Hansard — Thursday, March 6, 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		10283

Introduction and First Reading of Bills		10284
	Electoral Reform Referendum 2009 Act (Bill 6)
	Hon. W. Oppal

Statements (Standing Order 25B)		10284
	Pharmacists
	R. Hawes
	International Women's Day
	C. James
	Scandinavian cultural events
	R. Lee
	Jordan Emmett
	M. Karagianis
	Engineering competition finalists in Sea to Sky area
	R. Sultan
	Ridge Meadows Chamber of Commerce
	M. Sather

Oral Questions		10286
	Government action on farmworker safety
	C. James
	Hon. O. Ilich
	R. Chouhan
	Hon. W. Oppal
	Employment standards for farmworkers
	C. Puchmayr
	Hon. O. Ilich
	Worker death inquests
	C. Puchmayr
	Hon. O. Ilich
	Employment standards for farmworkers
	C. Evans
	Hon. P. Bell
	Government policy on damage deposits
	D. Chudnovsky
	Hon. C. Richmond
	J. Kwan
	Compensation for former Woodlands School residents
	N. Simons
	Hon. W. Oppal
	B.C. Place roof replacement
	N. Macdonald
	Hon. S. Hagen
	M. Farnworth
	Fallowing of salmon farms in Broughton Archipelago
	S. Fraser
	Hon. P. Bell

Motions on Notice		10291
	Committee of Supply to sit in two sections (Motion 37) (continued)
	N. Macdonald
	R. Cantelon
	N. Simons
	On the amendment
	N. Simons
	Hon. M. de Jong
	C. Wyse
	D. Chudnovsky
	M. Sather
	S. Simpson
	M. Karagianis
	Hon. C. Richmond

Hon. R. Neufeld: As you know, Mr. Speaker, not very often do I get to introduce anyone into the House.

Hon. R. Neufeld: I have lots of friends, and there are 39 of them in the precinct today — the band from school district 60. They're accompanied by some parents, some teachers, their teacher Joan Montgomery and Todd Koponyas. They are actually participating in BandFest, hosted by the University of Victoria. They came down here by bus and are returning next Sunday by bus. They're having a great time, so let's make them very welcome.

M. Sather: Iain Reeve is here with us today, I believe. Iain has been helping us in an intern capacity a considerable extent with education and health issues and the like. They do great work for both sides of the House, the interns, and I certainly want the House to welcome Iain.

Hon. S. Bond: We are delighted to be joined by a number of women from the B.C. Liberal Women's Commission. We are very happy that they're meeting with us today. I'd love all of my colleagues to make them welcome.

We have Margaret Page, Jean Brown, Judy Fraser, Trudy Hubbard and Pamela Gardner. And a very special welcome back to this place to someone who was an important part of our team — a member of the Legislature, actually — Gillian Trumper. Please join me in making them all very welcome.

C. Trevena: I have great pleasure this afternoon in introducing a group of grade 5 and 6 students from Sandowne Elementary in Campbell River. They're here to observe question period, and they're here with their teacher, Dan Wallis.

D. Hayer: We have some very special guests from Simon Fraser University. The first one is Michael Stevenson, president of Simon Fraser University, who was also with us in India on the Premier's trade mission there.

We also have Warren Gill, vice-president of external relations; Joanne Curry, executive director of the Surrey campus of SFU; and Wilf Hurd, director of government relations, who is also a past MLA here. Would the House please make them very welcome.

M. Karagianis: I would like to join with my colleague from North Island in welcoming the Sandowne Elementary School. Among those students is my granddaughter Payton Fahey, and I would ask the House to please give her a special welcome here.

Hon. G. Abbott: Earlier today I and a number of members had the opportunity of meeting with the B.C. Pharmacy Association. In the gallery today from the B.C. Pharmacy Association are the CEO, Marnie Mitchell; the vice-president of the association, Ken Foreman; Marshall Moleschi, cross-country skier extraordinaire, now registrar of the College of Pharmacists of B.C.; and Susan Ogilvie, who is director of communications for the B.C. Pharmacy Association. I ask the House to make them all welcome.

Also in the gallery today — unrelated to the Pharmacy Association but related to me, happily — is my son Brant Abbott, who is a student at the University of Victoria just completing his master's degree in economics. I'd like the House to make him welcome as well.

Hon. K. Krueger: Three very special people to introduce to the House today. I'm sure every member is familiar with the Historica Foundation of Canada and the wonderful Historica Heritage Fairs which happen across the country now and certainly around our province.

We have with us today Becky Burns, who is the national manager of Historica Fairs — based in Vancouver and grew up in Abbotsford — and also Maureen Hove, who just retired from a long career in the K-to-12 system as a principal in Kamloops, and her husband Hoberly Hove, who I first met when I was in grade 8 and he was a student teacher. Our lives have interconnected ever since.

Hoberly was one of the people who brought on a Kamloops Historica Fair in 1995. Well, 1995 wasn't that long ago, but there were five Historica Fairs in all of Canada that year, and one of them was in Kamloops. As I said, Hoberly helped organize it.

This year there are 300,000 students across Canada involved in Historica Fairs — 10,000 volunteers making it happen. It's grown to just a tremendous celebration of our history and a tremendous educational tool across the country.

This morning the Minister of Tourism, Sport and the Arts launched the national Historica Fair, which will happen July 12 of this year in Victoria. That will be a BC150 Years event that we'll all be very proud of.

The national fair has 15 students from each province exhibiting and five from each territory, for a total of 165. Also, on May 31 the provincial fair happens in Kamloops, B.C. — a hundred students, including 20 from band-organized and -run first nations schools.

I hope everybody has the time, or finds it, to attend the fairs, because these students pour their hearts and souls into their presentations. It's just amazing. One year Nancy Greene-Raine was the subject of one student's presentation in Kamloops. The student had her medal from the Olympics, had her whole history — all these personal, really important artifacts entrusted to her. It's just a wonderful thing, the way the students pour themselves into these fairs.

I'd like the House to join me, please, in making these guests very, very welcome and congratulating them.

Hon. W. Oppal presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Electoral Reform Referendum 2009 Act.

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

Hon. W. Oppal: I am pleased to introduce Bill 6, the Electoral Reform Referendum 2009 Act. This bill provides the legislative framework for the referendum on the single transferable vote electoral system, or STV, which will be held in May 2009 in conjunction with the provincial general election.

This bill also implements our commitment to provide public funding for the "yes" and "no" groups. In other respects, the referendum provided for by this bill will be similar to the previous referendum on this question that was held in 2005.

The subject of the referendum will be the STV system that was proposed by the Citizens' Assembly on Electoral Reform in December 2004. The referendum will be provincewide. Anyone who will be eligible to vote in the provincial election will be entitled to vote on this question as well.

The threshold for success will be the same — at least a 60 percent popular vote and a majority vote of at least 60 percent of the province's electoral districts.

A total of $1 million in public funding will be made available to registered proponent and opponent groups for the purpose of stimulating public debate and education about the referendum. The bill provides for these funds to be accessed through a process established by the Chief Electoral Officer. Beginning in 2009, each side will have access to a maximum of $500,000.

Although it's a matter outside the bill, the government is also committing itself to holding a debate in the Legislative Assembly about the referendum question before that question is approved.

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

Bill 6, Electoral Reform Referendum 2009 Act, introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

R. Hawes: Pharmacists are arguably the most underutilized and yet most accessible of our medical professionals. They're the leading experts on medications, and they're among the most trusted of all health professionals. I'm sure most of us have relied on our neighbourhood pharmacist at one time or another for advice on everything from battling a cold to taking prescription medications or, in some people's cases, smoking cessation advice.

As we struggle through skyrocketing health care costs, an aging population and an ever-increasing array of expensive new medications, the role of the pharmacist as medical consultant becomes more and more critical. Given the current shortages of medical doctors, the expanded role of the pharmacist as medicinal expert simply makes sense. The plan to allow pharmacists to renew routine prescriptions, for example, must be viewed as a very positive step.

As we engage in pandemic control planning, surely we must consider the role a pharmacist must play. In a pandemic our doctors and nurses will be fully engaged in tending to the sick. Pharmacists are a natural for immunizing all others against becoming sick. The ability to deliver immunizations should form part of any future consideration of an expanded scope of practice for pharmacists.

Additionally, many of our pharmacists are part of the baby boom generation. As they move through retirement age, we'll face a shortage of these critical health care professionals. It's heartening to know that UBC is currently working on a plan to submit to the Ministry of Advanced Education to double pharmacy seats at the university. These new graduates are needed to meet tomorrow's needs.

This is Pharmacist Awareness Week in B.C., and all of us should take a moment to acknowledge the vital role these trusted and dedicated professionals play in keeping all of us healthy.

C. James: Today I rise to recognize International Women's Day coming up this Saturday. On March 8 thousands of events will take place across the globe to celebrate women and their achievements. But it will also be a reminder of the many struggles women still face around the world.

This year's international theme is "Shaping Progress." It's a chance to reflect on how far we've come but also how far we still have to go to achieve true equality. This week brings a reminder of that work ahead to achieve that equality.

This week also marks the one-year anniversary of the tragic farmworkers' accident that claimed the lives of three women. Today we remember Sarabjit Kaur Sidhu, Amarjit Kaur Bal and Sukhwinder Kaur Punia.

Last year I met with those families and the other farmworkers, and they spoke eloquently about the difficult choices they face every day — the choice between feeding their family or safety.

The families of the three women killed want to see action so their loss can have some meaning. They want to ensure that we all remember the women and their lives and that their legacy will help other workers across this province.

Since this International Women's Day is about shaping progress, we all need to work together to make those positive changes that will protect women in every aspect of their lives, including the workplace.

R. Lee: Last Saturday I had the opportunity to attend the opening reception of the 2008 Nordic Art and Photography show and sale in my riding.

Hosted by the Scandinavian Cultural Society at the Scandinavian Community Centre, this event showcased the artwork of members of the community who are of Nordic descent or who may work with a Nordic theme. It also gave the artists the opportunity to sell their works.

I've had the honour to attend many wonderful events organized by the Scandinavian Cultural Society. I would like to thank the society president, Poul Erik Rasmussen, and event organizers Carolyn Thauberger, Sonja Bush and Lillian Svendsen for their work on this great event and for inviting me to participate in the opening reception.

The next exhibit, called "Nordic Images — Early Finnish Settlements in B.C.," takes place at the centre on March 29 and 30. Showcasing photographs and displays of early Finnish immigrants to British Columbia, this exhibit conveys their achievements and contributions towards building British Columbia.

Finnish immigrants have been coming to British Columbia since the early 1800s. The Finnish Heritage Society has organized this exhibit with the support of the Scandinavian Cultural Society to share their history in British Columbia. This year's Scandinavian Midsummer Festival will take place from June 20 to 22. Thousands of people will come to celebrate the traditions and festivities of Danish, Finnish, Norwegian, Swedish and Icelandic cultures.

As this year marks the 150th anniversary of our province, this is a fitting tribute to those who have helped make this province the best place on earth. I encourage everyone in Burnaby, as well as my fellow members, to see these exhibits and participate in the activities at the Scandinavian Cultural Centre to learn about the rich culture and heritage of Scandinavian British Columbians.

M. Karagianis: Jordan Emmett is a ten-year-old Cub Scout who goes to Savory Elementary School in my community. Last April he was in the playground with his teaching assistant, Jude Park. Suddenly Jude collapsed. While lying on the ground, she called for help, and Jordan remembered what he had learned at Cubs. He ran into the school and summoned help, just like he had learned in his first-aid lesson at Cubs two days earlier. Jude Park is now doing quite fine as a result.

It didn't take long for word of Jordan's heroism to spread. On February 22 Jordan was presented with the Award for Meritorious Conduct on behalf of Scouts Canada and the Fifth Juan de Fuca Cub Pack at the Langford Royal Canadian Legion.

The Goldstream News Gazette carried the story and quoted Paul Machek, group commissioner for the Juan de Fuca Scouts, as saying that Jordan is the first child he's ever seen in this area be given this award.

What's even more remarkable is that Jordan has fetal alcohol spectrum disorder, FASD. His mother Amy Emmett and his father Bob Emmett are justifiably proud of their son. Jordan has come a long way, and for him to retain what he learned at Cubs and put it into real-life practice is a huge feat, said his mother Amy.

Children born with FASD can experience physical, mental, behavioral and learning disabilities. Jordan began living with the Emmetts when he was four years old. At that time, a physiologist told them not to bother sending Jordan to school because he would not be able to function in such an environment. But last April, Jordan Emmett proved that the physiologist was wrong.

Now Jordan wants to be a cadet and is talking about serving in the army. I hope the members will join me today in congratulating young Jordan Emmett for his quick-thinking actions and what may have been a life-saving act on his part.

R. Sultan: Fulfilling a secret ambition, I recently became a judge. I joined other members of the Association of Professional Engineers in evaluating projects performed by engineers of the Sea to Sky branch.

First finalist in the competition was Fraser River flood modelling by Northwest Hydraulic Consultants and senior engineer Monica Mannerstrom. Last year very high snowpacks prompted the Ministry of Environment to ask her to move into real time. NHC predicted water levels at 70 locations from Hope all the way down to Steveston, contributing greatly to public safety.

Second finalist was Stantec's Olympic sliding centre at Whistler. You can now drive your bobsled down 1,700 metres of track at 150 kilometres an hour, experiencing five Gs on 17 hairpin turns. As you do, pray for the accuracy of the engineering calculations of the curve geometry. Laurenz Kosichek explained that tourists are now welcome, but he recommends starting halfway down the track.

Third finalist was Hatch Mott McDonald Sea to Sky highway designs constructed by Peter Kiewit Sons, in the riding of my colleague from West Vancouver–Garibaldi. Engineer Shaun Valdevinos explained how

they attached a four-lane highway to a cliffside running all the way from West Vancouver to Squamish. With tight budgets and even tighter deadlines, unexpected faulted rocks necessitated redesign on the fly successfully.

So judges, which was it to be — Northwest, Stantec or Hatch? Any one of them could have been the winner. Please congratulate Monica Mannerstrom and Northwest Hydraulics for helping keep the Fraser Valley dry.

M. Sather: The Ridge Meadows Chamber of Commerce has been serving our community for 98 years. Under the guidance of the chamber's new executive director, Dean Barbour, the chamber is currently engaged in repositioning itself as the premier business resource serving both Maple Ridge and Pitt Meadows.

Dean is a hometown boy. He graduated from Maple Ridge Senior Secondary, and he recently returned to our community after being away for ten years.

"Brand-new chamber, brand-new look, brand-new energy and ideology, brand-new everything," Dean says. "It's about creating opportunity and becoming a resource from bridge to bridge. I want to revitalize and shake up the chamber," he told me with great enthusiasm in our recent meeting.

Coinciding with the launch of the new-look chamber website, the Vision 2008 campaign is underway. This campaign is designed to create a local buzz and declare to the community and British Columbia that Maple Ridge and Pitt Meadows support the entrepreneurial spirit and small business.

Letting the community know what the chamber stands for and what services they provide is important to Dean. He plans to reposition the chamber by setting ten goals for the coming year, with such events as the business distinction awards, free weekly orientation sessions for startup businesses, development workshops, monthly networking events, a golf tournament and chamberfest, where all will be welcome to a community barbecue and concert.

Dean has his to-do list, and he wants everyone to get involved. He wants to make a difference. Dean and the chamber are proactively planning for the future of Maple Ridge and Pitt Meadows. By working with and bringing together business, community stakeholders and all levels of government, the chamber is demonstrating a true commitment to our community.

C. James: On March 7, 2007, a tragic accident killed three women when a van transporting seven farmworkers overturned on Highway 1. Sarabjit Kaur Sidhu, Amarjit Kaur Bal and Sukhwinder Kaur Punia lost their lives, and several more people were injured. After the tragedy the families worked and submitted a report to the Minister of Labour. That report made several critical recommendations to restore rights and improve safety for farmworkers, recommendations to prevent similar tragedies.

This government has not yet acted on several of those recommendations, like the regulatory changes around 15-seat vans. My question is to the Minister of Labour. Why are the families still waiting? Why hasn't she fully enacted the recommendations to help protect farmworkers in our province?

Hon. O. Ilich: This was indeed a very tragic event, and we shouldn't be playing politics with such a tragic event, actually.

But I can tell the members opposite and I can tell everybody in the House that we have enacted a number of things. I actually laid out quite a plan in May of 2007. We've acted on all of the things we have talked about with the exception of the throne speech commitment we made — that we will be introducing some legislation into the House that will go even further. If the members wanted to take a look at the ministry website, there's a full report there on all of the things that we have enacted.

C. James: I met with those families, who lost their family members in that accident. I committed to them that we would continue raising these issues in the Legislature, not to play politics but to make sure something was learned from this tragic accident.

In 2003, if we take a look at this government's record, their record was inaction, cuts and reckless deregulation. There was a previous accident in 2003. The coroner's service pleaded with the Liberals to act, but they didn't listen. Things didn't change. There were recommendations then that could have actually prevented some of the accidents, and today we're still waiting for more recommendations to be fulfilled.

My question is again to the Minister of Labour. Will she recommend amending the regulations and requirements around the use of 15-seat vans to protect workers in this province?

Hon. O. Ilich: Actually, I'd just like to go over the things that we did do. We introduced mandatory seatbelts for all passengers. Absolutely everybody that is in a van is going to have a seatbelt. We immediately created the interagency committee, which was the committee involved with the commercial vehicle inspection branch in conjunction with WorkSafe B.C., the Fraser Valley RCMP, the Delta police and the Abbotsford police.

They completed a number of inspection blitzes, which will continue in the upcoming farm season. Again, for anybody who is interested, that is on our website; 522 vehicles were inspected, $125,000 in fines were handed out, and 333 tickets and/or contraventions were issued.

We hired two additional employment standards branch officers who were dedicated to the agricultural

sector. WorkSafe B.C. has hired six additional inspectors committed to the agricultural industry. Mandatory penalties for non-compliance with provincial employment standards were beefed up.

C. James: It's been a full year since this tragedy. Yes, inspections have gone up, as the minister says, but what do each of those inspections find? More and more and more problems. Improper seats. Improper seatbelts. Licensing problems. Mechanical deficiencies. And no pre-shift inspections — no inspections before people get into the vans.

