we stand in their way.

I think there's no section of the motion that indicates the profound arrogance of this proposal more than in section 2, where it says: "All Estimates shall stand referred to Section A, save and except those Estimates as shall be referred to Section B on motion without notice by the Government House Leader, which motion shall be decided without amendment or debate and be governed by Practice Recommendation #6 relating to Consultation."

Well, I don't know whether the government side thinks we're a bunch of ninnies over here who can't read, but we actually understand the import and the meaning of those very words and what it talks about.

What is astonishing to me is that a government that campaigned so hard about reforming this chamber and how it conducted its affairs, a government that campaigned on the promise of transparency and openness….

Indeed, the Premier himself referred to his proposals as being radical. What did he say in 2001? "The 90-day agenda particularly was put in place to show people that we actually meant what we said. You do it in big ways like the dramatic tax cuts. You do it in small ways like saying we would have a fixed parliamentary calendar. You do it in medium-sized ways like getting rid of photo radar." Now, that's an interesting grab-bag of concepts, but that's not the subject of what I want to talk about today.

L. Krog: My friend says "eclectic." There's a lovely word — "eclectic." This is anything but eclectic. The motion that's been brought forward is an enormous step backward.

I have in this House on previous occasions reminded the members opposite of the long history of how this whole parliamentary process was established — the countless lives that have been lost, a revolution, wars, the interruption of succession of various houses in Great Britain. It all begins, in some respects, with the barons running King John down at Runnymede. They were tired. They were fed up. They were sick of a king who acted as a tyrant.

So we get the first Magna Carta, the great charter, and then literally, for nearly 800 years, we have come forward to a place where every adult citizen — regardless of race, creed, colour, religion and whether they own or don't own property — has the right to vote, to elect members to this assembly.

Now, people watching may wonder why this guy from Nanaimo is so upset about a simple motion that is — from the government's perspective and enunciated so sweetly by the Government House Leader as if it was — some completely innocuous motion. Why are we so upset about it on this side of the House? We're upset about it because it is consistent with a pattern that this government has established about how it believes this chamber should operate.

You know, I was here once before. In those days, as the phrase went, the government opened and the opposition closed. As our Government House Leader articulated earlier today, the session would run and run and run until the opposition got tired, until it ran out of questions and energy, until it was satisfied that it had scrutinized every piece of legislation and the estimate of every minister and the Premier's office, and until it was satisfied that it had done and fulfilled its responsibility to the people who elected the members here.

One would argue, and many indeed did argue, that that wasn't a very satisfactory system. So this government moved to a fixed parliamentary calendar that said that there would be a spring session and a fall session.

We know what happened to the concept of the fall session. We know what happened to that reform, which was supported by the opposition, as I recall. We know what happened. We only have to ask the Hospital Employees Union. We only have to ask the citizens of British Columbia.

The Premier promised the Hospital Employees Union that their contract would be safe and inviolate, and he broke it. He promised the people of British Columbia he wouldn't sell B.C. Rail, one of the most significant jewels in the Crown of the province of British Columbia, and he sold it. We were promised fall sittings. That's what we're paid to do — to represent our constituents in this place — and he cancelled it. It's one broken promise after another.

What this motion attempts to do is essentially reduce public scrutiny of what goes on in this Legislature. It is absolutely outrageous.

You know, only a few short days ago, on February 28, George MacMinn, the Clerk of this assembly, someone who has served here for 50 years, in the presence of our new Lieutenant-Governor, spoke these words: "In Her Majesty's name, His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor does thank Her Majesty's loyal subjects, accepts their benevolence and assents to these acts."

The acts were the supply acts and the supplementary estimates. What do those words mean? Is it just some quaint phrase that we use in this place? It is fundamental to what occurs in a parliamentary democracy. Her Majesty accepts their benevolence. What that means is that the Lieutenant-Governor, who represents the Sovereign, who is our head of state, has received the tax moneys and has the right to receive and dispense them through our tax system. It means that the government gets to spend the people's money. It is the benevolence of Her Majesty's loyal subjects.

That is the absolutely fundamental part of our system — that the people collectively pay taxes to the government, which is represented by the Sovereign, and the Sovereign, represented by the people in this Legislature, represented by the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council, gets to spend it. It is a system, as I said earlier, that has taken nearly 800 years to establish — 800 years. Now, you could ask, what's the importance of that? Why shouldn't the government just collect the taxes and spend it the way it wants?

Well, as members opposite would love to say, and I've heard them say it: guess what. It isn't the government's money; it's the people's money. The people's voice is the members in this chamber. Whether they're on the government side or the opposition side, it's the people's voice.

It's the people's choice, through their elected representatives, to decide how that money is spent, and it is most certainly and fundamentally the opposition's job to criticize and to question and to analyze and to get the government to come clean about what it's doing with the people's money. It is a wonderful concept. It is how governments are held to account. It is the very method by which we collectively manage our political affairs. Absolutely fundamental.

Unfortunately, everything about this motion speaks of a different view of how this place should operate. It's the same thing we saw with the cancellation of the fall sitting, the abandonment of a fixed legislative calendar — and now a motion that would seek to reduce public scrutiny of the estimates of the ministers of the Crown. What it means is that the Premier's estimates, which were held and open in this House, would be given over to what is known as the little House.