Last year the families asked for a full review of the vehicle inspection system by the interagency farmworker team. They're still waiting for that full review.

Again, to the Minister of Labour: more inspections will only help if they lead to change, and we don't see that happening. Will the minister commit today to a full review of the vehicle inspection and enforcement process?

Hon. O. Ilich: Again, if the members opposite had bothered to check the website of the Ministry of Labour, they would have noticed that on February 6, 2008, there was a meeting of the interagency committee. They met to talk about things that they could do proactively.

I can tell you that 40 people from the various agencies were there, and they went through training. Farm labour contractors will have the opportunity to participate in a voluntary pre-season vehicle inspection. Tentative dates are April 7 and 8 and May 15 and 16 in Delta, and April 9 and 10 and May 12 and 13 in Abbotsford. These are pre-season vehicle inspections which will enable farm labour contractors to be informed about the regulatory changes and also to have their vehicles inspected.

R. Chouhan: A year after three farmworkers were killed in that tragic accident, the families and the community are still waiting to have a coroner's inquest. The Crown has not acted on charges even though the RCMP has made recommendations many, many months ago. Why are farmworkers being treated like second-class citizens?

My question is to the Minister of Labour. When will she act to protect farmworkers, when will the charges be laid, and when will we have the coroner's inquest?

Hon. W. Oppal: I will inform the House that charges have been laid. They were laid yesterday. There are four counts under the Motor Vehicle Act against the driver and four counts under the Motor Vehicle Act against the registered owner, the corporate defendant that owns the vehicle.

C. Puchmayr: It's been a full year, of course, since that horrific crash that killed three women and injured 14 others. It's been even longer since farmworkers were stripped of many of their rights under the Employment Standards Act. When is the minister going to restore those rights to the farmworkers that were stripped by this government?

Hon. O. Ilich: I thank the member for his question. I think the member is confused with safety and employment standards. The Employment Standards Act makes sure that employees are paid on time and that they are treated fairly as far as their wages go, and their hours of work.

To that comment, I'd like to say that our Employment Standards Act includes farmworkers, something that Manitoba and Saskatchewan until recently did not do. Saskatchewan still doesn't. But in commenting on Manitoba's recent decision to include farmworkers in their Employment Standards Act, Stan Raper, the national coordinator for the United Food and Commercial Workers Union, said: "This will bring Manitoba to the top of the pile among provinces — second, maybe, to British Columbia."

C. Puchmayr: This government has not only failed farmworkers; all workers in this province today are feeling the chilling effects of deregulation by this government. There have been numerous inquests into worker deaths — into fallers, into paramedics, into logging truck drivers. All of the inquests, along with the recommendations from the Auditor General, point the finger at deregulation by this government.

Will the minister commit in this House today that she will take action on all of the outstanding inquest matters and the matters that were highlighted by the Auditor General?

Hon. O. Ilich: We take worker safety very seriously in the province. We in fact asked the Auditor General to do that report. We sponsored that. We paid for that, along with the Minister of Forests and Range. We asked him to take a look at what we were currently doing and what we could be doing better. We have taken a look at the Gramlich inquiry, we've taken a look at the other inquiry, and we're acting on all of the recommendations of the Auditor General's report.

C. Evans: My question is also about farmworkers, although the word "farmworkers" is a bit of a misnomer. I wanted to ask about people who work in greenhouses in Delta. You might see the idea of a farm-

worker as a person who works outside, which is not the case. You might see it as primarily men, and that's not the case. You might call them seasonal workers, but in the greenhouse industry, they no longer go home. There are no seasons. You might call them migrant workers, except they stay for two years. We are creating an anomaly in the greenhouse industry, where workers are signed on, come here for two years, do not have the rights of Canadians, don't immigrate, don't bring their families and then are sent home.

In Delta, greenhouse workers are applying for up to 148 and, I think, even 300 workers on a farm. The town of Delta is trying to limit the number of greenhouse workers on a farm to a small village of 42. It's our understanding that the Ministry of Agriculture desires a larger number.

My question is: what is the number of underpaid, unregulated workers that the Ministry of Agriculture desires to allow on a single farm in Delta at any given time?

Hon. P. Bell: I'm not sure what to even begin to make of that question. It was so ridiculous in its length and description.

The average wage in the greenhouse sector is over $14 an hour. It's one of the highest paid positions in agriculture. Those workers have an opportunity of working 11 months of the year. They're good, family-supporting jobs. In fact, we're finding it's really challenging to recruit people for those positions because the unemployment rate in B.C. is at the lowest it has ever been.

We're working with a very successful program that brings workers up from Mexico. The first year that we ran the program there were about 20 workers that came to British Columbia. The second year there were 200; last year there were 2,000. We're proud of that program. It works for our agriculture industry, and we're going to continue to support it.

C. Evans: I'm really sorry that my last question was too confusing. The subject is really difficult to fathom, given that the minister refers to these people as farmworkers, and they don't actually work outside.

Actually, it seems to me that we are importing the living systems of the maquiladora, only we don't, as the government of Mexico does, guarantee these people to be citizens. We are saying that they will live in a 10-by-8 area for two years. That's less space than Conrad Black now gets in his cell. The minister is likely to okay putting 300 workers on what…. No British Columbian can do that for his family on farmland.

I want the question to be very specific. What is the square footage of space that the ministry is going to allow these workers to live in, and how many people on a farm will he impose on the town of Delta in their bylaw?

Hon. P. Bell: Clearly, the member hasn't done his research. We're seeing a pretty common thread today, of members who haven't done their research, from the opposite side.

There's a very high set of standards specific to the Mexican farmworker program as they come into British Columbia. They are not allowed to stay here forever. In fact, there are specific return periods when they have to go back. It's a great relationship with the Mexican government. It's what allows our agricultural industry to be successful here, particularly the greenhouse industry.

I'm not sure what this member doesn't get about an unemployment rate that has historic lows. People are out there today. They have a wide variety of choices. All the member has to do is turn on the television and find out that they're looking for pickers out in the Saanich Peninsula. Today they're looking for a hundred pickers. Maybe that's what the member should be going and looking at.

D. Chudnovsky: The Ministry of Employment and Income Assistance has a policy that arbitrarily limits damage deposits available to homeless people, and that leaves them out in the cold. Last night at a forum on homelessness in Vancouver the member for Vancouver-Burrard said that he wasn't aware of the policy. He agreed with people in the room that it contributes to homelessness and said that it had to be fixed.

Does the minister agree with the member for Vancouver-Burrard that this policy has to be fixed, and what will he do to fix it?

Hon. C. Richmond: We have a policy on damage deposits for all of our clients which we administer and which we pay sometimes, when they have damaged suites. We allow them an indiscretion or two, but if the client is habitually damaging suites and moving on, there comes a point when we have to say that we will not allow damage deposits any further.

D. Chudnovsky: Does the minister believe that it's acceptable, in the midst of a homelessness crisis in British Columbia, that even one person in our province hasn't got the availability of a place to live in because they don't have a damage deposit?

Hon. C. Richmond: Of course not. We have a successful outreach program where we reach out to the type of people you're talking about, people who aren't even aware of the programs that are available to them. We take them in, we give them an identity, a piece of identification that they don't have. If they're for their first time into a home, we will supply the damage deposit for them. But it doesn't go on forever.

J. Kwan: On January 31 Darrell Mickasko, a homeless man, was burned to death trying to stay warm in

sub-zero temperatures just outside of Lookout, three blocks away from Lookout, a shelter for the homeless that was full that evening.

Can the Minister of Employment and Income Assistance advise this House if Darrell Mickasko was made homeless because of the government's ministry policy on damage deposits? In other words, was he denied a damage deposit and, as a result, ended up homeless in the streets of Vancouver?

Hon. C. Richmond: I can't answer that specific question on whether he was refused a damage deposit. I do not know, but I'll take the question on notice and bring back an answer to the House.

N. Simons: Yesterday we learned that the survivors of Woodlands abuses are going to be left out in the cold once again. The Attorney General said specifically that it's easier said than done, when providing support to them with someone else's money.

This government offers subsidies to the oil and gas business and to the banks. These are survivors of systemic abuse in an institution run by this province. When will the Minister of Attorney General stand up, show some leadership, show some moral fortitude and do what's right for these victims of systemic abuse?

Hon. W. Oppal: We are, of course, most sympathetic and indeed empathetic to those persons who suffered abuse for a number of decades at Woodlands. We're well aware of what has taken place. This issue, this problem, has been with this province for about two to three decades, where we've been made aware of what took place at Woodlands.

I want to assure the member that the government is interested and wants to negotiate a settlement. We've been involved in settlement discussions with the victims and their lawyers, but there have been a number of procedural difficulties that have taken place here, not the least of which involved a number of law firms that have been competing with one another as to who is going to act for whom.

I had one of the applications before me when I was in the Supreme Court, where two law firms were competing for the right to act for the victims in a class action lawsuit. What's happened is that these procedural difficulties have been making their way through the courts, and the province stands ready to negotiate a fair settlement with the victims.

N. Simons: The whole point is that this should not be something that victims of this systemic abuse are forced to relive in the courts. What they're asking for, and what most British Columbians agree they should get, is an out-of-court settlement.

These aren't people who necessarily have the communication skills to be able to testify in court. These are people who of anyone in our province are vulnerable. They are living in poverty, and they need our assistance.

I would like to see the minister stand up today and say that they are going to actively pursue compensation for the victims of Woodlands and institutional abuse.

Hon. W. Oppal: I think, with the greatest of respect, that the member has missed the point of what I said, and that is that the province stands by and wishes to negotiate with the people, with the victims. The difficulty here is most of them have lawyers, and if they have lawyers, we have to then negotiate with the lawyers. We can't go behind the lawyers' backs and negotiate. It's not that simple. It's a very complex problem.

I can tell you that the province has been most interested in settling the matter. The matter has been known for some decades. I should point out that this came to light in the 1980s and the '90s.

Hon. W. Oppal: Yes, and in the 1990s the government did nothing except appoint a commission.

N. Macdonald: Two years ago the opposition asked the Minister of Tourism if the roof on B.C. Place was going to be fine for the signature event of the 2010 Olympics. We were assured that it would be fine, that no replacement was necessary. Now, 700 days out, we're told that the roof has to be replaced. We don't know the cost. We don't know the type of roof. We don't know how it's going to be paid for.

Why has this government been so negligent that we are forced to do a rush job on the roof for B.C. Place?

Hon. S. Hagen: We are in the middle of a process. The government has made a decision to keep B.C. Place. The government has made a decision to replace the roof.

David Podmore, who has decades of large-scale construction experience, is currently looking at the number of roof options. When those options come to government, we will make the decision and move forward.

N. Macdonald: We know from the convention centre expansion project fiasco that when you set that artificial deadline of the Olympics, the costs go through the roof. We know that. We know from the chair of PavCo that having only 700 days will limit options. We know that. We also know that assurances from this minister to date have counted for nothing.

The question is: who in government will be held responsible for the clear government negligence in dealing with this issue?

Hon. S. Hagen: This is good news for British Columbia. It's good news for the world.

Just think about this. When those 60,000 people come here for the opening ceremonies of the 2010 Olympics, they will be sitting in B.C. Place Stadium, hopefully with a new roof. If we find that we can't put the new roof on before the 2010 opening ceremonies, we won't do it until afterwards, but we're hoping that we can do it beforehand.

M. Farnworth: Well, given the government's and this minister's record on convention centre cost overruns….

M. Farnworth: Once again, the member for Kamloops–North Thompson reminds me of the old maritime saying: it's an empty vessel that makes the most noise.

Given this minister's record on convention centre cost overruns, please put us down as being a little bit skeptical on his answer. Given the fact that we don't know whether or not the new roof will be an inflatable roof, will he at least commit to this House that the costs for the new roof will not be inflated and will stay on budget?

Hon. S. Hagen: Once the government makes a decision on which type of roof to go for, PavCo will go out to tender for a fixed-price contract. Not only will we hold the contractors to that fixed-price contract, but the cost of the new roof will be covered through the development of the vacant lot surrounding.

M. Farnworth: Can the minister tell the House whether or not the costs will be budgeted to the cost of the Olympics, seeing as that's what the intention of the new roof is — to have it in place by the Olympics. Or will this just be shuffled off to another side account of the accounts?

Hon. S. Hagen: Although the member opposite lives in the lower mainland, he may not be aware of the usage at B.C. Place. The ten top events last year were the B.C. Lions regular season, 317,000 fans; the Vancouver International Auto Show, 111,000 fans; the Vancouver Sun Run, 75,000 fans; the B.C. Home and Garden Show, 60,000 fans. I won't take up the time to go through them all, but the last one I want to mention is the CFL western final, 55,000 fans.

S. Fraser: Peer-reviewed science shows that the pink salmon smolts, which are currently migrating through the fish farms of the Broughton Archipelago, are at risk of extinction.

Instead of doing the right thing, the minister is not going to allow for fallowing. He has decided, instead, to choose dumping higher quantities of neurotoxins into the ocean to deal with the sea lice that are putting these pink salmon at risk. I don't know if the minister has spoken with the prawn advisory council, but I certainly have, and I've talked to Guy Johnson. The minister would learn that SLICE — that's the innocuous-sounding toxin of choice — is a deadly neurotoxin that poisons crustaceans, prawns and shrimp. The label on the bottle of SLICE poison actually says that it shouldn't be used even in the marine environment.

To the minister: does the minister actually expect us to believe that this represents the best air and water quality and fisheries management, bar none? And will he allow and order the fallowing of these farms to protect the marine environment and our pink salmon?

Hon. P. Bell: The member opposite talks about a very important issue, and that is the healthy runs of wild salmon up and down our coast of British Columbia. There is no one that cares more about that than this government. We're committed….

Hon. P. Bell: We're absolutely committed to making sure we have an aquaculture plan for British Columbia that is done in conjunction with the first nations….

Hon. P. Bell: We're absolutely committed to making sure that we have an aquaculture plan built in conjunction with coastal first nations. We've been in discussions with those first nations over the last number of months. We do believe that there's a….

Hon. P. Bell: Well, Mr. Speaker, it is late Thursday afternoon, and I know the members opposite are dying to get back to their constituencies.

If the members would listen for just a second, perhaps they would consider that there is a very real option for a joint plan developed by the province of British Columbia, the first nations of British Columbia that will speak to the long-term health of wild salmon.

C. Trevena: Earlier, I introduced a group of students from Sandowne Elementary in Campbell River, grades 5 and 6 students. I understand the group is very large — there are about 60 students in all — so they've come in two groups. Now we have the second group in the gallery, and I'd like the House to make them feel very welcome as well.

M. Karagianis: If the House will indulge me, earlier I introduced my granddaughter, but I see that she is now with the second group that has just come in. I would like the House to welcome my granddaughter Payton Fahey in the front row.

N. Macdonald: I'll take the opportunity to speak to Motion 37, as many people in the House have taken the time. As we started the day, I was under the assumption that there would be no government speakers, and I was happy to see that some government speakers did get up and try to explain why Motion 37 would be acceptable.

In my view, it's an argument that cannot logically be made. When we come to this institution, we talk about how proud we are to be in here, and I think that if you are proud of an institution, there is an obligation to leave it strengthened when you go, rather than weakened. Any government will look to expediency, and what we've seen with this government is a constant look at how to do things in an expedient way. Very little thought is given to the traditions of this assembly.

There is no question that the estimates debate is an important tool. Members have raised that — that it's not only an opportunity for a critic to test the minister and to check how the money that the province is spending is being spent; it's also an opportunity for MLAs to raise constituency issues.

There is no question that this initiative in Motion 37 is going to reduce the amount of time that is available to members in estimates debate, and that is a step backwards. That is not an improvement. What this House depends upon is an adversarial system. There are a number of lawyers that sit here in this House, and they understand better than most that we depend for justice on an adversarial system.

We depend on the truth coming out through the conflict of ideas and on ideas being tested. Every time you remove that opportunity, you are fundamentally weakening this assembly, this institution, and that is what is completely problematic about Motion 37. It is clear that the government will hope that people will not pay attention and will not see the succession of moves like this — the limitations to time.

We sit less than the Canadian Senate. This assembly sits less than the Canadian Senate. We have had evening sessions taken away. We have found successively that the scheduled fall sitting does not take place in its entirety. Sometimes it's gone altogether; sometimes it is limited. This year it was two weeks later starting than it should have started. We are sitting for fewer days than almost any other jurisdiction.

What are some of the implications of that? On Monday we talked about another example of the reduction in quality and the taking away of tools in this Legislature. When this government came to power, they promised that they would be the most accountable and the most open, but what we see again and again is that is a promise that is not kept. They remove tools that the opposition has to test them, and there is a price that the public pays when they do that.

Let's look at accountability. On Monday we had the pay issue where, for the seventh year in a row, ministers who had not kept to their budgets were forgiven. A promise that the ministers would be kept accountable was broken, and those ministers were allowed to keep their salaries even though they had not kept to their budgets. It makes a farce of the promise to keep ministers accountable.

What is the standard for ministerial accountability in this House? I think the public has a right to talk about that for a while. Let's look at an area that I'm responsible for being the critic for, and that would be around tourism. Let's look at the Vancouver Convention Centre expansion project, just to look at accountability.

Surely, when ministers give information to the public, they have a responsibility to give that information accurately. They are the ones that are supposed to

know best what is going on within their ministry. In fact, ministerial accountability, as it's defined in textbooks…. When we teach children about ministerial accountability, we talk about having an elected official accountable in all ways for the activities within that ministry.

With the Vancouver Convention Centre expansion project, what public official has been held accountable for the biggest botched project in the history of this province? What public official has been held accountable for it? Let's just have a quick review.

First, we had the present Minister of Revenue standing up and saying that it was going to be $495 million. That was the promise — on time, on budget. Well, it was not on time, and it certainly is not $495 million. It's climbed to close to $900 million and climbing, as far as we know. Was he in any way held accountable for that statement, for promising the people of British Columbia that a project would be handled properly? He was not. You would expect some other minister to be held accountable. So we'll go to the Solicitor General.

The quote I'll give from him comes out of the Georgia Straight, and he can indicate if it's not an accurate quote. He told the people of British Columbia that it would be $535 million, not a nickel more. "If they ask, we'll say no." Well, somebody has said yes eight billion times. That is a huge error.

Let's look at that figure — $535 million or $495 million — these ministers were using. Where did that figure come from? What the Auditor General has said is that it was not a figure based in any way on reality. The best figure that was available at that time was $637 million, but that is not what ministers were saying publicly.

Then, of course, you have the Premier: "On time, on budget, guaranteed at $535 million." Yet we climb and climb and climb with these costs. Who is held accountable? The fact is that nobody has been held accountable. There is not accountability in terms of pay; there's not accountability in terms of so many other areas that ministers are responsible for.

What about the idea of openness? Well, this is a Premier that promised the most accountable and most open system in all of Canada. That was his solemn promise. Yet what do we have? There was a promise of open cabinet meetings. Well, that could never have seriously been put forward as anything…. It was obviously going to be a bit of a farce, but nevertheless, there was the promise to open cabinet meetings. That's gone.

Immediately you had cuts to the Ombudsman's office. You had cuts to the Information and Privacy Commissioner. You had those sorts of things that are bound to lead to greater secrecy. In recent times you have TransLink set up so that it would meet in private with a board that is chosen entirely by this government. You have VANOC meeting in private. You have B.C. Ferries meeting in private. You have a public affairs bureau that numbers — what? — 200 or 300 people.

This comes from a government that promised they would not spend money on government propaganda. Yet you have government propaganda constantly being paid for by the people of British Columbia, despite that promise.

It creates a fog over all sorts of issues. It's certainly not in the public interest. So the question is: what happens when things are kept secret? To whose benefit is it? It certainly is not in the public benefit. We can look at just three examples of that to fully understand why we need a system that is constantly going to be trying to improve itself, that is going to constantly try to put in place mechanisms so that government actions are fully understood and are fully tested, and that the money British Columbians give to this Legislature to spend is understood by the public and the quality of the decisions made are tested and understood.

That is in the public interest. We need to say that the public interest is often going to be different than the government interest. But we have an obligation to do things in the public interest. I'll give you three examples of where there is a problem when things are done in secret — just three. There's a multitude of them, but I'll give three that people will understand.

The first one is around seniors care. There is no question that there is a problem with residential care in this province, the quality of care. What you will hear again and again in community after community, in residential care facility after residential care facility, is that there are not enough employees to properly care for residents.

When people understand what is going on in these residential care facilities, action happens. It has to happen because the public will not accept the standard of care that people are currently getting in many, many facilities.

N. Macdonald: The member for Kamloops–North Thompson has something to add to this. What you hear again and again from this member — and I'd invite him to stand up and take his turn to speak — is some sort of standard that he says existed in the past. Whether it did or not, I do not even turn my mind to it. It is such an irrelevant argument.

N. Macdonald: There are people that are living in residential care facilities now. We tell people that we care a great deal about how they're looked after. If we do, we need to fully understand what is taking place there. To fully understand it, it needs to have lights shone on it.

What is clear is that there is a problem that needs to be fixed. When British Columbians fully understand what is taking place in residential care homes, they will force any government that is in place to fix it, because it is not acceptable. It is not acceptable that you would have seniors, especially seniors with dementia, who are the most vulnerable, and their families, who are also incredibly vulnerable…. You will not have British Columbians accept that they should not get the best care available.

The reality for many, many British Columbians is that they are not receiving the care they deserve. That needs to be fixed, and it will be fixed if it is exposed. We have already seen this government move on the issue. We have seen the government put out the report from the licensing officers. That is a positive thing. The more that the light is shone on it and we understand the reality, the greater the public pressure will be to fix it.

The second thing we need to do is improve the ratio. We need to improve the ratio of workers to residents, because even the facilities that passed licensing officer reports still have that problem. It is articulated in local newspaper after local newspaper as the issue is brought forward.

The second thing that needs to happen is you need to have a way for people to bring these issues forward in a respectful and dignified way. We have put forward the idea of the seniors representative. If there is a better idea out there, then put it forward. We need to find solutions that are going to work for our seniors. Those solutions come with the public understanding what is taking place. There were no solutions when it was kept secret. We had the same problem in 2005-2006, but until the public becomes aware of what is going on, it will not be fixed.

With Motion 37, you have one more incremental step in taking away the power of an opposition to do its job. It is small. The government members who did stand up tried to minimize and trivialize it, but it is a step backwards. In taking that step backwards, you are moving the business of British Columbians to a place that is worse than when you started.

Good things happen when a government is heavily scrutinized. We see it with seniors care. Until people came forward, until people understood what was taking place, there was no action. What I have committed to the people I met with in my seniors meetings is that we would continue to fight, and we would continue to push this government to do the right thing. If they didn't, then we would replace them in 2009.

Let's look at another issue. Let's take some time and look at the Vancouver Convention Centre expansion project, a project that was shrouded in secrecy and continues, in many ways, to be shrouded in secrecy. Did it lead to good decisions? Did it lead to things being done in the public interest?

Well, let's look at that. Let's look at some of the things that took place there. Had they been exposed earlier on, the public would have said: "Hey, get your act together. You're wasting public money. You're mismanaging a project in a way that is completely unacceptable by any standard — in fact, by the standard that the Premier used to set when he stood in opposition." This is the project that is the most bungled project in the history of this province.

N. Macdonald: Pay close attention, and you tell me afterwards…. The Minister for Mining can tell me if this is a project that works well.

This is not me; this is the Auditor General. The Auditor General says: "The casual observer could be forgiven in thinking the original budget for the convention centre was $495 million." Well, they could be forgiven because you had a minister standing up and thumping his chest and saying: "It'll be $495 million. Depend on it. Count on it."

The Auditor General says that was a fictional number and that the only accurate number — and here accurate only to a certain degree, because there was no plan yet; there was no set plan for what the facility was going to look like — was $637 million. So you have that out there. Then you have that whole idea of no detailed plans.

In fact, this government started to build this project before they had an accurate plan. If that was known by the public, would they have gone along with it? Would they have questioned? Would they have demanded that a better job be done? You would certainly think so. In fact, you know so. Therefore, the government putting a fog around it and trying to make sure information didn't come out is something that does not work in the public interest in any way.

Let's keep talking about it. There was a decision made to use this facility for the Olympics. That decision was something that the Premier decided. How much thought went into it? I don't know. Nobody will know, because all of those are things that are secret to the Premier.

He made that decision. He decided there would not be a $15 million Richmond media centre. Instead, he would set an artificial deadline for the convention centre. How many hundreds of millions did that decision cost? Well, the Auditor General says it's a fundamental part of the overrun.

Things done in secrecy — where does it lead? Wasted a year on trying to make it a P3 project. Wasted a year of valuable time. Then, as I said, construction begins with no design.

Was there any public input on the board that was going to look after and run this project? Was there any public input? Was it a board that was made up of professionals? Was that tested in any way? What was the reason that you got on to the Vancouver Convention Centre Expansion Project?

Well, see if the public can figure out what some of the reasons would be. Who's going to chair it? Well, you've got the Premier's deputy minister from 2001 to 2005. He knew the Premier for a long, long time. He was deputy city manager. Basically, he's the right-hand man of the Premier, so that's who's going to chair it.

Does he have any construction experience? Well, the Auditor General says that he should have. That would have been a wise thing to do with the biggest construction project managed by the government. But they didn't.

Who else is on there? Well, you have somebody who comes from Northgate Minerals, Canaccord. They're all big donators. Construction experience? No. We don't have that. We have somebody who is, well, a Deputy Minister of Finance. I guess he formed Partnerships B.C.

How did he get into government? Well, he was with the B.C. Automobile Dealers Association. He's president of that. They donated $150,000. He worked in

Alberta deregulating power. That seems a perfect resumé to put on the board for the Vancouver Convention Centre Expansion Project.

Are there any political appointees even more direct than that? Yes. You have a defeated B.C. Liberal candidate. They get a place there.

Who else do you have? Well, the president of the B.C. Liberal Party — better get them in there. Of course, somebody could say, "Well, they're also a deputy minister," which comes back to the promise about not putting political appointees into the civil service.

Who is immediately appointed once this government gets into power? The president of the B.C. Liberal Party. So all the way through that project you have the public interest subverted, the public interest compromised by decisions made in private, made in secrecy.

The minister will always tell you that you can go to the Freedom of Information Act, which this government has gutted, and get your information there. Has anybody ever tried to use that? Has anybody ever tried to use that to get useful information?

You know, I asked for the minutes of the Vancouver Convention Centre Expansion Project board to try to understand how PavCo and the Vancouver Convention Centre Expansion Project board were put together. You certainly couldn't get an answer here in the House.

What do the minutes look like? Well, I got one page, and all it says at the top is "Discussion." The rest of it is blacked out. So what did I learn from that? That it's discussion — I know that — and that the Ministry of Tourism uses black markers to get rid of their stuff. I asked for who was at the meetings. It's all blacked out. Decision items, PCL contract — oh, that's all blacked out. I mean, every single page is blacked out.

What do you learn from that? How is the public informed about a project that will be the most botched in B.C. history? You simply cannot. All you learn from that is that the Ministry of Children and Families uses whiteout, and the Ministry of Tourism uses black marker. That's what the public learned from that exercise. And how long did it take? It takes — what? — months, eight or nine months. That's what happens when things are kept in secret.

With this Motion 37 you have another example of an attempt to keep things in secret, to make sure that the public doesn't understand what's going on.

In the time I have left I want to talk about one other item that is very, very deliberately being kept secret by this government. It's being kept in secret because they know that if people look at it and understand it, they will see that it is a huge, huge giveaway of public wealth, that the public will pay immediately for the cost of electricity, because this government has broken its promise to not privatize B.C. Hydro. It has gutted that organization.

B.C. Hydro provided this province, since it was formed by W.A.C. Bennett, with a dependable and inexpensive supply of hydroelectricity. It has done a commendable job. Of all the things that W.A.C. Bennett did, many would point to B.C. Hydro as his greatest achievement.

Now, he was not a socialist. He did not do it because he had any ideological reason for putting something into public hands. He did it for practical, pragmatic reasons that exist to this day. Instead, we have this government moving to gut B.C. Hydro, and in so doing, they will force costs up for every single individual and every single business.

What are the things that are incontestable? I would invite people to investigate this for themselves. There will be incredible amounts of money that the government and the Independent Power Producers Association will spend to try to put a fog around this issue. But if you take the time, you can learn about it. You can read Liquid Gold by Dr. Calvert. Get the book, and read it. Now, he's an SFU professor. So read it; understand it.

Go to the report on energy by Dr. Shaffer. Read it, and understand it. Then go and find out for yourself all you can about private power, about the giveaway of our rivers and about the amounts that you are going to have to pay because of that giveaway. It's another thing that, if you're able to strip away the secrecy this government has put around it…. If you see the truth, you will be outraged by what happened.

The assertion I would make about it is that this government has consistently undermined B.C. Hydro. They promised they would not; they have, in a very calculated way. They have done it because their friends will make massive amounts of money over it.

This is what is taking place. B.C. Hydro — or you the ratepayer — paid to identify sites. We won't talk about the wind farms. We'll talk about the so-called run-of-the-river projects. B.C. Hydro paid to identify those sites. Then those identified sites were given to people, to private interests, for $5,000 to $10,000.

I don't know how many of you out there in the public knew that was happening, but insiders knew, and they grabbed them. Each one of those will then enter into a contract with B.C. Hydro.

B.C. Hydro has been told that they cannot develop these sites and that they have to enter into contracts with these private interests. They have to give them contracts that are so lucrative that they pretty well finance themselves. You take the contract to the bank, and you're set.

After that, they will use the public river, and they will use public land to build their roads. They will use public land, and in some cases — and I think we're going to see a proposal here in this Legislature — they will come through parks with their transmission lines. Those transmission lines, by the way, B.C. Hydro ratepayers will pay for. So we pay, we pay, and we pay. And we will pay more and more.

If there are going to be developments — run-of-river, and that sounds benign…. If there are going to be run-of-river projects, then they should be projects that are publicly owned so that the public gets the benefit. What the minister will say is that this is about certainty of supply. What the minister doesn't tell you is that these contracts are for 15 to 40 years.

What happens after 15 to 40 years? The electricity is on the open market. We don't have first call to it. After

that, if it is publicly controlled, then maybe some of these projects make sense — if there's a public good. But for a vast majority of them, there is a private interest that will benefit hugely. The public good is not served. All of this the government has to keep from you. Otherwise, you will see what is really going on, and I think the public is starting to see what's going on.

In my community I was at a Council of Canadians meeting — a lot of young people. The Council of Canadians meeting was excellent, with excellent work done by young people. It was wonderfully attended, and it dug at the truth of what's going on. What is nice is to see young people engaged.

I can see that there is limited amount of time — that in fact, my time is up. This motion seeks to keep the public from seeing the truth, and it is a further move in the wrong direction, absolutely consistent with this government.

R. Cantelon: It was very interesting to listen in the chamber, to hear the member for Columbia River–Revelstoke basically rag the puck and, in effect, waste this chamber's time for a considerable amount of our valuable time.

I want to give full credit, Madam Speaker, to you for your generosity in allowing the member to meander and wander and allow his mind to traipse through a varied series of topics from Hydro to seniors housing, etc.

I'll refrain from commenting directly against those points, except to acknowledge and appreciate the initiative that W.A.C. Bennett did in establishing B.C. Hydro and creating a great utility for everybody, which we all use very well.

I do want to point out, too, a misstatement by the member, who probably hasn't made himself fully informed. Perhaps if he spoke less and listened more, he might fully apprise himself of the fact that the hours per patient in seniors homes has in fact been increased by about 15 percent. He may not be aware of that, but he should make himself aware of that. I have certainly….

R. Cantelon: Thank you for raising that point. I hear some calls from across: "Meet with your local people." Indeed I have, and monitor it. I've got to tell you that I'm so impressed with the quality of facilities, the quality of care that has been put into several facilities in my constituency in Nanaimo with the Kiwanis Village and the manor in Parksville.

In fact, I was listening to the radio today. We heard a woman from one of the facilities in Qualicum Beach go on at some length about how wonderful that facility was. She doesn't make herself known to anybody, but the care and the quality and the service and the attention and the professionalism of the people are wonderful things.

I said I wouldn't digress, and there I go. It's so easy, when you get on your feet, to just let your mind wander and your mouth spout meaningless sentences for days and days on end, and we seem to have gotten into that.

We're talking about time. Indeed, we have certainly, today and yesterday, wasted a good deal of it when we could be achieving what the members opposite wish to achieve, and that is to review — as properly they should — the estimates and to do their complete due diligence on debating the merits of the various bills in this House.

As has been pointed out and acknowledged by the member opposite, indeed if there is any reduction in time, it probably will now be more severe considering the time we're wasting on this. It would be very small at the worst. In fact, the amount of hours allocated to estimates in committee and in chamber B would probably exceed what we normally put to it.

Having had the opportunity, Madam Speaker, to sit in your seat in Committee A, there's certainly no question that the quality of questions and the quality and succinctness…. The opposition could use some work in honing their skills. I'm sure the enthusiasm that they've displayed in this debate, if applied to questions in estimates, would greatly improve the aspect of democracy.

It certainly is a huge contradiction to be supposedly complaining about using up time and then spending a day and a half doing just that. I mean, if they really cared about the proper use of their time, they would cut off this debate, come to the issue and accept the fact that democracy is not teetering on the brink of a black abyss. In fact, they will have as much time as they have always had and indeed more than ample time to raise any issues they wish to in debate.

I might suggest, though, having sat here and listened to question period…. As you know, Madam Speaker, we have expanded that time from 15 minutes to half an hour. Perhaps they might voluntarily wish to cut that back to 15 minutes, considering what I perceive to be the quality of questions coming forth and the lack of research put forward during question period.

It was commented on by the press that they were using the press as leads for questioning during question period. Perhaps they might better serve their time by reducing that and applying it to estimates, where I suppose diligence might better be applied.

I'm not going to go on and on, easy as it is when you're standing here and you allow your random thought processes to be expanded by your mouth. I'm not going to do that. I'm going to cede to the member opposite from Powell River, who I understand will be prepared to meet. I'll be listening with great interest to his interesting — and I'm sure perhaps somewhat entertaining, if not informative — approach to these discussions.

I certainly stand in support of this bill. We're giving nothing away to democracy. The interests of the public will be completely well served with this bill in place. In fact, I think that keeping this House for debate on the important bills is a progressive step forward, not a step backward, and I heartily support this bill.

N. Simons: I'm honoured to have the applause and support of all members of this House as I stand in

opposition to Motion 37. You know, it's not surprising that members of the government side are going to stand up and say that it's actually not what we're saying, but it is what they're saying. What they like to do is accuse us of ragging the puck when in fact what they're doing is taking the puck and going home. It's not exactly a fair game. They can characterize it one way, and in fact the statistics are evident that the time that we have to ask ministers questions about our money that they're spending on programs….

We, I believe, are responsible for going through line item by line item, where required, to ensure that the government is doing maybe what they say they're doing and to find out what else they're doing with taxpayers' money.

I think that the estimates process, which this government would like to truncate, with the effect of silencing the opposition, is not a democratic move. No changes like this should take place without consultation. Now, I understand that the government side doesn't really know what consultation is. They know what dictating is, but they don't know what consultation is.

I'd like to give them a little bit of a refresher. It means that people sit down and have a dialogue and determine together what would be an appropriate method of dealing with the particular challenge that they're facing. But that hasn't happened. The result of that not happening is that the opposition is required to state quite clearly, not just to the government but to the people at home, that the government is trying to stifle the voices of the opposition.

We believe, on the opposition side, that we should not be afraid of debate. We should not be afraid of answering for our actions. We should care enough…. Even if not everybody is watching, even if they're watching something else that's is more entertaining, we need to be on the record to speak about the money — the revenue this province brings in and the expenditures they choose to make.

I know that there are some ministers in this House who may very much be reluctant to stand up and face their critic, because they have to support and to justify their choices, the choices that their government has made. Many ministers, I'm quite certain, aren't entirely in control of their particular ministry.

I'm not making any assumptions about those present in the House. However, there are some ministries that will not withstand that type of examination in the estimates process where we're allowed to do that, where we were elected to ask questions of government, to ensure that they stay within their promises and within the expectations of the people of British Columbia.