If this were the only thing that had happened in the last seven years of this government's administration, perhaps I wouldn't be so cynical. Perhaps the opposition wouldn't speak with such vigour in opposition to this. But the fact is that it is just one more step in chipping away at the rights of the people, which have taken so long to establish.

The attitude it represents is not just arrogance; it is a completely corporate view of how you manage things. The fact is, one gets the impression that the government really doesn't like this place. You know, it's just a troublesome place. It's a place where they'd really rather just come into their offices as cabinet ministers, meet as a caucus, make the decisions and ignore the opposition.

You know, it actually reminds me of Winnie-the-Pooh. I can hear the members muttering to themselves over there, consciously or unconsciously: "Oh, bother. Oh, bother. We have to have the Legislature sit, and they're actually going to have an opportunity to question us. They're actually going to criticize us, when we know we're just perfect, and we don't require any of this. We know we're doing a great job. The economy is booming, the world is wonderful, and we're the best government. There are the five great goals, and everything is going to be faaantastic."

I don't think the opposition needs to apologize for doing its job. I appreciate that the Government House Leader, who, as I said, so sweetly described this proposal in such gentle language, innocuous language…. I don't think it takes a rocket scientist to figure out that it gets back to the attitude I'm talking about, which says: "Would you just leave us alone. We got elected. We'll come back and talk to you in four years, maybe. Oh, by the way, we gave you a fixed election date." That was another reform. I'm surprised that hasn't changed.

"We'll come back and talk to you. If you elect a few of those miserable members of the opposition to criticize, well, we'll tolerate them. But we'd really rather not be here in this place."

I see one of the senior ministers nodding at me as I speak now. I won't mention his name because I think he understands exactly what I'm saying about the attitude of this government and the caucus that supports it, and he cheers on the Government House Leader when he takes another step to chip away at the fundamental value and importance of what we do in this place.

You know, something like 41 percent of the voters of Alberta bothered to go out and vote the other day. There is a Conservative province. They've been electing Tories for so long that they've got two generations of Albertans who don't remember anything else. Those people are often championing our Armed Forces, as they should, and saying: "Support our troops."

It's kind of like they've forgotten what that means. What does it mean? If you champion those troops, you champion them because they defend our nation. And what is our nation? Our nation is about democracy. It is about the right to elect people, about the right of the people to control their destiny through government.

It's shocking to me that so few Albertans take the time to exercise their democratic rights. It's shocking to me that anywhere in this great nation people would be so blasé and casual about the right to vote.

L. Krog: In this province, however, we still enjoy a fairly good voter turnout, but I suspect one of the reasons that Albertans aren't getting out to vote is because they have become so utterly cynical about the political and democratic process.

That's what this motion says to me. It says that we can get away with it because people don't care. When people who care about democracy — who care about the right to vote and care about public scrutiny — see this, what it says to them is that this government sees this place as nothing more than an obstruction — that they would like to govern in their own arbitrary way.

The fact is that people start to give up. They think we're all alike. They think politicians are all alike. They think political parties are all alike. They don't care anymore. Every time a government, let alone this government, brings in this kind of proposal, brings in a motion like this, then we see the further erosion of confidence in our political system.

The world's not going to collapse tomorrow. British Columbia won't slip into the abyss when this motion passes, as it surely will because the government enjoys a substantial majority. But it is just another step down the path towards making politics even less respectable. It is a step down the path to the destruction of that very thing which our troops in Afghanistan are trying to maintain and hold for the Afghan people, and that is the right to elect a government and to hold it to account.

You know, these are serious issues. These are very serious issues. The government will say it's not, but the fact is that it is. It's a very serious issue.

As the government proceeds down this path, is there any benefit to British Columbians for this? What's the benefit? What do the people get back by essentially limiting public scrutiny by passing this motion? Will government be better? Will people feel better about our democracy? Will people feel better about politics? Will they like the Premier more? Will they think the Government House Leader is much brighter for bringing in this motion? I doubt it.

It would be the right thing if this government stepped back and considered what it's doing and asked itself: is this really necessary? Will the benefit to this government, which already enjoys a substantial majority, which can bring in closure on motions, which under our parliamentary system enjoys enormous power….? Would it be so difficult, so hard on them, to step back and withdraw this motion? Would the heavens fall? Doubt it. Government going to fall? Doubt it.

It would be nice to think that what we do in this place would actually be seen as serious and important by the members opposite. If they withdrew, it would be a signal not only to the opposition. It would be a signal to the people of British Columbia that maybe, just maybe, the government was at last starting to listen, that the government would start to respect what we do here.

Just maybe, a few citizens, particularly younger citizens, who care about politics and who care about the importance of the state in our lives, would say: "You know what? Maybe they're not such a bad lot, all these politicians. Maybe I'll become involved in my community. You know what? Maybe I'll run for school trustee or councillor or mayor or MLA or Member of Parliament. Maybe I'll see this as important and serious work."

Those of us on this side of the House do see it as important and serious work. We value this place, and we value its traditions, and we value the reforms that have taken so long to implement. We value all of that. What's clear to me is that the government doesn't value it.

One appreciates that the government would simply prefer to ignore voters between elections, to ignore this place, to govern without public scrutiny, to manage government like it was just a business.

One can't deny that there's a certain aspect of government that's much like a business. Revenues come in. You've got to worry about cash flow. You've got to worry about your debt. You've got to worry about your revenue sources. You've got to worry about the people who are the shareholders, arguably — the citizens of British Columbia. Nothing wrong with looking at government like that once in a while. It's a good thing. But there is a great deal more to it than simply being some kind of a business or running it on a business model.