What this move is — what Motion 37 is — is actually, simply put, anti-democratic. It goes against our principles and our values. We expect and we honour and we desire good debate. Estimates are not exciting — it's more exciting to watch paint dry, if it's latex paint — but we need to have those opportunities.

As members of the opposition, we need to have opportunities to ask government ministries. I can tell you that there are a number of questions that I have for the Ministry of Children and Family Development, because quite clearly, the ministry is in a certain degree of chaos, and certain questions need to be asked. I can quite understand his vitriolic defence of his government's move at putting off debate or at stifling debate, but that being said, what he really should be doing is preparing for those questions instead of hoping that they don't occur.

With the reduction in our ability to engage in that estimates process…. I might add that members of my constituency understand that much of the work in this House doesn't necessarily take place during question period. There are opportunities where we meet with the ministries one by one, and we ask questions that our constituents have asked us to ask.

I find, on the first point, that this is an undemocratic move by government. I think that should, in itself, be enough to say to government and to the members who probably are reluctantly agreeing with the opposition on this particular point…. They should really speak up and tell their government leaders that, in fact, we are probably better off having an open and accountable democracy and not the kind that they're designing.

Indeed, legislation should take priority in this House, and it does already. We've had four weeks — almost four weeks, coming up to four weeks less a few hours — and what have we had presented as bills? I would say it's sketchy. There's not a lot on the table. There's not a lot that we've been debating. A few technical bills, but nothing of any substance. So we have had four weeks where the government could be introducing bills. We could be discussing bills, debating bills, but no, we've had four weeks of relative silence.

We should not be stifling the estimates debate in order to push everything so fast that there won't be adequate time for debate. I believe there is an opportunity here for an amendment. In my name, I've tabled an amendment to Motion 37 that is amending Motion 37 as follows:

N. Simons: What the opposition is attempting to do with this motion is restore the democratic elements that would be removed by this government's unilateral decision to withdraw the rights of the opposition to question government on its expenditures. That move is undemocratic, and this amendment would restore that process. It would restore that element of democracy that was removed by the unilateral decision of this government to take away options of the opposition.

The opposition wants to be able to ask questions of government. The opposition has traditionally had that opportunity. The government, when they were in opposition, had the opportunity. Now, afraid of the 33 members on the opposition asking good questions, asking questions they won't be able to understand, they say: "We don't want any more questions. We don't like your questions. We're afraid of your questions." One way or the other, they'll try to silence, they'll try to be silent on everything, there will be denial and then they'll misrepresent, perhaps, but there will be a blatant attempt to stifle the voice of opposition.

We are here to hold government to account. It is an essential part of our democratic institution that we have an opportunity to ask government, whether they like it or not. That is the point. They may believe that everything they do is right and that nothing we could suggest would be even close to being right, but that, in and of itself, does not give them that authority to do whatever they want.

We need an opportunity, in opposition, to ask ministers straight across the table: "What are you doing about this? What are you doing about this? Why are you deciding that?" Those kinds of questions and the answers that sometimes come from the government members allow the population of British Columbia greater access to knowledge of what's happening in their government.

I worry about the cynicism people already have about politics and politicians. Unfortunately, this is yet one more example of how this government will try to take away the important elements of debate that we as an opposition should expect and should allow.

From 2004 to 2007 the British Columbia Legislative Assembly, this body, has spent 164 fewer days in session than Ontario, 57 fewer than Quebec, 38 fewer than Saskatchewan, 28 fewer than Manitoba, 37 days fewer than New Brunswick, and 48 days fewer than the Senate of Canada. Regardless of your views on other legislative bodies, what we can say about British Columbia is that no where and never have we needed an opposition more than we do when we have a government with this type of arrogance in place. This is what opposition is for.

When government believes that it can go roughshod over debate, over exchange of ideas or even over the will of the population of British Columbia, then we need to be even more concerned about that opportunity for debate. A government that likes to hide requires stronger outside examination. That's an essential part of the estimates process.

I'd like to see this government take it upon themselves to recognize the error that it has made in putting forward Motion 37 and restoring the ability of the opposition to be capable, to be permitted to question government on their services and on their programs.

The fundamental problem with this motion is that traditionally these kinds of decisions are arrived at by discussion, by consultation, by an exchange of ideas that perhaps let the arrival of a mutually agreeable position on this. These are estimates. These are hours of estimates that we need to ask government questions.

Now, what happened? It was a unilateral decision, yet another example of a dictatorial approach when it comes to the matters of the Legislature. I believe that the people of British Columbia, if they understood that this is not about ragging a puck…. This is not a game. This is not a playing field. This is where we decide on legislation that has a direct impact on children, on seniors, on patients, on families, on workers all throughout British Columbia. That's what this is about. It's not about ragging a puck. It's about having the ability to ask government questions, and when they're unable to answer questions, maybe that exposes their sensitivity.

The truth of the matter is that the British Columbia population is not served by the stifling of debate. It is not served by the curtailment of our ability to ask government questions. It is not served by unilateral decisions made in some little room, saying: "We don't like the way the opposition asks questions, so let's just give them less opportunity to do so."

Now they accuse us, because we're bringing this up: "Well, you're wasting time." If you think this is a waste of time, then they've got to give their heads a shake. This is about the fundamental principles of democracy. I'd like anyone who believes they can justify the removal of the opportunity on the part of the opposition to stand up and say why it's important to have less debate.

I see some people blankly shaking their heads with their hands on their mouth, not really capable of formulating an original thought, who should be thinking about the fact that we have less opportunity in this House because of this government's unilateral decision to engage in meaningful debate. That is something that as an opposition member — and it should be equally on the government side — we should be protecting. We should be protecting the ability to talk about legislation, about government direction, about their policies and to talk about things that we believe and we know that those who elected us want us to ask about.

We represent, with 33 constituencies, not the majority, so we don't have the ultimate say. But we would expect, from a government that pretends to be benevolent, that they will give opportunity for debate. There are some democracies on this earth that sometimes curtail debate, and they get vitriolic statements of opposition from right-minded individuals from other parts of the world who say, "Look at that infringement on the opposition in" — and you name the state. It could be anywhere.

Here, because it's subtly done, and it's done with motions that sort of gradually…. It's the old story of the frog doesn't jump out of a pot if the pot heats up slowly. It doesn't realize how bad things are until it has boiled to death. Here we are, the opposition party in this province, saying to government: "What you are doing is not a good idea. What you're doing is you're reducing our ability to keep tabs on you." I know it's not comfortable, but when we're in government, we will have to put up with the same thing. I would expect

we're probably more capable of dealing with questions, because that would be something….

I'm getting a wave from a friendly member opposite. The wave probably means: "Speak more of that, because it resonates with me. It resonates with me when you say: 'Yeah, we're not good at answering questions.'"

Well, this government has a pathetic record in answering questions in question period and in estimates. Maybe that underlies their decision to reduce it some more. "We don't like their questions. Their questions are silly." Well, you know what? The questions we have for this government are of interest to everybody in this province. They see the gradual reduction in their voice, and they know that there's an opposition that is going to stand up for their right to be heard. I would say that despite the chattering that's going on around me — most of it, of course, positive — we do need an opportunity to ask questions.

We need an opportunity for government to listen to the questions and to try to answer them to the best of their ability. I think it's their lack of ability which is causing them to reduce their time in chambers. I pointed out that there's no need for this. There's no need for this. Why go that extra step? Some people would call it sort of a bullying tactic. Because they can get away with it, it's okay. It's not about that. That's not what this democracy is about.

When you come up with deciding to change something that's been a well-established practice in this House — to sit and negotiate and consult and talk…. That is what we're asking this government to do. We're asking them to do that, not to unilaterally impose on the opposition more infringements on their ability to get questions answered by this government.

I'm disappointed, on behalf of my constituents. This government has made yet another unilateral decision, in fact, to not just to curtail our voices — not just to curtail the voice of the critic for Public Safety and Solicitor General or to curtail the voice of the opposition critic for the Attorney General or to stifle the voices of those who are asking questions of the minister responsible for homelessness or to stifle the voices of those who want to ask questions from the minister responsible for the chaos in the Ministry of Children and Families…. That is our job. That's our responsibility.

They expect us to ask the tough questions, and they don't expect government to get the answers right every time. But to eliminate that opportunity to even know what the government is saying on issues related to their specific budgets…. That is a problem. That is where we fundamentally differ. I would like to see more of the voice of the people in this House, not less of the voice of the people.

When they stifle all of us, they stifle the voices of people in my community. They prevent the voices of families and children who are vulnerable from being heard when we ask the minister responsible questions. They prevent families who have kids in schools that are threatened with closure from asking questions about the government's budgetary priorities.

They threaten all of our ability. Every single constituent of mine is going to be worse off because of the opposition's inability to spend the required amount of time asking the government questions on the budgets for each ministry.

I'll be the first to admit that it's not something I'm going to be flipping to on my channel changer necessarily, but that is not the test of whether it's useful or not. I heard a member from the government side say: "It's not very exciting." Well, you know what? It's not about how many people tune in to watch estimates; it's about how much the voice of the community is reflected in this Legislative Assembly.

Continually we see evidence that they'll shape debates to their advantage. They'll try their best to silence their opposition. They'll try their best to duck the opposition. They'll try their best to run around the opposition, but the opposition needs to have rules that are fair, that allow them appropriate debate. When you remove that, you're removing an essential tenet of this democratic system.

That's why this motion needs to be carefully considered by all members of this House. I believe, given that opportunity and given the proclamation from one of the ministers opposite that all of their votes are free votes — I was laughing in my office when I saw that — that they should have the opportunity to say: "Yeah, you know what? Even though I'm of course not personally afraid of answering questions in estimates, I think that we should have that opportunity to do so." Because of that, we should have the opportunity to do so.

Every single one of the ministers can say in a defensive way that it's not about curtailing time or blaming the opposition for the time that's been spent discussing this important motion. It's not about that. It's about having that opportunity in whatever chamber to be asking questions so that all of the ministries get appropriate scrutiny and all of the critics get appropriate timing to ask ministers of their responsibility.

They sign this accountability thing on the front page of their service plan. Yet when it comes time to ask questions in any more depth, when you go beyond the flowery exterior, what's really there? Why are they trying to curtail that opportunity? They seem to think that everything is fine. We have questions that we need answers for. We have community members who have questions for us to ask government.

When you remove that opportunity, you're removing our access to democracy. You're adding to the cynicism that people have about politics and politicians. Unfortunately, maybe that's the point. Maybe that's their goal — that once people are so disinterested or cynical, they'll get away with doing whatever they want.

Well, I'm counting on my constituents to recognize the role that the opposition plays. They know the role we play in our constituencies. They're grateful for that, and I'm grateful to have them as support. But when it comes to the work in this Legislature, the opportunities we have to ask questions of government directly without the chest thumping and the desk pounding of question period…. That's where questions and answers take

place, where there are a lot of the fundamentals of the budget. That's where we need to expose government, in the fundamentals of their budgeting process. Unfortunately, despite the sort of flowery exterior, I think they might be afraid of having those questions asked.

I would ask that the members on the government side consider the amendment to Motion 37 and reflect on the fact that they are elected here to serve as representatives of their constituents, not as the lieutenants of the leader of the junta, for example, and do whatever they expect. I think that what really needs to happen is for each individual MLA to recognize that as much as it's not their favourite pastime to be part of the estimates process, we're not here to twiddle our thumbs.

This is an important business of government. Of course, there are those opposite who think it's mostly a game, who talk about ragging the puck, who belittle — purposefully belittle — the debates that take place in this chamber and, by extension, the estimates process. The opposition side of the House, if presented with good legislation, will probably provide very little friction. Bills will pass, and bills will be passed with everyone consenting. Obviously, if there's general support for the bill, that's a positive thing.

There are billions of dollars in this budget — in the Ministry of Children and Families alone, over a billion dollars. Those questions need to be asked, and those questions need to be answered, because right now, from the stakeholders and constituents that I hear from, there is serious concern in that ministry.

That's the ministry I know a little bit more about than I do the other ministries. If there is even a tenth of the concerns in other ministries that I have for the Ministry of Children and Family Development, there is some explaining to do here. There is a necessity for time to debate. There is some explaining to do, especially explaining away this attempt to abrogate our time and taking away from the time that we've negotiated and consulted on having set for us. I find that really problematic.

It does sort of exemplify this government's attitude towards consultation. I've seen them engage in consultation in my community when the decision has already been made or when it's a decision between the lesser of two evils. It's not real, true consultation.

We shouldn't really have expected it perhaps. Maybe we were hoping for a more benevolent approach — that, in fact, the things that we've done for years and years in this chamber, in this House, would be honoured and would be respected. Maybe we were hoping too much.

Instead, the government has come in with a hugely ideological agenda, and every single way of curtailing our ability to question government has been put in place, except for giving us more question period time. They just have more time not to answer questions.

This estimates process provides us with an opportunity for follow-up questions, so the bluster and the bulldozing through our questions can't take place. That's sometimes why estimates take a little longer. It's because it might take three attempts to ask a minister a question that he or she understands in a way to provide an answer.

I believe this is something that the people of British Columbia, with an understanding of the situation, will say. This government has become a little bit too arrogant. This government has become a little bit unresponsive to the community. There's a disconnect between this government and the people of British Columbia — which is growing every day, I might add.

I'd like to simply reiterate that the amendment to the motion should be considered by members of the government side. It's certainly one that the opposition would support. With that, I take my place.

Hon. M. de Jong: I thought, firstly, that I would thank the member for the tabling of the amendment but that I'd also remove any doubt. The amendment, as I think the member said earlier in his remarks, represents an attempt to restore — or maintain, I guess — the status quo. For the reasons that I alluded to in my earlier remarks, the government is of the view that changes are warranted.

I note that the member, in presenting the proposed amendment, chose not to draw on any of the alternative approaches that I laid out or even a derivative thereof from other jurisdictions. So it probably doesn't surprise the members of the opposition that this is an amendment that the government is not prepared to support at this time.

C. Wyse: It is indeed my pleasure to get up and speak in favour of the amendment. The amendment, I believe, is what we have on the floor at this moment in time. Therefore, in speaking in favour of the amendment, in developing the rationale for the need for this particular amendment, I wish to return very briefly to a description of the House and of the various roles that we all play here in the House.

Collectively, I believe that what has been lost by what the government has done by unilaterally bringing in the original motion has very much reduced our various roles here in the House and that effectiveness. Where I wish to start from is that on election day there were 79 of us that were elected, and we all inherited the responsibility of an MLA.

One of the things that is important as an MLA, particularly one from the interior, is that when I come down here when the House is sitting, I have the opportunity to actually meet, in my case, with cabinet ministers and deal with issues that affect my constituents.

The intent of this House is to serve the people of British Columbia. The intent of this House is not to serve the political parties. First and foremost, we have the interests of the people of British Columbia to look after.

When we get a series of changes that have occurred in my short period of time here in the Legislature…. I am going to choose a decade, through my discussion, to show reasons why the amendment should be considered by the government and why, upon hearing my rationale, they will in actual fact change their mind and support the amendment rather than follow the course of action of reducing the effectiveness of all of us as MLAs as well as reducing the effectiveness of the resulting groupings that take place in this House — that of government and that of opposition.

Government is meant to govern. That's what it says. In doing such, they have that responsibility to govern. Nowhere does it say that government should take the rules, take the powers they have because of numbers, and hammer the effectiveness of the role of the opposition so that it becomes of no effectiveness. That is not what government is about. That falls within the category of bullying, of abuse. There are reasons for supporting this particular amendment.

As I have mentioned, I am going to go back over approximately a decade to develop the case for this particular amendment. I'm going to go back and talk about how some of my colleagues here in this House have in actual fact talked about the need for the openness of government, for providing the tools for governing to be done — providing the tools to both sides of the House so that the business of the people of British Columbia is looked after.

I'm going to start off my discussion in support of the amendment on the parts around the collective part. I will, hopefully, watch my time so that I will have time to come back and point out the needs of the effectiveness that are reduced, if the amendment does not pass, on my responsibility as an MLA in this House — both roles that are being overlooked if this amendment does not pass.

I want to start off about the openness of government and promises that were made about having openness and accountability here in this Legislature by individuals that I respect. That does not mean I necessarily am in agreement with the points of view they take on many issues. That would be stretching my words beyond any limit.

However, for example, the Premier quotes: "Open government is the hallmark of free and democratic societies. B.C. Liberals will reform how government works from top to bottom to create the most open, democratic and accountable governments in Canada." Fine words. But in a former career that I had, what I learned is that words must be matched up against actions. An evaluation should be done over a period of time, not over singular events. That is why I have chosen approximately a decade to develop the rationale for supporting the amendment that is in front of us.

Those quotes that I gave you are all approximately around 1998 to 2000. In support of this particular amendment, I wish to move into my period of time of being elected MLA and where it comes into play. What I want to talk about here is a series of changes to the rules on how we operate here in the House, moving over three years from an open and accountable government, and the changes that have been made here in how we do our business. I hope to briefly develop how the accountability and the openness have been restricted.

Going back to 2006, we had the cancellation of the fall sitting. What the cancellation of the fall sitting did was remove the amount of time that the government's business, the people's business, was able to be done here in this House. The schedule said 11 weeks in the spring and seven in the fall. That's 18 weeks out of 52. Not a great amount of time, but time to do all of the people's business in a fashion, in an open and accountable manner.

With the cancellation of the fall sitting, what happened with the removal of those seven weeks is that we had the removal of the tools of question period — the ability during those seven weeks to hold the ministers accountable to the responsibility that had been assigned to them. It also removed the possibility of private members' bills. But more importantly, in my judgment, what it did was remove the timely discussion on issues that affected the business of the people of British Columbia.

It meant that issues that should have been open to scrutiny and discussion…. That opportunity was lost — for example, in 2006, issues around the Olympics. Weeks went by; months went by, while the total of construction costs went chingedy, chingedy, chingedy ching and kept being rung up.

Another issue in 2006 where the timeliness got missed, which was very important and has come back to have significance in all of British Columbia — in my riding of Cariboo South and the interior of the province generally — was the softwood lumber agreement. The ability to discuss in timely fashion the effect of that agreement went by. We lost the opportunity to have it effectively debated here in the House and to have held it to scrutiny.

Here we are in 2008 with the effect that where my riding is, on Monday morning 1,100 people did not go to work as a result of mill closures for at least a two-week period of time. People are expecting it will be longer. Issues that we are all responsible for. In my area I'm responsible for having the time to be able to pursue those issues here in the House.

It has nothing to do with which side of the floor it happens to be on. The people that I'm talking about belong to all political parties here in British Columbia, if they belong to any. It is their business, and it is their House here. It is here where the 79 of us have the responsibility to do that. When you start off in 2006 by beginning to restrict the ability of MLAs to do their jobs, we have reason for supporting this amendment.

Moving on to 2007. Once more unilateral changes were basically made around the House schedule. We used to meet Monday and Wednesday in the evening. By removing the evening session…. Those people that I know who are riveted and following the line of reasoning for the support of this particular motion likely have not picked up on the subtlety of the movement and the effect of changing that House schedule. That unilateral decision removed five hours of debate, and it also removed four hours from estimates.

It took me a little while to figure out how this House works because I immediately admit that I'm not the sharpest knife in the deck here. However, as time has passed, what I have learned is that we have….

C. Wyse: I quite often mix up my metaphors, and I'm glad my colleagues have picked up on it. I'm glad to hear that they are listening to me. I know that with them listening to me, they will understand the importance of supporting this particular amendment.

It is in the estimates debate that we get a chance to check out what is going on. We move away from the fluff of the speeches that always take up this part of the Legislature. In 2008 that hasn't changed. In 2008 we've had very, very limited legislation introduced.

We've had lots of time dealing with the speeches, dealing with the reaction to the throne speech and the reaction to the budget. But the business of the government is to introduce legislation, and for me to look at it critically, support it when it's supportable and make amendments where it needs to be done. If it's not supportable, to vote against it and to speak against it…. Important business.

That now takes me into 2008 where we have further restrictions, made unilaterally, on dealing with the movement of material from one House to the other. I look upon that as why this particular amendment becomes so crucial.

I don't know whether I've become more knowledgable about how rules are played in here or I've become more callous and possibly skeptical, but one of the agendas here of separating things out may simply be the development of the rationale of moving back to 2006, which is the cancellation of the fall session.

I have gone on about the importance of there being 18 weeks here in the Legislature to do the people's business, to do what we are all elected to do — not have everything telescoped into the spring session of 11 weeks, of which we spend 25 percent on speeches.

The fall session has a very, very important function. I worry about how the government will use this particular unilateral decision to further restrict the role of opposition members. It is in estimates that the rules say that I have the right, and the minister must respond to my questions.

I had mentioned earlier how as an MLA, when the House is in session, I have the ability to meet personally with cabinet ministers, and I want to acknowledge the cabinet ministers who have readily met with me about issues from my riding when they've been in session. But that does not always happen.

I'm still waiting for a response from a cabinet minister on issues that have come up in my riding that I've written about. I've requested a meeting, and I've requested an answer here, but I still have not heard it. But at least I've been able to meet with those ministers individually and personally — a very important role by having both a spring and a fall session that we mustn't lose sight of.

I do wish to move on. I have it here somewhere, and it has to do with the comparison, finally, of the amount of time that we spend in the debate here. Madam Speaker, you may find this hard to believe — I did — but over the last three years I discovered that the Senate actually sat more than 40 days longer than we have sat here in this Legislature since I've been elected. I found that unbelievable.

I know that where I'm from, generally speaking, government is looked at with a somewhat jaundiced eye. Of the different government we have, where I'm from, the Senate — that portion of one of our levels of government — is looked at through a particularly large amount of jaundice. And when I recognize that the Senate, collectively over these four years, has sat more than 40 days longer than I have sat in here, that concerns me. It concerns me greatly that here the government would believe that record stands by itself. Not good enough.

In addition to this, there is reason to be in support of this particular amendment. The reason for being in support of the particular amendment is that in 2007, there were a number of estimates held here in this House that allowed us as opposition members to question the minister — estimates here in this sitting, estimates in another room. Therefore, we had the opportunity for estimates.

I will come back to this when I speak as an MLA. Last year in 2007 we spent four hours on agriculture in this House — a very, very important issue in my riding, an item that was missed completely in the budget, in the throne speech. Forests — 14 hours. I've already mentioned what is happening in my area in the forest industry. Health — 19 hours. Again, I'll come back to specific issues as an MLA on why it's important that these opportunities be here, why it's important that this amendment is considered to be important and that we don't close things off.

I know that my colleagues the Liberals will remember that when they were in opposition in 1998, they had, in actual fact, over 400 hours of time for estimates — over 400 hours; from memory, 438. When we go into the period of time in which I arrived on the scene, about 150 in the first year, about 190, about 225…. Notice that the number of hours appearing in estimates is going up. The effectiveness of an opposition is being felt. What the system is meant to do is working.

So what do we get? An original motion that says: "Poof! Let's get rid of the estimates. Let's put in something that restricts the amount of time that becomes

available. Let's move the material up to where speeches on the budget and the throne get the time." A concern.

I'm very, very briefly going to talk about my role as a critic, because that's something I have not mentioned. It's another function that I serve. One of my responsibilities is to make investigation and inquiries about the trade, investment and labour mobility agreement. Estimates provides me the opportunity to speak with all ministers that are affected by this agreement which we became aware of, basically, upon its announcement approximately two years ago — an item that has a very significant effect upon what goes on here in the province.

There are a number of experts in this area that are concerned that the trade, investment and labour mobility agreement in actual fact will provide impediments to how the provincial as well as the local governments go about dealing with legislation around environment and concerns of that nature.

Ecojustice, the Environmental Law Centre of Victoria, the UBCM through their lawyer Mr. Lidstone — all have raised concerns in this area, estimates providing opportunity to obtain clarity upon this agreement. Likewise, when the House is sitting, it also provides a number of avenues through which probing questions may be asked and answers sought.

I have spent a fair bit of time talking about that broader area, and I wish to close off in the time I have left on why this amendment should pass, in my role as an MLA for the area.

In the area of Health. As I mentioned a few minutes ago, about 19 hours were spent in this House on Health and its debate.

The issues around seniors care. It would provide me with the opportunity of talking with the Minister of Health about issues of the delivery of seniors care as well as oversight for their protection. Estimates allow me the opportunity to pursue the questions that have come through my office on those items.

The issue around paramedics. Estimates provides me the opportunity to pursue the continuing shortfall of paramedics in our rural- and remote-designated stations.

In the area of transportation, it allows me to pursue issues around the development of the Cariboo connector or the lack of development. It allows me to pursue what is happening around Highways 20 and 24.

If this amendment passes, it provides the opportunity for me to attempt to have items of this nature appear in this House, and it allows and ensures an increased amount of time so that I have the availability to take on these issues with the minister.

From my area there are issues around first nations, particularly the area of reconciliation. I have spoken in this House on a number of occasions on issues around items that affected the Tsilhqot'in, the importance of that issue and true reconciliation.

With estimates, I'm provided the opportunity to pursue with the minister and other ministers how they wish to go on with resolving issues in mining, forestry and other land use issues that for first nations — not just the Tsilhqot'in but others — are not proceeding in a timely fashion, issues they have requested that I bring forward here in the Legislature to seek resolution on their behalf.

This amendment, upon its passing, provides increased opportunity for doing that. I am concerned that if the amendment does not pass and the government falls back to its original motion, it will lead to the cancellation of the fall session again, which therefore restricts my ability to represent my constituents. It is even more crucial, given the situation that is facing the interior of British Columbia, that the opportunities be here for government and the opposition to do their particular jobs.

In closing, in my mind I have developed a very reasoned and rational opinion for the government to be supporting the amendment that was introduced by my colleague. It returns some power to the opposition that over the last three years the government has consistently picked away at and moved away from their promise to provide open, accountable and transparent government.

In the three examples that I have pointed out — in '06, '07 and '08 — all of those decisions have been made to remove the openness. Quoting a word from the Premier himself, moving from openness to "hiddenness" is where we are proceeding. So on behalf of my constituents but, more importantly, on behalf of all British Columbians, this amendment must be supported so that government is in a position to do its job, looking after the business of all British Columbians.

It is with that that I turn over to other members here in the House the challenge of defending and supporting this particular amendment. It is well-thought-out, it is well reasoned, and it's most worthy of support.

D. Chudnovsky: I'm pleased to speak on the amendment, which has been put before the House by my colleague from Powell River–Sunshine Coast. I think it's an important amendment. It's an amendment that I encourage members opposite to think about carefully. I think it's one that is well worth supporting.

I'd like to make some comments in support of that amendment, and I hope that my friends opposite will take the time to consider the arguments as they come forward.

I thought that I would begin with some very personal comments about the work that we do in the House and the way I, as an MLA — a kind of almost rookie MLA — think about that work and the way that others respond to it.

I'm sure that it is the experience of members on both sides of the House that people often ask us about our jobs. There is a perception, perhaps misplaced — I think a bit misplaced but nonetheless a perception — among people in the province that the jobs we do here in the House have a particular significance. My own view is that all of us, whatever job, whatever responsibility we have in our communities, are part of that community, and each of us has a job that's important.

Nonetheless, I think that it is our experience that people in our communities think of us as having a job that is of particular significance. Often I think others in

the House will agree with me, we get asked about these jobs by people in our communities — friends, people who we know. I think people have a genuine interest in the work that we do and a genuine interest in our sense of the work that we do.

I try to be very, very honest with people when they ask me about my work. I tend to be that kind of guy. When they ask about the work, I talk about the constituency work that we do and the great opportunity and privilege that we have to help people in our communities to resolve problems that they face, to help community organizations with the challenges that they have before them, and to interact with people in our neighbourhoods and communities in a way that most people don't get a chance to do. It's a really terrific part of the job.

I also talk to people about the policy aspects of the job. I'm privileged to have been asked by my leader, the Leader of the Opposition, to take on the responsibility of being critic for homelessness and mental health issues. I need to say that that is a responsibility which I take very, very seriously, which weighs heavily upon me and for which I have tremendous energy.

But the truth is that people who ask us about our work and who are interested in our work most often think first of the work that we do here in the Legislature. They are curious about the work that we do here in the Legislature. I know for myself — and I would expect that for others who sit in this House — I'm often asked about the work that we do in the Legislature.

I have to tell you, Madam Speaker and Members of the House, that when I'm asked, I kind of lay out the parts of the job that are done in the Legislature. I talk about committee work. It's important and sometimes tedious, but it's important work, and I am interested in that work.

I talk about debate on legislation and on motions. I have to say that when I talk about that, I do so in a way that's quite disappointed. I relay to my friends, and to people who ask me in the community about the work, that the debate on legislation is often very arid.

It's arid because, unfortunately, there isn't very much back-and-forth. There isn't very much of an attitude, certainly, on the government side, that what is suggested by members of the opposition should be taken seriously and should be integrated into the work that has been done by the government with respect to legislation. I'm quite honest about that when I'm asked about the work we do in the Legislature. I tell people that I find the debates on legislation incredibly frustrating and not very productive.

I talk about question period. People are particularly interested in question period. I have to say, honestly, that notwithstanding the fact that question period is an institution and we need to have respect for it and it's very useful in the province, I think it's a bit of a game and a bit of a show. I say that to my friends and people in the community who ask me about the work.

But I have to tell you that when I'm asked…. First of all, people don't know much about estimates, but when I talk about the work that we do in the Legislature, I have to say that that's when I get enthusiastic — when I start talking about estimates — because I think it is the one process in this Legislature that is most meaningful, most helpful, most useful and most productive.

I'm very straight with people who ask me about it. I say that in estimates it's my experience, notwithstanding some of the downsides of estimates — and I want to talk about some of those in a minute…. I want to say that it's my experience that in estimates the most productive work gets done in this Legislature, because it's an opportunity for the opposition to do what the people pay the opposition to do.

The people pay us on this side of the House to hold government to account. In estimates we have the opportunity to hold government to account. The people pay the folks on this side of the aisle to ask the tough questions, the uncomfortable questions.

In estimates we on this side of the House have the opportunity to ask those tough questions and those uncomfortable questions. The people of the province pay us on this side of the House to push and to probe and to pursue government. That's our responsibility as opposition. That's what we're paid to do by the people of the province — to push and to probe and to pursue.

Sometimes that's uncomfortable for ministers. I have to say that sometimes it's uncomfortable for opposition members, because ministers have a way of moving away and shucking and jiving and trying to get away from the questions. But the people pay us — and pay us very well, in fact — to pursue and to probe and to push, and that's what we do.

So the process of estimates is a very, very important process in this House. Certainly, that's my belief. In my interactions with constituents and friends and people who ask me about the work that we do, I always put the work we do in estimates at the front of the line.

It's the place where I think that the residents of the province, if they had an opportunity to watch and the motivation to watch the work that we do…. If the residents of the province were to look at all of the things we do in this House, it's my belief that they would see in the estimates process that which they expect in the Legislature.

The people of the province expect that we will debate with one another. They think that we should do it in a respectful and businesslike way, but they know that we disagree with one another. They expect that we will debate with one another and that we'll have a back-and-forth and that both sides will have an opportunity for the thrust and parry of debate. That doesn't hardly happen anywhere here. There is virtually nowhere in this House that that happens, except in estimates.

So when I'm asked about what goes on in this House, I talk about estimates, and that's what this amendment is about. This amendment was put forward for the purpose of protecting a good long chunk of estimates, which is the process in this House where debate most gets done.

I've been listening to the admittedly sporadic and short attempts on the part of the government to justify the original motion and on the part of the Government House Leader in his response to this amendment — which, though it wasn't sporadic, was very short — to justify the changes that they seek and to oppose our position and our amendment. It's pretty strange, what they're saying. It's pretty strange.

Some of them have suggested that somehow we want to stay with the current situation with estimates, which is embodied in the amendment that's before us — that somehow we want to do that because we want to be on TV more.

Well, that doesn't make any sense. That doesn't make any sense for the government to say. They know as well as we know that there's TV in both of the committee rooms, so the motivation can't be that we want to be on TV more. It doesn't make any sense. It's an excuse used by government to try to undermine the argument that we're making for the protection of the time that's available for estimates.

I heard a couple of the members of the government side of the House say that somehow it has got to do with what room we want to be in. "We want to be in this room. It's a nicer room. It's a bigger room. The air is better in here." I don't know, but the suggestion was made that it was about what room the debate takes place in.

Well, that's silly. That's silly, and the government members who put it forward know that it's silly. That's not what it's about. What it's about is three weeks of estimates time, the time during which the most significant debate, in my opinion, happens in this House — the time during which what people expect goes on here actually goes on here.

The people of the province think that the government and the opposition get together and they actually debate questions. Government puts forward something, and the opposition asks the question. The opposition puts forward something, and the government tries to answer. That's what people think goes on in the Legislature. It hardly ever does, except in estimates.

What the opposition's perspective is on this debate and on this amendment…. What our perspective is, is to defend our ability to do in this House what the people want and expect to be done in this House.

When I hear that the time available for estimates may be constrained because of the government's motion before the House, I'm really pleased that the member for Powell River–Sunshine Coast has moved an amendment to protect some of that time. Why? Well, because I have responsibilities, responsibilities to my caucus, but much more importantly responsibilities to the people of the province.

I'm responsible to the people of this province. I'm paid by the people of this province to be the critic for homelessness issues and mental health issues in this province. They know out there that there is a crisis when it comes to homelessness and mental health in this province. So I'm concerned about my ability to do what they're paying me to do and to carry out my responsibilities to ask the questions that need to be asked in these areas.

When somebody says to me that we're potentially going to lose three weeks of time to do the estimates, I start to think about my responsibility to ask those tough questions, and I'm pleased that the member for Powell River–Sunshine Coast has put an amendment that would protect that time so that I can do my job. I can do the job that the people are paying me to do.

What do I mean? There's a crisis of homelessness in the province. There are a minimum of 10,500 homeless people in this province. There will be a count next week in the lower mainland and the Fraser Valley and in other communities across this province. The numbers that will come out of that count — I'm completely confident, but saddened — will be much higher than the 10,500 conservative survey that I carried out.

So I've got some questions to ask. I've got some questions to ask the minister responsible for homelessness about that crisis, and I don't want that time constrained. I'm glad the member for Powell River–Sunshine Coast has put forward an amendment that would protect the time available for me to ask questions about that crisis in our province. That's really important, and I support that amendment.

I have some questions to ask the minister responsible for homelessness about the government strategy when it comes to this crisis, this appalling situation across the province, this appalling situation in 2008 in British Columbia with upwards of 15,000 people homeless. I've got some questions to ask about the government's strategy, because it's not the right strategy.

When I look in the budget estimates I see that the government continues to pursue a strategy that will not solve the problem of homelessness in this province, and I've got some questions to ask.

That's what the people are paying me to do — to ask the minister some questions. They may like his answers or not like his answers, but they pay me to ask those questions, and I want every minute. They want me to have every minute that might be available to ask those questions about, for instance, the government strategy that sees an emphasis on creating emergency shelters to deal with the crisis of homelessness.

We sure need emergency shelters. We've got an emergency. But is it a strategy for dealing with the homelessness crisis? I don't think so. Should it be central to the strategy? I don't think so. It's the government's strategy.

I have the responsibility of asking questions about that. I don't want one minute taken out of estimates that would allow me to ask those questions. I'm glad the member for Powell River–Sunshine Coast has put forward the amendment. He's defending my ability to do what the people pay me to do.

The government strategy that puts…. The centre of their strategy for dealing with the homelessness crisis is to buy hotels, mostly in Vancouver but in other places in the province too. When he's asked about

homelessness in the province, the minister proudly points to the hotels that have been purchased around the province.

D. Chudnovsky: I think there are some questions to ask about that. There are some questions to ask about a government that thinks the strategy of purchasing SROs, which adds not one new unit of housing to the housing stock in a situation where upwards of 15,000 people are homeless…. When somebody from the government says, "That's a brilliant strategy," I think somebody from the opposition ought to ask some questions about it.

Is it a good idea to buy those SROs? I, as the opposition critic, have said: yeah, good idea. A strategy for any homelessness? No, not at all. I think I should ask some questions about that.

I don't think one minute of time should be removed from my ability to ask those questions — that's what the people pay me to do — but that's what this government wants to do. The member for Powell River–Sunshine Coast has put forward an amendment that would defend and protect the time available….