What's absolutely clear to me is that this government — unlike previous governments, unlike previous right-wing governments in this province — wants to run it strictly on a corporate model. You don't even have to come back to the annual shareholders' meeting and ask them for permission. That's what this motion is doing. This motion is saying: "We're going to limit the debate at the shareholders' meeting."

We're the shareholders. We in the opposition represent the shareholders, or certainly the dissident shareholders. There's nothing wrong with being a dissident shareholder.

You know what? If you don't criticize, nothing gets reformed, changed or improved. You get lazy. You get complacent. Worst of all, in seven years you get arrogant. You get really, really arrogant, so that you think you can just slide this past — abandon a fall session and just run this place without ever having to go back and actually face the opposition.

L. Krog: The member for Kamloops–North Thompson is bellowing about three fall sessions. That member knows full well that in those days the opposition at least could talk out the session until it finished. We don't have that privilege anymore in this House. We have a fixed sitting schedule. But what's absolutely obnoxious about the member's suggestion is that somehow things were better then, when everyone agrees that having a fixed sitting schedule is consistent with modern, sensible parliamentary practice.

What this member doesn't seem to understand…. Once you've got a fixed parliamentary schedule, the point is that you sit, you come to the office and you do the work. I'd like the hon. member opposite to consider how he'd run a business if the employees said every fall: "You know what? We're not coming in. We're not going to do the job." You know, hon. Speaker….

L. Krog: I'm sure, hon. Speaker, that it was a relative phoning to congratulate me on my speech.

The fact is that this motion, as I've said, shows contempt for this place and contempt for what we do here. That's what the problem is all about. I would think that this government, having had an opportunity to reflect, would actually reconsider.

What's shocking to me is that apart from the Government House Leader — and this reflects, I think, the real feelings of the members opposite, certainly those who are still anxious to get into cabinet anyway — the fact is that I haven't heard any of them speak. I haven't heard one of them chirp up today and stand up, fluff their feathers, stand up with pride and cock and crow about how this is progress.

I haven't heard one of them, except for the Government House Leader. Even he didn't get into his usual blustery style and say that this was such great stuff for the people of British Columbia. I didn't hear him say that. I heard him talk pleasantly about this, that this would be fine, things are good and they'd be great. We know that's not true.

If this is so good, where are the members opposite? Where is their defence? Where is their argument? They've got a few lawyers over there who are used to arguing cases in court. They've even got an ex-judge over there. I would have thought that we would hear their voices arguing passionately that this was great for British Columbia, that this was good government and that this was a reform. I don't hear any of that, hon. Speaker, and do you know why I don't hear it?

I'm just going to speculate a little that maybe it has to do with the fact that deep in their hearts, the members opposite — some of whom I respect greatly — actually understand that this is not about reform. This is about what I said earlier. It is about the corporate model of government that so appeals, obviously, to the cabinet and the Premier opposite. It is about a complete lack of respect for this process.

One of the greatest Conservatives of all time, Winston Churchill…. If he were here today, I could imagine what he'd have to say about this process. I can just imagine. He understood the value of what occurs in a parliament, in a legislature. He understood that.

And his famous line about democracy and other forms of government — we all understand what he meant.

Yeah, democracy has got its problems. It's messy. It's gritty. It's hard to push forward sometimes. It's hard to make progress. It's hard to keep everybody on track. But boy, it's the best system we've got. It's the best system we've got, and we've been refining it, polishing it, improving it and defending it for hundreds and hundreds of years.

If the government motion today had said that we were going to set up a real committee system that would have the ability to scrutinize ministerial spending the way we do in our estimates process now, I wouldn't be here. I'd be studying at my office. I'd be looking at it and considering it. But that's not what's proposed here. What's proposed here is just another step to reduce what we do here, to make it easier for the government to escape public scrutiny.

Our research department has dragged out so many quotes of members of this government around the issues of transparency and open and honest government that most of us could pick one or two each. We could speak three or four times, and we'd still never get through all the quotes.

What do I know? I know that they are anything but open and transparent. I know that they want to have anything but public scrutiny. I know that what they really want to do is just shut this place down as quick as they can and go back to their constituencies and hope that in 2009 the people of British Columbia will happily re-elect them.

I've said it many times. It's an honour and a privilege to serve in this chamber. With that honour and privilege comes a great responsibility. Every member of this House has the responsibility to protect and defend our way of life, our democratic principles and the rules by which we conduct ourselves in this chamber, and this is an absolutely retrograde step. The opposition will be voting against it.

I wish the government backbenchers had the courage to vote against it. I'm disappointed that they don't. I'm disappointed that they haven't got the political courage to stand up here today and disagree with what is a fundamentally abhorrent, retrograde step.

I say to the members opposite: think about this for a while. You're hearing members of the opposition. You know what? For once acknowledge that you're wrong. Step back. Vote against this motion. Do the right thing for British Columbians, and let's get on with doing the business of this House that we're all elected to do.

I'm blushing. I appreciate that warm applause from my colleagues on both sides of the House as I participate in the debate on Motion 37 on the order paper. It's an interesting opportunity to speak on what would be, to most people, an arcane subject. But having worked in the House of Commons and having worked in this place as a young person and now having the opportunity to stand and represent people in this Legislature, I think I can bring some interesting perspectives to the debate.

I was surprised, as I'm sure most members of the House were, to learn that the Senate of Canada, that bastion of democracy, sits more regularly than the Legislature in British Columbia. It was quite surprising to me to hear that, but I certainly take the member for Port Coquitlam–Burke Mountain at his word, because he does meticulous research, as we all know.

To learn that the Senate sits longer than this place should make us all a bit ashamed, I think. Certainly it does me, having spent time in Ottawa and having seen the great work. The ability to sleep with one's head cocked in a certain way was quite astounding. Many Senators should be proud of that ability. The flexibility of the spine is miraculous.

Anyway, what we're talking about here today, as you know, is amending our standing orders and the way we do business in this place. Many people at home tune in — if they tune in at all — to the braying of question period. One of the innovations that the government prides itself on is extending the braying from 15 minutes to half an hour.

I would have to say that it is an opportunity to have more people standing up on both sides of the House. It's an opportunity to provide calluses on our hands from clapping, whether we're on the government side or the opposition side. But it does very, very little to advance public policy and to exchange ideas.

I say to people in my constituency…. When they come to me and say, "What do you clowns really do for all the pay you get?" I always point to the estimates process and the committee process, which in my experience — based on the time I've spent on the Finance Committee and the Crown Corporation Committee and the Education Committee — does fairly decent work.

The estimates process gives all of us on both sides of the House an opportunity to quiz ministers of the Crown, those charged with running the ministries of the province — the government of B.C. It gives us the opportunity to ask those questions.

The challenge we have with a large opposition, Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition, is that when it comes time to ask questions of the members of the executive council, everybody lines up. I know that the member for Bulkley Valley–Stikine is always anxious to ask questions of the Minister of Aboriginal Relations and Reconciliation, but there's a pecking order because time is limited.

We try on both sides of the House to manage that time to ensure that all members get an opportunity to ask questions about their constituencies, whether it be to the Minister of Transportation…. Certainly, I know that my colleagues — the member for Esquimalt-Metchosin, the member for Victoria-Hillside, the member for Saanich South — and I have to find a way to coordinate our five or ten minutes of questions of the Minister of Transportation to ensure that we all get an opportunity to ask important questions about issues of importance to our constituents.

Were I to stand in this place on any given day during question period, hon. Speaker, as you know well, I would ask my question to the Minister of Transportation, and he would remind me of the 1990s. He would tell me how awful it was in the 1990s.

Well, I've got some numbers. I know that the government members don't like to hear numbers. Guess who led the country in House hours and days sitting in the 1990s? Was it the province of Alberta? No. Was it the province of Ontario? No. It was the province of British Columbia.

J. Horgan: Again, here we've got the member for Kamloops–North Thompson, a member on the opposite side…. Even when the numbers are irrefutable, the government of the day providing the opposition of the day as much time as they needed to conduct the estimates debate, the member from Kamloops still finds fault.

He still finds fault. Even when it comes to something as basic and fundamental as representing constituents, that member on that side has to be partisan. He can't resist it. It oozes from his pores. The opportunity to have a debate, a dialogue, a discourse about democracy is an opportunity for him to stand up and bash the government of the 1990s. It's reprehensible, and it's what turns people off in this place.

J. Horgan: Member, if you're going to take your place in the debate, I encourage you to do so, but otherwise….

Deputy Speaker: Members. Members. All comments are directed through the floor, and I would like to ask all members on both sides to please allow the speaker to have the floor without interruption. You may all have an opportunity, if you so wish, to speak.

J. Horgan: My fundamental disappointment is that with estimates debate curtailed, I won't have the opportunity to eviscerate the Minister for Mining during estimates.

In any event, in 1998 the Legislature of the British Columbia sat for 90 days. We didn't have a fixed calendar in those days. In those days, the opposition closed debate. Government opened debate, and the opposition closed debate, and that was all well and good for the B.C. Liberals at the time.

That magnanimous giant from Vancouver–Point Grey, Mr. Openness, made many, many statements. They've been referred to by my colleagues, and I'm certainly going to pull out a couple of them, because there's one here that I love most of all. This was from August of 2001. It was the Premier during estimates, and I can't be accountable for the language. I can only read what I see. "We think openness beats hiddenness every time."

Openness beats hiddenness. That's kind of like rock, paper, scissors. Openness and hiddenness. There it is. That side of the House was against hiddenness in 2001. What do they stand for today? They stand for reducing the amount of time we have to debate the estimates of the budget. It's the essence of what we do here. It was 62 hours last year in this chamber, 58 hours if you take away the four hours devoted to the Ministry of Agriculture by agreement by both parties that that time be taken up in this place. What could be wrong with that?

What could be wrong with a system that allows us, even with a truncated schedule, with a set time when we start and finish, which has been reduced — the hours have been reduced — by this government since 2005? It wasn't good enough to sit until nine o'clock on a Monday night. It wasn't good enough to sit until nine o'clock on Wednesday, even though we don't start until two o'clock. Most of the people we represent work an eight-hour day, and I know we do a great deal of work in our constituencies, both sides of the House.

Fundamentally, people think we come here to exchange ideas. They turn on the television at 1:30, and they see a bunch of fools. Both sides of the House. We'll all agree to that.

Hands up if you think we look stupid during question period. Hands are up all over.