D. Chudnovsky: The member for Powell River–Sunshine Coast has put forward an amendment that would defend and protect the availability of time for me to do that job that the people have asked me to do. Good for him. I support that amendment, and I'll be voting for it.

Outreach workers are another part of the strategy. I want to ask the minister some questions about that, because at the end of the day, no matter how good the outreach workers are — and they're very good and very committed — you need places for people to live.

There are some questions that need to be asked about that strategy that the government has adopted with respect to homelessness. That's what this amendment that the member for Powell River–Sunshine Coast has put forward is defending — my ability to ask those questions. And I'm eager to ask those questions.

The "minister responsible for homelessness," through B.C. Housing, has adopted a strategy with respect to the replacement of social housing in the province. It's beginning with the kind of model project — they call it a model project, not me — at Little Mountain social housing, which is across the street from my constituency and the constituency of the Minister of Finance. It's a model project. The minister has said that it's a model project, and the B.C. Housing people have said that it's a model project.

I've got some questions. If we're going to replace social housing units in this province because they've become old — good idea — there are some questions to be asked. If government points to one of those projects and says, "This is a model project," there are questions to be asked about density, about replacement numbers, about the structure of the development and about potential privatization. There are all kinds of questions that the people pay me to ask.

This government wants to constrain my ability to ask those questions by cancelling three weeks of time in estimates. The member for Powell River–Sunshine Coast moves an amendment to the motion to defend my time to do that.

I'm for that amendment. I think that's a good idea. I think that the people out there are for that amendment too, because they want me — that's what they pay me to do — to ask those tough questions of the minister. They may like the minister's answers or they may not like the minister's answers, but they want those questions to be asked, and they don't want that time to be constrained. That's why I'm for the amendment that has been put forward by the member for Powell River–Sunshine Coast.

I also have the privilege of having had my leader ask me to be the critic for mental health issues in the province.

D. Chudnovsky: The minister opposite seems to think he knows what I've said, what I haven't said and what my speech is going to say. He has an opportunity, as you well know, to get up and say whatever he wants to say. I haven't said that already. I'm going to say what I want to say, which is that my leader has given me the privilege of having the responsibility for also being the critic for mental health issues.

D. Chudnovsky: The minister is listening carefully but not hearing very well.

My leader has asked me to be the critic responsible for mental health issues. You know what? The Vancouver police department, about a month or five weeks ago, told us that there's a crisis in mental health services in Vancouver. The result of which is that they — the police department — spend enormous amounts of their time, upwards of 40 percent and 50 percent, on calls where one of the contributing factors is a mental health problem.

That's staggering. It's a staggering figure and a staggering reality that police officers, trained to be peace officers, are spending their time doing their best to deal with situations which are really health issues. They're really health issues. They're not policing or safety issues. The Vancouver police department tells us that.

Well, it's my responsibility to ask the Minister of Health about that, among many other things. The police department says there's a crisis of mental health services. A judge in Victoria, in his ruling on what to do about a person in this community who has commit-

ted a crime, says: "I've got a problem. What really should happen is that that person should get mental health services, should have a health outcome here, and there is no health outcome for that person. And I don't know what to do."

My responsibility…. The people pay me to ask the Minister of Health about that. They want me to ask the Minister of Health about what the Vancouver police department says is a crisis in mental health services, and this government wants to constrain the time available for me to ask those questions. The member for Powell River–Sunshine Coast puts forward an amendment to protect my time to ask those important questions. I'm for that amendment. That's a good amendment.

If there were a crisis in the provision of health services to people who have cancer and pneumonia, if there were thousands of people in this province who have cancer or pneumonia who weren't getting the treatment they need, we would move heaven and earth in this building to deal with that crisis. But that's what's happening to people who have mental health problems in this province. Health problems. Mental health problems are health problems. They deserve the same kind of treatment, understanding and care that people with any other kind of problem in this province have. Yet they don't get it. The Vancouver police department told us they don't get it in Vancouver.

I know from the work I've done and from the calls I get every day in my office that it's not happening across the province. I have the responsibility to ask the minister about that. That's what they pay me to do, and this government wants to constrain my ability to ask those questions. The member for Powell River–Sunshine Coast moves an amendment to defend my right to ask those questions. I'm for that amendment.

The government tells us that the reason for this motion, the motion that's before us, is that the government needs time to bring forward legislation. Well, we've been here for weeks. The government had all kinds of time to bring forward legislation and chose not to. They chose not to bring forward the legislation that they argue is so important that they have to constrain the time available to do estimates in this House.

I say that I'm skeptical. I've had enough time in this House to have had my level of skepticism and cynicism raised higher than I would have believed possible when I first came here. I've got to tell you, Mr. Speaker, I don't actually believe that the reason for the legislation, to which the member for Powell River–Sunshine Coast has put forward an amendment, is really that the government doesn't have time to bring forward legislation.

They've got lots of time to bring forward legislation. They've been lax in doing it up till today. We come in day after day after day, and the Chair says: "Mr. Clerk," or "Madam Clerk." The Clerk says, "Introduction of bills," and there's silence from the government benches — the same people who tell us they need this extra time in the Legislature to bring forward new bills and new legislation. "Introduction of bills." Silence.

The reason for this legislation is because this government wants to do their darndest not to have a session of this Legislature in the fall, because they know that the opposition will hold them to account. They know that the tough questions will be asked. They know that the opposition will be on their case every single day, and they're scared of that. That's why they cancelled the fall session last year; that's why they want to cancel the fall session this year.

The amendment brought forward by the member for Powell River–Sunshine Coast does two things. It protects our right and our responsibility to ask the tough questions in estimates, and it does something to push the government to call this Legislature together in the fall and do the work of the people.

It's a good amendment. It's an amendment I support. I urge members opposite to support it. I hope it passes.

D. Hayer: I am very pleased to introduce five very hard-working, very special guests to the Legislature today from Simon Fraser University, which is one of the top universities in Canada. They include Lee Gavel, who is the chief facility officer and university architect for SFU; Michael Stevenson, the president of SFU; Warren Gill, vice-president of external affairs; Joanne Curry, who is the executive director of SFU's Surrey campus; and Wilf Hurd, who is the director of government relations and a past MLA from here. Would the House please make them very welcome.

M. Sather: It gives me great pleasure to stand in support of the amendment to Motion 37 that was brought forward by the member for Powell River–Sunshine Coast.

I'd like to take a minute to talk a little bit about what happens in this House with regard to the business of the day, because we have members of the public watching these proceedings. People used to tell me — and sometimes I hear it fairly frequently in this House — that nobody watches the proceedings of this House. But they do, and they tell me. They'll come up to me and say: "I was watching what was going on in the House." They might be watching at 11 o'clock at night or however late it runs. It's quite surprising.

As a former constituency assistant, I spent hours and hours and days and days watching the House. Even so, it's sometimes a little bit hard when you're watching the TV and you see that on the bottom of the screen it says: "Debate on the amendment to Motion 37." People are wondering what that is.

So I wanted to talk a minute about what the motion is and what the business of the House is. This is the main chamber of the House. We call it the big House here. This is where we have question period, where we have motions debated in the morning and, previously, where we would debate the estimates of the ministries. For every area that a minister covers in their portfolio, in their ministry, we would have a chance to ask the minister about that and to question them, and they would give answers. We would agree or disagree with their answers, but they would give answers.

It's been pointed out that although question period is seen as sort of the high-profile event that happens in this place, it's difficult to get answers in question period. You know, I could debate or argue about the job that the government is doing in answering our questions. There are certain institutional reasons, I suppose you might say, why it's hard to get answers. But it isn't so hard, or at least one has a better opportunity, to get answers from the ministers during the estimates debate.

What normally, as I was saying, would take place is that we would have estimates debates in these chambers and also in the Douglas Fir Room or Committee A, which is also televised, as was noted. So we could have simultaneous discussions of the estimates of one minister at the same time as we could have the debates of the estimates of another minister.

What the government is proposing with Motion 37 is that that will no longer be the case, insofar as we will not be having the debates on any minister's estimates in this House. That's significant for the capability of the opposition to hold the government to account, which is our chief job.

Yeah, I know that the government doesn't find it particularly fun sometimes to have to answer questions. Not having been a minister, I'm sure it takes a lot of preparation. They have assistants; they have staff people. Nonetheless, I'm sure it's not that easy for them.

What they have done by this motion, in effect, or what they're proposing to do, is shorten the amount of debate time that we have for estimates by some 58 hours. That's a long time; that's a lot of debate. In fact, as the member for Vancouver-Kensington pointed out before me, 58 hours is the equivalent of three weeks of debate. That's three weeks in this House that we will no longer be able to have, to hold the government ministers to account or to get answers to the questions that our constituents bring to us, saying: "We would like you to get a response from the minister."

What I often do is write a letter to the minister, but they would particularly like to hear, sometimes, what the minister has to say in person so that I can tell them: "This is the question that I asked, live. This is the answer that the minister gave, live." Sometimes it's a different answer than you get in a letter. That opportunity is going to be reduced considerably, if the motion that the government has introduced passes.

The amendment to this motion that the member for Powell River–Sunshine Coast has put forward is that the opposition has the ability to designate three ministries for this House, for the debate of the estimates of three ministries in this House.

There were actually five ministries debated in this House last year, so it's not as many as there were last year. But that's the proposition that the member makes with his amendment, which I support.

The thing to recognize here, too, is that this is not a one-off. This is not a one-time deal, I don't think. I think that once this passes — and I suppose, since the government has the majority, it will pass — this is how the business will be conducted from here on in.

This is what the government is saying to us, and the people of British Columbia have a right to be concerned about that, because they're the ones that need to get the information. We're the conduit to get that information for them, but we have to go to the government side to get the answers. Our ability to do that is being restricted.

I've heard various members of the government side say today: "Well, then you shouldn't be talking about this issue right now. You shouldn't be debating our motion. You should just get on with it. Forget about it." We can't do that.

We can't do that, because to do that would be to say it's all right for the government to come in with a heavy-handed approach. My colleague from Cariboo South called it bullying, and I don't think that's too strong of a word, actually.

It's a very heavy-handed approach that the government is using, a very large stick. It's incumbent upon us as members of the opposition to say no; we're not going to just roll over. We're not just going to say that you can have your way. We're here to stand up to the government and say that this is wrong. That's our role. We will continue to do that, and I know the government members don't like it.

What we're looking at here — the fundamental question — is accountability. Is the government accountable to the people of British Columbia or not? Everyone on both sides of the House says that accountability is of the utmost importance, that we all must be accountable to those who put their trust in us by electing us to represent them. I couldn't agree more. We absolutely have to cherish the ideal of accountability.

This government and the Premier have made it clear, at least in things they've said, that they think accountability is important as well. The Premier, for example, back in 2001 promised to create the most open, democratic and accountable government in Canada. Well, I have to ask how this motion contributes to accountability. It doesn't. It reduces accountability.

I wonder whether the Premier meant what he said back then. I know it was a long time ago, and he was fresh, having just been elected to this House as Premier. Maybe he didn't really mean that in the long haul, that was what they were going to do. Some of the things that have happened since 2001 lead us to very strongly believe that, in fact, he wasn't so big on accountability as he said back then in 2001.

But when I hear the government members say, basically, "Stop complaining and get on with it," they're

forgetting — especially those who were here prior to 2001 — that that isn't the way business was conducted when they were here. When they were here as opposition members, they had the opportunity…. As our House Leader mentioned in his opening remarks the other day, the government opened the House, and the opposition closed it.

It didn't close in May like it will this year and like it did last year. We can get into the legislative calendar and a fixed calendar, and that was a good thing. It is a good thing if the government held to the ideals and the practicality of that, which they haven't in all cases. But in those days the opposition got to close down the House, and they would go into June or July. I think a year or two, they might have even gone into August to hold the government of the day to account. So accountability is extremely important. We're here standing up to oppose Motion 37 because accountability of government is important. Accountability of elected officials is important.

Back in 2001 the government came into office with the New Era document. It said: "B.C. Liberals will reform how government works from top to bottom to create the most open, democratic and accountable government in Canada." There it was again. And in the Premier's victory speech back then, he said: "We will bring in the most open and accountable government in Canada. I know some people will say we'll soon forget."

Wow. I have to say that some people do say that they soon forgot. "But I promise we won't," said the Premier. "I promise we won't forget about accountability." Yet what we're seeing is that the government is forgetting about accountability.

In my constituency I was privileged to know a man named Gordon Dowding, who passed away a short time ago. Mr. Dowding was the Speaker of this House at one time, back in the 1970s. He looked at what was going on here in the House, and he said: "You know what? There's not enough accountability here. There's not enough opportunity for the government to be held to account."

Rather than being in a dictatorial position where you can just come in and more or less do what you want, he said there should be an opportunity for members of the opposition to question the ministers. So when Gordon Dowding was the Speaker of the House at that time, he brought in question period. That was a brilliant move to bring in true accountability or at least to enhance accountability in our democratic system.

He also at that time brought in Hansard, which is the record that we have of everything that goes on in this House, so that anybody at any time — and now, of course, it's on line, or you can get a hard copy — can look back years and see what their Member of the Legislative Assembly said about this or that, see what the minister said about this project or that project. Those were true measures of accountability, and it's in that spirit that we need to be moving forward, as the government likes to say.

It has been brought up, as well, by a number of other speakers, and I think it bears repeating that over the past four years, the Senate of our country has sat 48 days more than we have in this House — the Senate, which doesn't have the most sterling reputation, unfortunately. There are stories of people spending their time in Mexico, and this and that. There have been parties that were formed to get rid of that body, and yet we have been less accountable in many respects than they have.

We can't just say we've brought in accountability, and that's the end of it. We have to uphold the words that we said, and I'm hoping the government will rethink this motion. I'm hoping they will look at it and say: "You know, it doesn't really square with the promises that we've made to be the most accountable government in Canada."

One of the things we also saw with this government in 2006 was that they cancelled the fall sitting of the Legislature — virtually cancelled. I think we met for a paltry three days that fall.

I mentioned earlier how the opposition could debate on into July if they chose, when these members, or some of them, were in opposition — when their party was in opposition. And yet when the government came in with the fixed legislative calendar, which meant that we had a set sitting time from the middle of February to the end of May in the spring…. Then we had a fall session, or we were to have a fall session.

I think the government found that — you know what? — although there were two exceedingly capable members of the opposition in their first term of office, it was a little bit more difficult having to deal with an opposition of the size that they're having to deal with now. So what the heck. "If it's uncomfortable, we'll just get rid of it."

They decided not to meet that fall in 2006. Again, that wasn't an act of accountability. That wasn't an act of responsibility. But that's what the government did. The House Leader said, at the time: "We're not going to sit for the sake of sitting. I don't think people measure successful government by how many laws they pass."

Well, it's been mentioned that we aren't seeing too much legislation so far this year. I don't know if the government wants to be judged by that particular yardstick. According to the government in 2006, they said there was no urgent business. "The economy is ticking along." They had no legislation, anyway, to bring forward for debate.

It's a concern that the government seems to be moving away from the accountability that the Premier said this whole government was going to be founded on back in 2001, where we saw the cancellation of the fall session. Now we're seeing that the ability, the time, that we have as opposition to debate the ministers is going to be reduced.

Another thing that we need to look at very carefully, if we're talking about accountability and open and honest government, is freedom to access information. We have freedom-of-information legislation that was brought in — current legislation by the government of the day — in the 1990s. This government

doesn't seem to be very committed to it. We have a hard time to access information from this government for freedom of information.

It's unlike the promises that were made by the then opposition leader back in 1998, when he said that open government is the hallmark of the free and democratic process. He said: "Secrecy feeds distrust and dishonesty; openness builds trust and integrity." That's true.

As I said before, it's for the people of British Columbia. If the government doesn't want to tell the people of British Columbia everything that's going on, then there has to be a body that's there to do that in the democratic process. That's the opposition.

What have we seen, however, since this government has been elected? Well, we saw B.C. Ferries taken over by a private operation. I guess we still call it a Crown corporation, but it's operated like a business. It's not accessible to freedom of information. That's not open and accountable government. That's not in the spirit that the Premier said this government was going to be all about.

But why would they do that? Why would they make B.C. Ferries not accessible to freedom of information? The government can do what they want more readily if the people of British Columbia haven't got the information to hold them to account. If we don't have the information to hold them to account, it's much easier for the government to do what they want unchecked.

But those are not the tenets of democracy. That's the opposite. That's an autocracy. That's just being able to steamroller your way by power, and that's the exercise that the government is doing here with Motion 37. They're saying, notwithstanding everything else that's gone on here before: "We don't like it. We're going to change it. You should just roll over and go along with it." We can't do that, and we're not going to.

We had B.C. Rail, which was privatized and sold. We don't have access to information on that scale either. We're trying to find out through various means, and the courts are trying to find out through various means, what has happened with B.C. Rail. Let's hope that is resolved, because there is a very black cloud hanging over this province as a result of what took place with the privatization and sale of B.C. Rail.

This motion is about accountability; it's about taking responsibility. We see that this government is not very big on taking responsibility either. We hear the Minister of Education ducking and weaving about taking responsibility. She'll talk about school closures: "Well, go talk to your school board. They're the ones that are responsible for keeping the schools open or closing them."

I know that in my constituency we're facing three, maybe seven, school closures beyond the ones we've already had. We need the opportunity — I need the opportunity — to be able to question the Minister of Education about school closures in my constituency. I don't know if I'm going to get that opportunity. I hope we're going to have — I'm sure we are going to have — a debate on the estimates of the Ministry of Education. But how much opportunity will there be to speak about it?

The critic who is responsible for each ministry has to devote, necessarily, the bulk of the time to debate with the minister. How much time is then allocated to individual MLAs to bring forward their concerns from their constituency to the minister depends on how much time is available. That's the key issue here. It's about the time and ability to exercise our responsibilities to take care of our constituents and bring forward their concerns.

We had an issue when question period came up the other day about playground equipment, and the minister said: "Well, don't talk to me. Talk to the B.C. Confederation of Parent Advisory Councils. They're the ones that handed out the lottery." They determined who got to win the lottery, and that's not acceptable.

That's not accountability. There are many ways that we see that this government isn't being accountable, that they're not being responsible, and we want to have the opportunity to question the minister on those issues.

The government is passing this motion to change the legislative sitting schedule for…. No, I want to go back to 2007 just briefly because we had another change there, and we don't want to forget that. The hours in which we debate were changed. We used to have night sittings, and those were taken away, albeit they're difficult. I'm sure no MLAs are particularly fond of discussing issues late at night, but it was a time that we could hold the government to account. It was time that was valuable to the opposition to do that, and that's gone.

We're seeing a pattern here of diminishment by this government of the ability, the opportunity for the opposition to hold them to account. I'm sure that's very convenient for them, but it's not good for the exercise of democracy.

Why is the government doing this? What's going to happen is that now we're only going to discuss legislation. The bills brought forward by the government will be discussed in this House. We will have to make do with discussing the estimates debates in the little House. It's beginning to look, to me anyway, like the government is not keen — again, in 2008, leading up to an election in 2009 — on having a fall session. That's the way it looks to me. Hopefully, I'll be proved wrong, and that's not the point of this whole exercise.

The government is freeing up this House for legislation, I assume, to get that legislation passed — probably all of it. They want to ensure that none of it doesn't make it though the House. There was some legislation that didn't make it through the House last spring, and the government had the opportunity to bring that forward in the fall. But every time they have a fall session, of course, they're submitted to more scrutiny.

I think that's exactly what this government doesn't want. They don't want scrutiny. They don't want the opposition to be able to exercise their right to hold this government to account. There are a lot of things that we want to hold government to account for. There are a lot of things that we want to get answers to, as to just what is going on in the province.

For example, some of the other members have mentioned that we have had some debates about B.C.

Hydro and independent power producers. In my constituency — in Pitt Meadows, on our doorstep — there's a huge so-called run-of-the-river project that a proponent wants to put into the Upper Pitt.

It's a pristine area that has all six Pacific salmon spawning there. It has grizzly bears, a new population of Roosevelt elk and a new population of wolves. It's a very exciting place. It's hard to get to, and that's what makes it so special. That's what allows that wildlife to thrive.

We've been attending meetings that the proponent has hosted recently in Pitt Meadows. I went to one again this week in Mission. The question is being asked: where is the Minister of Environment? We would like to ask him what his view is about this project. We would like to hear him defend this project, but he hasn't shown up. I send the invitation out for him again. There's going to be another meeting in Pitt Meadows on this issue, and I invite the minister to come and listen to the people.

The meeting I did go to in Pitt Meadows was closed down by the fire marshal because there were so many people there. The room was too full. A previous Minister of Environment did show up, John Cashore from the 1990s. You know what, hon. Speaker? He talked about when he was the Minister of Environment and how he attended meetings very similar to that.

He said: "Yes, I have some scars on my back as a result. It's tough to sit in front of a group of citizens who aren't particularly happy with what's going on." But that's accountability. That's taking responsibility, and we don't see that happening with this government.

Again, I would like to invite the minister to show up to some of those meetings. But if he doesn't — and I'm not holding my breath that he will — at least we want to have the full opportunity to question him about issues like that.

I want to question him about what's going on in the Upper Pitt. I don't know if I'll have that opportunity. I don't know how much time is going to be devoted to debating the Minister of Environment's estimates, and that's unfortunate. I know that if I don't get that opportunity to ask the minister, a lot of people in my constituency and beyond are going to be really upset because they have questions, and they want answers. We need to have the opportunity to give the minister the opportunity to answer those questions.

S. Simpson: I'm happy to take my place to talk about Motion 37. For those who may be watching and wondering what the motion does, I'd just like to outline that. Then I'll go on to talk about the amendment and the relationship to the amendment.

What this motion does is affect and change the way we deal with estimates in this place. For people who may not be totally familiar with what goes on in the Legislature, estimates is a very critical part of the business we do here, and it's a very critical part of the role for the opposition. Hon. Speaker, certainly as you know, the estimates process is a key piece of the budget process itself, where every minister is held to account for how they manage their particular ministry and the programs they have developed and the taxpayers' dollars they spend.

In the case of every ministry and every minister, there is a critic on the opposition side who has the responsibility to do their best to understand the role of the ministry and the work of the ministry and then to be able to provide leadership, from the opposition side, in scrutinizing those ministers in what they do. Also, of course, as we know, it's not exclusively the critics who do that. In many instances there are many members of the opposition, and sometimes members of the government side too — backbench, government-side members — who have interest in particular ministries.

As you know, my critic area is the environment. I know that many of my colleagues have significant environmental issues in their constituencies. They like to have the opportunity to come and speak to the minister, and to direct questions to the minister and to senior staff, who join the minister in the estimates process, in order to get information and answers to the questions they have.

As you also know, it becomes, in the process of the estimates…. This Motion 37 will change, unless the amendment passes. We can hope for the amendment to pass. What this motion does, of course, is restructure, in some ways, how we have the ability to do that.

Currently the practice in this place is that the Premier's estimates, as the leader of government, and three other sets of estimates, at the choice of the opposition, are in fact held in this place. The remainder of the estimates go into Committee A, or the Douglas Fir Room, which is a second chamber where much of that gets discussed. The scrutiny of estimates and of ministers goes on there.

Here we have the opportunity to scrutinize the estimates of the Premier and of three ministries that have, certainly until this year, been selected by the opposition. I would note just for reference that last year we had the Premier's estimates here, and we had the estimates of the Ministry of Health, the Ministry of Environment and the Ministry of Forests and Range. It was a little more than 60 hours of time that was spent in this chamber to deal with those estimates.

If this passes, what we'll see now is that that will, in all likelihood, not occur, and all of those estimates will be moved to Committee A, or to the Douglas Fir Room. It's been estimated…. The Government House Leader spoke about something in the range of 190 hours — I think was his projection — that would be available for estimates under the proposed system if Motion 37 was to pass.

I would note that 190 hours is the suggestion. If we look back to 1997, about 438 hours were spent on estimates. That was at the time that the B.C. Liberals sat in opposition, and they chose to use something in excess of double that amount of time — about 437 or 438 hours of estimates debate there. That's fine. I think that was the decision of the B.C. Liberals as opposition. They wanted those hours, and the government of the day, the NDP of the day, accommodated that. That time was allowed for the opposition of the day to scrutinize to the greatest degree possible.

We're now hearing from the government that if Motion 37 passes, we will end up with something significantly less than half of that amount of time available to us to explore estimates of all of the ministries of government. Part of the problem with that is that this isn't just the time for us to raise the questions we have.

I know estimates is a very valuable time for the people in British Columbia. People in British Columbia who are involved in organizations, whether it be business groups, environmental organizations, community groups or other types of organizations, often have a keen interest in what the government is doing, what the government's policies are, and what the government's spending priorities and spending considerations are. They have a limited ability though, as we know, to ask those questions directly to ministers themselves, because they don't often find themselves in situations where they can avail themselves of the minister to do that.

What I find — and I know my colleagues find it as well — is that we have the opportunity, in discussions with those groups, that clearly all speak to us, as well, about their concerns in relation to government programs and policy…. They often will come and say: "We really do need answers to some of these questions, and we're finding it difficult to get those answers or impossible to get those answers."

Often in the estimates process we have the ability as opposition critics, as members of this place, to put in advance those questions on behalf of our constituents, on behalf of other constituents and on behalf of important organizations in British Columbia. We have the ability to advance those questions to ministers and to try to draw out the answers that those groups are looking for.

We don't always get answers. We know that that's challenging, and we certainly see that in question period. To be fair, the estimates process is a process where answers come somewhat more readily — not entirely, but somewhat more readily. Certainly, it's a place where you can delve into discussion of critical issues with the minister — and importantly, as well, with their senior staff being available at the same time so that you can actually engage those discussions.

The challenge here is that, as we go forward with that, we are going to see, as I said, in excess potentially of upwards of 60 hours of lost time in this chamber to deal with that. What we know is that this does impact our ability and the ability of this House to really do the people's business.

It's been suggested by the Government House Leader that, in moving this motion, there was some need, some desire, to expedite legislation in this House, because the legislation, as we know, all comes through this House — at least at this point in time. So this is the place where that is to take place.

Now, I must say — a couple of my colleagues, I know, have referenced this previously — that we are four weeks into what will be an 11-week session in this sitting. We're four weeks in, and we have seen very, very little legislation, setting aside those bills that are sort of traditional — the bills that come with the budget to enable the budget. There are a few of those. We saw those, as we would expect. But after that we've seen very little in the way of legislation four weeks, or a third of the way, through this sitting.

It does raise questions about what the government strategy is. It's either that we don't have the legislation together yet, or we're going to back-end load this legislation and try to jam it through. Maybe it's some combination of the two. The problem with that — certainly, you'll have to excuse our side for being just a little bit sceptical about this — is that we're supposed to have in this place two sessions, two sittings, in a calendar year.

We sit for the spring, which is the primary sitting when we deal with the budget. We deal with the estimates, and we deal with a number of the key matters that government has to address. That sitting this time is going to be about 47 days of sitting here. Not very much when you consider that the unelected Senate sits more days a year than the B.C. Legislature does. So we will sit for about 47 days.

We should be sitting, hon. Speaker, as you'll know, usually for another six or seven weeks in a fall sitting of the Legislature, which is another 27 or 28 days of sitting. Last year in 2007 we had that sitting. It was a very productive sitting, if I say so myself. The year before that we didn't have that sitting. We came for three days. Clearly, the government's intention was for us to come for about three hours. We were able to extend it by a couple of days at least, mostly to make a point. So we had about three days.

There is a concern on our side, and there's a concern with others in the community, as well, that the government's intention is to not sit the House this fall, to set that aside as we start closing in on May of 2009 and election time. So it is a challenge. It is a problem. There's no doubt about that. We'll have to see as this goes on.

Clearly, part of the challenge and part of the problem is that it looks to us like the government is looking for a way to try to jam through whatever legislation it has coming up this session and not have to sit in the fall. Because as you know, hon. Speaker — and I know you're aware of this — a big part of the fall session is to take legislation that doesn't get completed in the spring sitting and to carry it over to the fall so that the government has a second opportunity to get its legislation passed and to be able to deal with the business it wants to deal with.

So we have a situation, though, where we believe the government is much more interested in killing off that fall session than worrying about that, so they need to ram through their legislation this spring.

Now, my friend on this side has moved an amendment to the motion. The amendment to the motion would essentially restore the practice as we know it. That would ensure that the Premier's estimates would be in this House, in the Legislature — which would be a positive thing — and that we would be able to choose the other three sets of estimates that we believe should be held in this House. That is the practice.

Part of the challenge here, and part of the reason that this practice makes sense, is because…. When I look at this place and what we do here, there are rights

and there are privileges for all members. Part of the rights and privileges, I believe, for the members of the opposition…. The government gets to call most of the tunes in this place and to call most of the shots — absolutely. That's to be expected. But one of the situations that I believe is the right, and which certainly has historically been the right and the privilege of the opposition, is to be able to hold the government to account and to scrutinize the government.

Previously, before we came to fixed dates, which were brought in by the government, essentially the sittings would occur, the government would call the session, and the opposition would decide when the session was done. When they had, in due course, exhausted everything that they wanted to talk about they would then essentially adjourn the session.

The decision was made by government — for some good reasons, no doubt about it — to have fixed dates. But part of the deal with fixed dates was that we were to have the spring sitting and the fall sitting — to have the two sittings. That was our understanding.

The problem here, of course — and we saw this in 2006 — is that the government broke that promise. They broke that commitment, didn't adhere to the legislative calendar that both sides had agreed to with a fixed sitting and did not sit the House in the fall other than, as I said, for a couple of days.

That's a problem because, as I said, our job is to hold the government to account. As my friend from Vancouver-Kensington said earlier in his comments to this motion, that's what we're paid for. We're paid to come here. We're paid to ask those questions of ministers. We're paid to try to get the information out of ministers, to hold them to account, to make the government better by holding ministers to account, to make the government more transparent by digging out that information that doesn't always come readily from ministers or from the government. It is an important thing to do that. The amendment would allow us to come back and pursue this.

Let me just give you one example of that. It's around probably the most important item on the government's agenda at this time, which is the question of climate change. The government and the Premier clearly have a significant interest in this issue, and it is driving much of the government's agenda at this time.

One of our biggest criticisms of the government around the climate change initiative has been the level of secrecy. It has been the unwillingness of the government to talk to British Columbians about its climate change initiatives, to go out and meet with people in their communities and talk about not only why it's so important that we deal with the question of climate change and greenhouse gas emissions, which is important, but also to talk to them about how it gets done and talk to those communities about the key adaptation questions around how we deal with issues related to the impacts of climate change.

Those discussions have not occurred. They are not occurring today. We have marketing starting. We have spin starting. We have the information that the government chooses to roll out starting to come forward. But it's not a discussion. It's not an engagement with British Columbians. It's not a discussion about how we find these solutions, which I believe the vast majority of British Columbians would all agree we need to find.

Because that information isn't coming out…. It's inexplicable to me as to why the government has chosen this strategy of not talking to British Columbians about this issue. That's what makes the estimates process all the more important. Estimates is one of the few places in this discussion where we have any possibility of maybe drawing some of that information out, of getting government — whether it be the Premier or the Minister of Environment or, in this instance of this year, probably many, many other ministries, all of which have some form of climate change initiative or climate change aspect to their spending plans for the year….

We'll need to get at all of those. Only by doing that, only by our efforts to draw that out do we begin, hopefully, to paint a picture for the people of British Columbia — for local communities and local governments, for the business community and for others — about what it is the government is intending to do, what the government expects to accomplish or achieve by its objectives and how close it will get or not get to the targets that it set for 2020 and 2050.

So the estimates process becomes an incredibly important piece to achieve that, and that's only in the one area, the climate change area. I'm sure that my colleagues on this side could identify policy area after policy area where it becomes important to be able to have that discussion with ministers.

Now, what we know is that the government doesn't seem to acknowledge — or has chosen not to acknowledge, in my view — the role that the opposition has in order to fulfil that commitment. The expectation and the commitment that we have to the people of British Columbia is to do our job as opposition, to ask those questions, to draw that information out, to help British Columbians better understand what the government is and isn't doing. Then they make their own judgment, as the citizens and the taxpayers of this province, as to what they do or do not approve of in terms of the government's conduct, actions and policies.

The challenge to this is that the government doesn't seem to have much time for that part of what I would suggest is sort of the history of this place, the parliamentary history, and the expectation of this place, which all believers in the parliamentary democracy would embrace — that that is the role.

Rather, what's happened at this point, it seems to me, is that this government, over the six or seven years that it's been around, has developed quite a stunning sense of entitlement for itself. It really does believe that it sits on that side of the House through some right rather than through the wishes and the desires of the people of British Columbia.

That becomes a concern, because whatever the stripe of the government — in this case, the B.C. Liberals, but it would be true if it was the NDP as well — we

need to always remember that we come and sit here at the behest of the people of British Columbia.

Frankly, we can be sent packing just as quickly at the desire and the behest of the people of British Columbia. Because of that, we should feel the responsibility, and we should fulfill the responsibility of making sure that we are as open, as clear, as transparent and as understood as we can be for British Columbians.

The problem with Motion 37 is that it chips away at that. It chips away at our ability as the opposition members to help British Columbians get the information they need to be able to make the decisions they need to make and the judgments they need to make about this government and its conduct, as well as about ourselves as the opposition.

It is my view — and I think it's a view that's shared by many of my colleagues on this side — that this decision to bring Motion 37 is part of a well-considered and calculated strategy on the part of the government to just chip away a little bit more, to erode a little bit more, that sense of parliamentary democracy that we have traditionally had here, that sense of openness that's supposed to be here, that role of accountability that ministers should be performing and be expected to perform around the estimates process. It all just chips away a little bit at that. That's what I believe we're seeing with Motion 37.

Now, we know that there are other ways that we could have got at this. I know that it has been spoken about previously and that there were other methods used. I believe the Government House Leader spoke about some of the approaches that are taken in other jurisdictions.

There are jurisdictions that use committees, clearly, to do some of this work. But we have a situation here where we have pretty much a dysfunctional committee system. We have a committee system that doesn't operate, unlike many other jurisdictions.

If we had a committee system that operated, with the appropriate sets of committees to meet the different objectives for the different ministries, where ministers could come before the committees and sit down with committees and have a discussion around their budgets and their program on the record, that would probably be a good thing. But that's not something that happens here, because with the exception of a small number of committees that meet, our committees don't function.

We don't have the committee system that they have in the federal parliament, or that they have in other jurisdictions, where the estimates process, different from what we do here, might be able to be done through a committee structure. That might be something to look at, but that's not even a discussion.

Instead, we have a situation where the government has used Motion 37 in order to say: "We're just going to change a little bit — not very much, just a little bit — how we do this. What's the big deal?" The government says: "There's just a little bit of change, and then we'll be fine." Well, it's all incremental.

We can look back. Committees are eroded. We now have a situation where we're going to change the estimates process and erode the estimates process a little bit. We will see other changes, I'm sure, as we come along.

We didn't have a fall sitting in 2006. Maybe we don't have a fall sitting in 2008. Maybe 47 days is all the time that we spend here in this calendar year.

I know, and I'm sure, that we all do good work and hard work in our constituencies on both sides of the House, but I will tell you…. I know that if I talked to my constituents, they have some expectation that I might spend more than 47 days a year in the Legislature.

They're paying all of us pretty good money to be here. They expect us to work hard on their behalf. But when I say: "Well, working hard…. We work hard, but only about 47 days in the Legislature this year. I don't know whether there will be any more. There's no guarantee of that."

Back before 2006 we thought there was a guarantee. But clearly that broken promise in 2006 when the fall session was cancelled in an arbitrary way by the government…. So much for that commitment. So much for being able to count on or rely on that commitment to come forward.

So all I can do is tell my constituents: "I'm pretty sure we've got 47 days. I'm not so sure we'll be back in the fall to talk about other issues that might be important to you. I'm not sure we'll be able to have the discussions around public policy that you may want or legitimately expect us to be talking about as legislators in this place." That may or may not occur, because there's no assurance that we will actually be back here.

Without that assurance, quite frankly, it becomes even more compelling that we sustain an estimates process that works. The amendment that was moved by my friend would pretty much have us keep the status quo. I think what we're saying on this side is: that is the deal, and that's the deal that we had. That is the expectation we had — the role of the opposition to be able to call for the Premier's and three other sets of estimates in this House and have those debates here, which would afford us significantly more hours in the other House.