Deputy Speaker: Member, you cannot refer to the actions of other members in the House. You may only refer to members as being in the House or as members, not to any action. I'd ask you to withdraw the remark.

I was just going to make reference to my friend from Peace River South being a democrat and one who likes to use the time to good effect speaking on behalf of his constituents and the issues and values he brought to this place. That's what most of us want to do, on both sides.

We had a time…. In the early days of this parliament, there was a time when we agreed on things. We had the two House Leaders sit down to find accommodation, find a way that we could move the business of the Legislature through in an orderly fashion, giving the opportunity to the opposition to make their points and giving the government the opportunity to fulfill its agenda. That's a reasonable thing to do.

But that cooperation seemed to sour sometime around pay-raise time, when there was a divergence of opinion on how we should proceed with our compensation.

J. Horgan: There was a divergence of opinion, hon. Speaker. The minister over there seems to think that everything is pure and infallible in his mind. Sadly, it's not. But there was a difference of opinion. I'm sure those on the other side, some of them, wanted to stuff even more money in their pockets.

The challenge we have as opposition members…. My friend from North Vancouver–Seymour was an opposition member for a good period of time. He knows the challenge. To be Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition is to be inherently negative. That's our job. We're to scrutinize the bills that come into this place. We're to scrutinize the expenditures of ministries. We're to scrutinize the activities of the ministers of the Crown. That's our job.

J. Horgan: The member for Kamloops must forget those days. He's now steeped in his cabinet traditions, and he's forgotten the traditions that brought him here, the contempt for government that may well have brought him to this place. Now he is safely in the bosom of that government, he doesn't see the need to have a fulsome debate of the issues of the day. He doesn't see the need for opposition members to stand in this place and hold the government to account.

I talk to my constituents all the time, whether they be Liberal, Conservative, Green, brown, New Democrat. It doesn't matter to me. I talk to them all the time, and they say to me: "Why are you guys so negative?" Well, we're not always negative, but it's our job, and we're getting better government because there's a strong opposition on this side.

If you look at the data from the early part of this century, when we were more concerned about hiddenness and openness…. If you look at the debate of the early part of this century, there were very few hours devoted to the estimates debate. I've got some numbers here, provided to me by Hansard. I'd like to read them out for the record so that all members will have a clearer understanding of how debate has taken place and how we've evolved in terms of managing the estimates process.

Last year to May 31, 2007, we had a total of 212 hours of debate on the estimates in British Columbia. Let's go back ten years, to 1997. I know that the minister loves to spend quality time in the 1990s, and I'm just delighted to indulge him, give him an opportunity to talk about the number of hours that we had in 1997. There it is right there.

Ten years earlier, how many hours did we spend when this side of the House was on that side of the House? It was 438 hours of estimates. When the B.C. Liberals were on this side of the House, they felt it was important to have 438 hours of debate on estimates. That's great. That's fine. Not a dime without debate. That makes good sense to me. I don't recall there being a lot of complaining at the time — 438 hours of debate.

What did the B.C. Liberals give the opposition in 2007? It was 212 — less than half. We spent less than half the time in this place debating the budgets of the province.

J. Horgan: Of course, the minister, not speaking from his chair, says that they have all the answers, and that's fine. I don't doubt that in his mind all of the answers are correct, and that's appropriate.

When you're deluding yourself, it's important to make sure that you've got this veneer of certainty every time you get to your feet. But our job is to question that certainty, and it should lead to better government. That's the principle, that's the theory, and that's why we're here.

Those at home may say: "Well, what are they talking about? What's the estimates debate? What is that anyway, and why is it that the opposition is standing up and taking a stand to try and protect and preserve that opportunity and that right for the people of British Columbia through Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition?"

It's an opportunity for us to ask questions of the Minister of Forests, for example. We could ask the Minister of Forests during the estimates debate what he was thinking when he allowed Western Forest Products to remove private lands from their tree farm licences on Vancouver Island. That's a reasonable question to ask. Certainly, people in my community are very concerned about that.

But if we start reducing the amount of time we can spend discussing estimates as individual members, if we leave it all to the critic of the day…. My colleague from Cariboo North is very capable, very able to carry that debate to the Minister of Forests. I have no hesitation in putting my full support behind the member for Cariboo North, but I have a responsibility to my constituents.

I have a responsibility to ask the minister those questions so that I can go back to Sooke, to Shirley, to Jordan River and to Port Renfrew and tell the people that elected me what's going on in this place. Where is their money going? Why are policy decisions being made that adversely affect them? How can I explain government activity to my constituents? In my mind — and I know that my friend from Peace River South shares this view — the best way is to ask questions.

I've not been invited into the cabinet chamber in about seven or eight years. I understand that they have pretty good lunches in there.

J. Horgan: No, it was this century. They've done away with the free lunches. It's now hiddenness. They celebrate hiddenness in the cabinet chambers now.

It's been awhile since I've been able to go into the cabinet chamber and ask questions of cabinet ministers. In fact, I've never been invited to the Liberal caucus meetings. I don't imagine I'll ever get that invitation. But backbenchers on that side of the House have an opportunity to ask their colleagues pointed questions about policies. That's their right, and that's one of the privileges of government.

But we have an obligation on this side as opposition members to ask those questions in the Legislature or in the committee room. By moving 62 hours of debate out of this place and into that place, we are going to be reducing our opportunities.

I'd like to go back to…. It's a shame. I know that the Attorney General will review carefully my remarks, but it's interesting that as I was going through these, there was a year back in the 1990s where there were 40 hours of debate on the Attorney General's estimates. Can you imagine that happening today? My goodness. Ten hours of debate for the Attorney General in 2004.

Four hours of debate in 2005. That was a short year, as you know, hon. Speaker. We had an election. Five hours of debate in 2006.

Forty hours in 1997 — 40 hours of debate. My goodness, the Attorney General would be falling over if we had to do that in 2007-2008. But that's one of the responsibilities of being a member of executive council. You are accountable to the Legislature and to the cabinet to discharge your duties.

We in this Legislature scrutinize those figures, scrutinize that data, and then we report back as having those estimates completed without amendment. That's what we do. It seems pretty straightforward. We get into a bit of routine.

I know that my colleague the Minister of Energy, when I'm asking him questions, does tend to like to get up and speak. I would think we could cut our estimates in half if he restricted his answers to just giving answers rather than speeches. But I can't control that. That's the job of the Chair of Committees, and once a minister takes his feet, he or she can do whatever they will with their time.

As individuals on this side of the House, as opposition members, we have a duty and an obligation to ask those questions. This motion restricts that ability. It restricts our ability to do our job. It restricts our ability to make the cabinet ministers better by making sure they're on their toes, by making sure they've done their homework.

If they don't do their homework, they find themselves, as some members have, sitting at the far end of the cabinet table with less and less responsibility. That's the way it should be. It's a privilege to be a member of cabinet. Certainly, those in the back bench are anxious to get there. I know they would do just about anything to get there, at least that was my experience when there were backbenchers that I was working with when we were in government.

That's good. That's good to have that desire and drive to affect public policy in British Columbia, to affect public policy in the interests of all British Columbians. That's a healthy thing.

But what's more healthy is the internal competition for seats at the largest cabinet table in the history of B.C. It may well grow more before we get to the next election. I know there are going to be a lot of people that are going to want to be able to give away stuff as we get closer and closer to election day like playground equipment, like booster seats. Of course, you can be a backbencher and give away booster seats, so that's not a problem.

There's a good example of one of the issues we would want to canvass with the Minister of State for Childcare. I'm certain she would want to take her place and justify those partisan actions that became public press fodder during the last session.

I think it's interesting to note that since 2005, the most number of hours devoted to debate were in the 2007 calendar year. My recollection, following the fall session, was that there was general unanimity among the pundits that we slaughtered the government. The opposition had done its job.

I can remember the senior writer or the senior columnist for The Vancouver Sun saying that we had done our job and we should take our research people out for lunch or breakfast or dinner — whatever it was; a meal of some kind — to celebrate the good work we had done as opposition members holding the government to account. That's our job. That's what we're supposed to do. We did it very, very well.

It's somewhat surprising that after having a positive democratic interaction through the year 2007, government and opposition, here we are in the early days of the first session of 2008, and the government is trying to find ways to reduce debate. They're trying to find ways to restrict our opportunity to stand and deliver in this place or in the other committee room.

I wonder if there's any correlation between us slaughtering them or beating them…. Michael Smyth called it "Whac-a-Mole." It's like a game of Whac-a-Mole in the Legislature.

I guess the government didn't want to go through that again, so one of the best ways to do that — besides the wall of noise we're getting from the member for Kamloops–North Thompson — is to reduce the number of hours we spend here.

When the Premier brought in the fixed calendar, the expectation was…. I think most observers and most people in this place thought that that's civilized. That's a good thing to do. It was changing years of tradition whereby the government called the Legislature and the opposition adjourned it. They threw that out the door, but that was fine.

They were going to bring in a whole host of other innovations. Open cabinet meetings. I was very much looking forward, as a member of the opposition, to sit in on an open cabinet meeting. Regrettably, we haven't had any of those. We haven't had the opportunity to watch the cabinet ministers deal with their various issues at the cabinet table, because that photo opportunity didn't seem to go over too well. So it just kind of faded into hiddenness.

We're back to hiddenness now, even though openness was what we were looking for before. For those who might have tuned in now, hiddenness isn't my word. It's the Premier's word. I would never want to take credit for hiddenness under any circumstances.

The Premier in 2001 said that what he was doing was radical. It was radical to have a fixed calendar. Well, Ottawa has had a fixed calendar for a long, long time. The House of Commons comes and goes. But what they do with a fixed calendar, in those jurisdictions that have them, is that they adhere to it.

We've had six sessions. We should have had six sessions in the three years we've been here, but we haven't.

J. Horgan: We haven't. They were long sessions. I could read the numbers to the member. I can send them over to him.

In fact, why don't I do that, hon. Speaker? Through you, I'll send over the numbers to the member for Kamloops–North Thompson so that he can look back on those heady days in the 1990s when B.C. led the way in the number of hours and sittings in this Legislature. Back to the 1990s when government respected the right and role of opposition rather than to diminish it and disparage it like the government of today does. Back in the 1990s when the government said: "We've got to take our lumps from the opposition, because that's what comes with the obligation and privilege of sitting in cabinet."

J. Horgan: Thank you, hon. Chair. Thank you very much for allowing me the opportunity to exchange thoughts with the member for Kamloops–North Thompson. It's always a thrill. Again, I regret that I won't have the same opportunity during estimates this year, as I did last year.

Of course, last year there was more cooperation in this place. I touched upon that earlier. There was agreement between House Leaders when there were going to be substantial changes to the standing orders. They chucked that out the door as well. That's what bullies will do.

I have to say I found it difficult to stand on the steps of the Legislature with some members of the government, to stand up in unison against bullying. It seems passing strange for some of the members on the other side of the House to be joining us. Nonetheless, I did it in the interest of decorum and sending a symbol and a message to children and others across British Columbia that we can work effectively together here when the cause is just and the cause is right.

Certainly, with respect to bullying, we on this side of the House and many, many members on that side of the House are of one mind. But not all of them.

I know you'll be interested in this. I was reading the number of hours that we spent in this place. The Minister of Employment and Investment in 1997…. I guess that would be the member from Quilchena now — 51 hours of debate of the estimates. What did we do in 2006? Oh my goodness, we did a lot less — 7 hours. From 51 to 7.

J. Horgan: My goodness, there's always an answer from the member for Kamloops–North Thompson. There's always an answer. I'm looking forward to his participation in the debate. I'm looking forward to him having to stand in this place and offer up something reasonable, something thoughtful. I'll wait in anticipation for something unique and innovative to come from his mouth, and I'm certain that will happen when he takes his place in this debate.

But for now, as you know, I have the floor, and I'm going to continue to talk to members, at least on this side of the House — thank you very much — about the importance of Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition.

J. Horgan: Thank you very much, my friend from Esquimalt-Metchosin. We are very close, so it's not a surprise that sometimes she's paying attention to what I say. It's a shame that I don't get the same level of respect from that side of the House.

I was saying earlier that one of the challenges as members of the official opposition, Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition, is that we're oftentimes put in a position of appearing to be negative.

I was saying to some of my friends in the corridor, those who help us keep peace and order in this place, that it's frustrating to hear the pundits say: "Well, gee, they're not being aggressive enough. They're not being hard enough on the government." So we dial it up a little bit, and then it's: "Oh, now they're being shrill." So the challenge….

J. Horgan: It's all a matter of tone. The challenge we have is finding that balance, not just for this place but for our soul. It's not easy to get up every day and say that the world sucks, although when the member for Kamloops–North Thompson talks about the 1990s, that's all we ever hear. It wasn't that way. We all know that.

Public policy is a river. It ebbs and flows. It has its ups and downs. It goes from side to side. People come; people go. You know what? The beauty of this place and the beauty of democracy is that when the 79 of us are all out of this place, there will be 79, 80, 85 or a hundred more people coming in to do the job that we're doing today. There will be some on that side of the House; there will be some on this side of the House. Our obligation, our responsibility, is to ensure that those that come after us have the same traditions, the same responsibilities and the same ability to hold government to account.

If we allow this erosion, as we've seen from the Government House Leader — whether it be with night sittings, whether it be not adhering to the fixed calendar by not having a fall session…. Those sorts of things

diminish our ability to do our job. It reduces our ability to pass on to the next generation of legislators those tools, those things that we use to good effect to make the government better.

The government is better today than it was in 2002 because we are here. Not for any other reason, but because they have to be on their toes. They have to be accountable. They know that.

In a weak moment they might actually even admit that having people on this side of the House making sure they're doing their homework, doing the research that we can with the minimal budgets at our disposal, is important. It's really important. It was important when you were on this side of the House, and it will be important when you return to this side of the House in 2009.

J. Horgan: Well, the only comfort I have in that statement is that the member for Kamloops–North Thompson will not be here in the next century. I think we can all rejoice in that thought.

J. Horgan: Well, exactly. I think my colleague the Energy Minister is absolutely right. None of us will be here in the next century. So what are we leaving? We talk about our kids, and we talk about our communities. But we have a higher responsibility, not just to our communities, but to this place.

It's an important place. It's a vital place to the discourse and democracy that we adhere to in B.C. and that the vast majority of our citizens cherish. This is not a trivial matter.

The government knows that. They recognize that amending the standing orders to reduce the ability of the opposition to hold the government to account is an important deal. They want to slide this through really quickly in the early part of the session. "No one will pay attention to it. We'll just do it in one day." The Government House Leader will stand up, and he'll talk about how we're going to protect this and we're going to protect that.

Where are we going to find 62 hours of debate in Committee A room? Where are we going to find that 62 hours? What ministry will not have the appropriate due diligence done to its estimates? Who falls off the list? Well, I can assure you that if I have anything to say about it, it won't be the Minister of Mines because I'm going to want to spend as much time as possible with him.

But there are others. I talked about the Attorney General and how the number of hours in 2007 was 1/7 of what it was in 1995. That's a lot of time on your feet, and I know that the minister wouldn't want to do that all the time.

J. Horgan: Quality time. The Minister of Advanced Education is probably right. It would have been quality time if we'd had the opportunity. But we go through the Minister of Forests. On average, through the 1990s, there were 24-25 hours of debate on those estimates. What did we do in 2006? It was 15 hours.

Now, as I said earlier, for those who have ministers who stand and pontificate rather than stand and give an answer, that can be a long, long time. It's painful for the minister. It's certainly painful for the minister's staff, having had to sit beside a minister during estimates when I was working in government. It's not fun. I know that every ministry has a team working right now, preparing for the estimates debate. It's the fundamental issue for most of the public servants that work for us here in this province.

We're putting all that effort into defending the budgets. We've got billions of dollars at play here. This isn't a little amount of money. It's lots of money. It's lots of people's lives. It's all of our communities. Why in the world would we want to reduce the amount of time we have to ask pointed questions? It's not just us today, but you members on that side in 2009 when you're asking us the questions as opposition members.

The Premier can come in here tomorrow and say, "We're going to devote two hours to question period," and it will do nothing — nothing — to advance public policy in this province. If the Premier came in here tomorrow and said, "We're going to extend the sitting to June 30," that would be a step in the right direction. That would be an opportunity that…. [Applause.]

If you're going to shrink the amount of time we're spending each day, at a minimum you should start expanding the number of days we spend here. Let's not let the Senate beat us again this year.

D. Routley: Thanks to my colleagues, who are, in fact, eating up some of the minimal time that is left to debate the policies of this government. I do appreciate their support, although I get to speak after the always entertaining member for Malahat–Juan de Fuca.

This is a debate that is about simply changing a standing order. Viewed simply, it might not be of great concern to British Columbians, unless they're reminded by the official opposition of just how important this is. We saw a government that campaigned on open governance, that campaigned on its commitment not to reduce the access of the people to scrutinize the government. All that was then. All this is now.

Now we see a government that flees from that scrutiny, a government that changes rules for its own convenience, a government that sets about peeling

away at the layers of democracy, and a government that sees this place and democracy very simply as an obstacle to an agenda.

This corporate government that wants to dispense with the discomfort of scrutiny needs to be faced. This corporate government wants to impose from the head office, from a CEO Premier that wants no complaints from the shop floor.

In fact, there's a litany of arrogances that have been displayed by the government when it comes to their handling of democratic process. They cancelled the fall session in 2006. They refused "official opposition" to the opposition party of the time in 2001. They shortened the fall session, eliminating evening sittings.

They are taking away our ability to bring into question their impact on the state of this province and on our forestry industry — our number one industry, which on the coast of this province is in crisis; in the interior, in even deeper crisis, with an outlook that is extremely gloomy — and policies that have failed communities.

This green Premier and green government will refuse to be scrutinized for its environmental policies, for their history of abolishing the Environment Ministry and for their history of reducing the standards and regulations in our forests, which has led to the deaths of workers and damage to our environment.

They will deny us the opportunity to petition on behalf of our constituents for better health care services, while all around this province the waiting lists grow and seniors are left without proper care. They will avoid the scrutiny of their IPP deals, which give away the wealth of this province to their friends. They will avoid the scrutiny of communities ill-affected by those deals, and they will avoid the scrutiny of first nations left out of that equation.

They will avoid our scrutiny of their education funding policies, which are leading to the closure of schools, the denial of service and the cutting of programs. They will deny us the opportunity to scrutinize their record when it comes to public safety — their record of inaction and inability to manage the interests of British Columbians. They will avoid scrutiny of their impacts on worker safety throughout this province.

They will avoid having this labelled carbon tax pulled apart. They will avoid the convention centre and Olympic cost overruns. They will avoid facing the reality of homelessness and poverty in this province. They will avoid their failure to provide social housing in this province. They will do everything they can to avoid being called to the carpet in this chamber for the removal of public oversight over TFL lands on Vancouver Island.

Actions speak louder than words. The government campaigned on words like "openness" — open democracy, open cabinet meetings. The government in the past would open debate, and the opposition would close it, but this arrogant government is not satisfied to face that scrutiny, not satisfied to give that power to the people. Their list of arrogances, when it comes to democracy, is long. I've listed some of them, but look at TransLink. Look at the steps that have been taken to remove democratic participation in and oversight of TransLink and transit planning in the lower mainland of B.C.

Bill 75, the Significant Project Streamlining Act, was another arrogance in the pocket of the government. Bill 29, which so poorly affected the lives of health care workers, was another arrogance and another misdeed by a government that has done nothing but break promises and fail the people of British Columbia.

They set about disrespecting nearly 800 years of development of this beautiful process that we call democracy. They are offended by being challenged. They have no respect for this parliament or our democracy.

In specifics, the comparison of the number of hours spent in estimates debate in different provinces paints a very poor picture for British Columbians. In British Columbia last year we had 78 hours of estimates debate. In New Brunswick there were 114 hours of debate. In Ontario there were 98 hours of debate. In the National Assembly of Quebec there were 62 hours; in the Legislative Assembly of Saskatchewan, 63. The House of Commons, 115 hours; the Senate, 76.

In fact, in the last three years the Senate has sat an accumulated total of approximately 47 more days than this House — the Senate. What a comparison. I'm sure British Columbians are proud to know that their British Columbian parliament is sitting for fewer hours than our Senate.

Let's look back to the '90s and ask which province's legislature sat for the most hours. Was it Ontario? Was it Quebec? No, it was British Columbia. As pointed out by the member for Malahat–Juan de Fuca, ten years ago 438 hours were consumed by estimates debate, compared to 78. This is something that's sad, and I think that British Columbians should regret this day as we do, as we defend their right to scrutinize their own government.

Noting the hour, I reserve my right to speak again and move adjournment of debate.

Hansard Services publishes transcripts both in print and on the Internet.
Chamber debates are broadcast on television and webcast on the Internet.
Question Period podcasts are available on the Internet.