I believe the Government House Leader said that we've around 190 hours of available time in Committee A. Well, if we have that and we put 50 or 60 hours of time in this House, then we've got 250 hours or so for estimates. It's not an unreasonable amount of time.

I will tell you that while the members on the government side, when they were in opposition, might have required 438 hours for estimates in 1997, I don't think we need 438 hours for estimates. We probably could do with 250 hours for estimates, and we'll struggle through with that. But that's not what the government is talking about. With Motion 37, if the amendment doesn't pass, we're talking about something less than 190 hours of time to be able to talk about important issues.

We have many, many British Columbians…. We've had lots of discussion in this House on health care issues. We've had discussion on issues related to seniors. We will have discussion on issues related to climate change. We've had discussion on issues related to crime and safety. We've discussed issues related to education at both the K-to-12 and the post-secondary levels.

All of these discussions sometimes just explode in a minute or two of a question period, of back-and-forth debate, but British Columbians know that those issues are important, and they want to know more and to understand those issues more. The opportunity that they have to understand those issues, the time that they have to do that, is the estimates process. That's when they get a chance to really understand those issues. They get a chance to help us craft the questions that we ask of ministers, so that in fact we know where this is going. We have that opportunity — and a good thing it is — and we're able to move forward on those.

I do think that Motion 37 fails our system of parliamentary democracy, and it particularly fails it when it's connected with all the other incremental things this government has done to chip away at that process.

As my time comes to a close, I have a suspicion that we're very soon going to see the system of parliamentary democracy being used again to limit us even more. We'll see, as our time goes on, what's happening here, but I suspect we might be very close to seeing the sledgehammer of the government side coming down again anytime soon.

S. Simpson: As my friend says, it will be shameful if that is in fact what occurs here in the next short while.

I will take my place here in a moment. This is a bad motion. It undermines our process. We all could do better. I would urge the government, in these last moments before it takes the action that I suspect it's taking, to in fact think about this one more time, to move on, to do the right thing, instead of doing what it's doing.

M. Karagianis: I'm rising today to voice my concerns about Motion 37, and I have to say that I was disturbed and dismayed when I read the content of this motion, because I can see very clearly here that this particular motion is going to constrain and reduce both the access to government and the democratic process entirely.

Certainly, it was with some relief that I saw that the member for Powell River–Sunshine Coast put forward an amendment to this motion, which I think would restore some balance in the situation we have before us here today.

My experience as a critic has shown me very clearly the difference between having adequate access to estimates debate and having constrained access to estimates debate. My experience as the Small Business critic in the first year of estimates debate was considerably different than what it was in the second year as Children and Families critic, and it really, for me, magnified the importance of the estimates debate and the amount of time that we are given to scrutinize government, scrutinize budgets and ask questions of government.

In the year that I asked questions of the Small Business Minister…. There were many things that I had an opportunity to learn and discover during that time period, and there were no constraints put on the number of questions I could ask the minister or the number of different issues I could raise with him. Certainly, the kind of dialogue that ensued opened up various very interesting aspects of what kind of business the government was up to around collections of MSP billing, the fiasco that occurred with their privatized contractor for that and the amount of money it cost taxpayers as a result of that.

Those were things that I discovered in that process, through an elaborated opportunity to ask questions and probe and continue to dig for information and have that dialogue. Conversely, in the last round of estimates debate as the Children and Families critic, I found that the Children and Families estimates had been put to the very last day of the sitting, and therefore we were considerably constrained in the amount of time that we had to ask questions of the minister and to bring forward the issues that were of concern to all of those who receive services or work with the Ministry of Children and Families.

It was greatly frustrating that all of the questions I had for the minister and all of the issues that had been brought to me by service providers, by families who access Community Living services and who had seen sharp reductions over the past years and who were now facing hardship and considerable discomfort for their own children, their own families and their own situations…. All of those people who had entrusted me to bring those questions forward to the minister, to use the tools that are given to us here in the parliamentary process to go and ask of the minister questions that were pertinent to those families….

I found that, unfortunately, my time was so constrained that I had to very quickly reprioritize the whole list of concerns and questions that families had brought to me. All those families who were waiting to hear answers to their concerns were now left with no one to ask the question and certainly no one to answer the question.

Instead, we were steadily squeezed and squeezed for time so that only a very few issues could get raised with the minister, and it was really unfortunate. I heard from those families for a long time afterwards, around their disappointment that that one conduit of access to government had been cut off, constrained, shut down.

The one opportunity they had to get some answers to the questions that they couldn't get from the minister in person, that they couldn't get by writing letters, that they certainly couldn't get by any kind of dialogue in question period…. All of that was shut down, closed to them, and they were left hurt and frustrated over that. So for me, that was a very vivid lesson in what happens when you reduce access to government and to this particular process.

I was very dismayed when reading through Motion 37, and I realized that we were going to lose dozens and dozens of precious hours of question-and-answer time in the estimates process. I know that earlier I heard members of the government side saying: "Oh, you have question period. It's now 30 minutes. What are you griping about? That should be everything you need to satisfy the need to question government." Well, frankly, question period gives you a couple of questions. You don't get any answers.

There is no way to go in and ask further questions, to develop a different line of questioning, to actually try and evoke from the ministers real information that is valuable to the people out there in the communities who are waiting to hear answers to their questions and resolutions to their issues and maybe glean some indication of what government is thinking when they cut or reduce or change or alter their programs so that families and vulnerable people are affected every day. Question period certainly does not give you any kind of opportunity to do what you can do in the estimates debate process.

I am relieved to see that we're standing here debating an amendment to this, an amendment that would actually restore some of those hours that we could otherwise lose, because I think it is really important that we not constrain democracy any more than we already have with this government and that we not constrain access to government.

This is the one process whereby there is a free-flowing dialogue between any member, any MLA, certainly all of the critics. Every member of this House can go and ask a minister why they're spending money the way they are, what their plans are. "Does that work for my community? Does that not work for my community?"

There can be a dialogue that occurs. It's not always the same kind of dialogue as you would get sitting down and having a civil conversation, but it is, in its own way, the only opportunity for a dialogue back and forth with government. When we lose that right, I think we all have every right to stand up in this House and oppose Motion 37 or any other motion, bill or legislative attempt to constrain our access to information and to government itself.

When we have debates here in the House, they're often one-sided. We get to have our 30 minutes of debate, and then the minister gets to have his opportunity to debate legislation. I think particularly of the debate that the Minister of Transportation and I had around the TransLink bill. That went on and off. That debate started in the spring of 2007 under Bill 36 and then followed its way through the fall into Bill 43 and various iterations and changes and shifting sands around how the governance of TransLink was going to occur.

I stood in this House and debated, and the minister stood in the House and spoke at length, but at no point did I get to ask questions about what was occurring. I got to stand here and say what I thought of it, and the minister then later got to respond about what he thought about what I had said. But at no point have I had that opportunity to go and ask the minister about all of the changes that have taken place with TransLink, all of the new governance there that is raising an uproar in the lower mainland, because it has become apparent that TransLink is now subject to all kinds of secrecy.

Huge raises have gone down for board members that have exceeded anything that happens anyplace else in this province on any Crown corporation, in any authority. We have this TransLink group that is handpicked by this government to run an organization, now operating in secrecy, now giving themselves huge, fat raises. There's a debate going on right now in the lower mainland over whether or not TransLink is going to now try and levy some property taxes against residences because this government has not allowed them a parking stall tax.

There are a whole lot of questions just around that that I would very much like to have a chance to ask of the minister. My experience around what happened last year with MCFD says to me that I may only get a few hours now. If we're going to constrain everything into the small committee room, the Douglas Fir Room, if we're going to reduce the overall time of estimates by as much as three weeks' worth of debate time, then it says to me that all of us will be doled out mere minutes with the minister to ask these questions. Because let's be frank, there are a whole lot of issues in a whole lot of different ministries, from health to education to climate change to transportation, right across the whole array of ministerial responsibilities.

Innumerable MCFD questions, like the ones that I have here on just one topic, need to be asked. There are numerous questions that all of us need to be asking, and yet what we will have is the same experience that I had with the Ministry of Children and Families estimates last year. I had many hours' worth of questions and work and dialogue with the minister constrained into a few hours. So I had to then pick and choose very carefully what few questions I would ask and how many other questions would fall by the wayside.

I've heard the Minister of Transportation musing out loud that there might even be possible legislative amendments coming down to the TransLink bill. I've seen that musing in writing in lower mainland media, saying that perhaps some of the issues that have come out of TransLink, like the concern for a $600,000-a-year transit commissioner that the mayors have objected to…. The minister has mused about how, well, maybe there will be some changes to that.

That's a whole very interesting and compelling line of questioning that I would have for the minister in

estimates debates, and I hope that I have a chance to ask those questions. I hope that there will be enough time. Will I be able to go in and ask the minister about the issues around TransLink? Will I be able to talk about other current issues and government spending now through the next couple of years — how that fits with climate change, how it fits with community planning and how it fits with what the mayors in the lower mainland want?

Even more importantly, what about the transportation issues and transit issues here on the south Island? Will I have a chance to go in and question the minister on some of the things he has mused about in the press in recent days — that he will or will not support transportation expansion here in the south Island if he gets a business plan?

My fear is that with all of the estimates now being constrained by hours and hours and hours, reduced from what we had last year and in previous years, I'm going to have to pick through and say, like I did last year with MCFD estimates: well, which of these questions? If I can't ask all the questions, what are the top few that I would ask?

Who do I pick and choose? Do I say that the lower mainland does not deserve to have their questions answered at the…? The other priority would be the south Island, because in fact that's where my community is and where my constituency is. Do I choose one over the other, or do I do my job here in the House to the best of my ability and as a critic make sure that I get a chance to ask all of these questions? Will I have to pick and choose those? I don't know, and that disturbs me greatly.

I see that the amendment the member for Powell River–Sunshine Coast has put forward is a solution to that. At the very least, it would restore the current balance that we have, of having enough estimates here in this chamber that we will have some predictability around the amount of time we will have for estimates debate in the Douglas Fir Room.

I think I heard a member from the government side say something about us just wanting to be on TV. Frankly, I could care less which room my estimates debates are in. I just want to make sure that I have enough time to ask of the Minister of Transportation all of the questions that I have about transportation.

Now, as well as a critic, of course, I'm here as the member for Esquimalt-Metchosin, and I have a whole number of issues that are of great concern to my community. So besides the work that I would do as a critic, there is a whole number of other issues that I would want to go and ask of other ministers in their estimates debate. I have done so in the past, when I've carefully paid attention to what portion of what bills and what portion of estimates are occurring at any given time, and I went in and asked questions of those various ministers.

Again, if there are only minutes doled out now for those kinds of questions in every single ministry, now that we're taking almost three weeks out of the calendar, that means every single ministry will be broken down and constrained into this little tiny time frame, where even questions beyond what the critic has will be squeezed into some kind of priority list. We're all going to have to compete.

Climate change. I know my colleague, the previous speaker, spoke about climate change. Frankly, I, like many members on this side, have an endless number of questions. I'm sure I could probably fill a whole legal pad with the number of questions I have of the government.

I would ask a variety of ministers — everyone from the Finance Minister right through to the Environment Minister and others who would be affected with this climate change responsibility. All of the questions I would have to ask them about the decisions they've made, and the many decisions they have not made, the many missed opportunities in this budget….

My concern and perplexity about a number of decisions that the government has made around giving huge polluters in the oil and gas industry huge tax breaks and tax gifts at the same time that they are expecting people in rural British Columbia or remote areas of the province or working people in my community to just pay more for gas…. Somehow that's going to make the whole climate change issue work.

Just going in and asking one question like we do in question period and getting no answer is not the same as going into estimates and being able to ask back and forth, to have a dialogue and say: "I want better answers. What about this? What about that? Why have you done this? Where is the money going here? Why are you spending $220 million on banks? Why are you giving $327 million away to the oil and gas industry? How much are you spending on oil and gas exploration? Where do you see that fitting in with real climate change and changing people's behaviour and investing in new options for people so that they can change their behaviour?"

Those are questions that I would like to have a chance to ask, not in a constrained environment where I'm told I've got five minutes. "That's all you can have because everybody else also needs to ask questions. The critic needs to ask questions. And oh, frankly, we've just taken three weeks out of the calendar here, so everybody will be given less time, less opportunity." It will all be constrained through this tiny, little, narrow time frame that won't meet our needs.

Often I have constituents come to me in my office with concerns that cannot easily be solved until you get a chance to go face to face with a minister and ask some questions, until you get to look the minister in the eye and say: "Why have you done this?"

The seniors in my community who are seeing their home care cut; the seniors in my community who have great concerns about the kind of long-term care they're going to get; the families of seniors in my community; the husbands and wives who have senior partners, spouses, who have gone into care and are dissatisfied with that level of care — those are questions that are best answered if you can have a dialogue with the minister, a discussion back and forth about the whys,

All of those things need to have that direct dialogue, one-to-one, in order to satisfy and to go back and say to my constituents: "Yeah, I found the answer to your question. I didn't have to FOI it" — I hope — "and I didn't have to wait for months and months for a letter that came through hands that justified what VIHA has done. I looked in the minister's eyes, and he told me that this is the answer to your concerns."

As I think about the issues around school closures and the education crisis in my community…. It's no secret that my community was extremely disturbed and very angry about the closure of Lampson School. We've again seen a continuing shifting of funding. We've seen further reductions of funding here within the Education Ministry that lead me to think there will be more problems like this. Whether they will be in my community next week or tomorrow or six months from now, I don't know.

These, again, are the kinds of questions that I feel are best served in an estimates environment, where I can ask the minister about the plans, about why policies are what they are, about how these spending priorities will affect my community this year and next year and about what my community can expect. Frankly, that was what my community sent me here to do.

For government now to bring down Motion 37 and say to me: "It doesn't matter what you were elected to do. It doesn't matter what the rules of the House were and what the game plan was for years before you got here and that up until this day you had an expectation that you'd have this opportunity to hold government accountable." Never mind all of that — right? Now government again, in its endeavour to constantly reduce opportunities to be accountable to the public, is going to further constrain this down.

It makes me wonder. With all of the other issues that are facing families today around affordability, things like B.C. Hydro rates going up…. This is something that I believe needs to have a dialogue with the minister responsible. In the face of everything else this government is doing and saying that it's going to do and purports to be doing around climate change…. So many of the actions that they're taking here are going to harm families and make it more difficult for them.

I would like a chance to ask the ministers responsible for these decisions why and how they see families surviving and how this fits with climate change. I want to have that opportunity to have that dialogue. With three weeks of the calendar now chopped out of our time here in the House, how can I possibly do that? How can we have a discussion on the realities of what faces families every single day in this community if we don't have any access to the estimates debate, to those ministers, and if that time continues to be eroded away from us?

On the other hand, I would have to ask, then: what's the other agenda in hand here? Motion 37 very clearly has laid out what I see is government's plan here. Squeeze the estimates into the Douglas Fir Room. Reduce the opportunity and access to the ministers by 60 hours, by three weeks. Constrain that right down.

What does that do, then? That frees time up in this House for something monumental, apparently, which is going to take place here. You have to ask yourself: what is that? What is going to be this monumental amount of debate that is going to occur here that is going to now demand that this chamber be filled with a legislative agenda of bills and, I guess, mysterious things yet to be determined? We certainly haven't seen it.

I would say we would anticipate that there may be lots of legislation coming. Given what we saw in the throne speech, given what we saw in the budget and given the fact that we're — what? — a third of the way through this session and haven't seen any of the things that were promised in both the budget and the throne manifest themselves in any significant way, then I guess at some point there's going to be a veritable windstorm of paper in this chamber.

We're going to see bills thrown down here every time the Clerk calls for bills — maybe two or three at a time, and probably every day — in order for us to meet the grandiose promises of the throne speech and the climate change budget. I'm expecting that it will take a great deal of legislation to determine how so much money is going to go to big polluters, to oil and gas, to banks.

Certainly, I'd be very interested to see the long-term plan, the big climate action that we're waiting for. Frankly, we keep hearing about the big climate action plan, but we never see it. It's always just a little bit out of reach.

We've seen a little, tiny gas tax. We've seen a big giveaway to banks and to oil and gas industries that do not need the kind of subsidization the government is giving them, but we have not seen anything manifest itself in the way of real options for real people across British Columbia.

I suspect that's why we're having to clear the decks in here, in this chamber, because we are going to see some pretty enormous legislation coming down that is going to compel us for a lot more hours than it has in the past. Apparently, we need to claw back 60 hours of estimates debate time in order to make room in this House. I'm fascinated to see what that will look like.

Frankly, when I hear the government members…. They stand up and mock and jeer and cast all kinds of aspersions about what it is that we may have as our intentions here. I wonder how they can reconcile that with all of the bluster that we've heard for years about openness and accountability and access: "We're going to be so accessible." Even back as early as 1999 the Premier talked about how, when he got into government, we'd be fixing the legislative calendar. We'd fix it so that we'd have regular sittings. You'd deal with finance in the spring; you'd deal with legislation in the fall.

That actually made a lot of sense. That seemed like a very sensible plan. In fact, going into the election in 2001 it was a banner that the Premier carried pretty high. He waved it whenever he could. There was a lot

of talk about accountability and about how this was going to be a government that reformed how we did business here in British Columbia.

I know that people believed that. I would expect that members on that side of the House believed that. How they can reconcile within their own minds the activities since then is a mystery to me. Every single day I see that every attempt is made in this House to reduce, constrain, push away and hide from accountability, to find ways to foist it off on health authorities, on school trustees or on TransLink boards. At every turn, the government continues to remove itself further and further from the public view.

I've come to the conclusion that this is a government that doesn't really want to govern. The last thing they are interested in is governing. This is a government who wants to behave like a corporation, where boards can meet in private and where decisions can be made with none of that pesky democratic public process, because everyone knows that it's noisy, robust and snoopy. It is always looking to see what the government is doing with your taxpayers' dollars, and it's a messy business.

So get rid of all that pesky, democratic consultation — the democratic process, letting people have access to government and really being open, transparent and accountable — because it is uncomfortable. You can't sneak away and do clandestine things with the taxpayers' money. You have to look them in the eye.

As an elected member, I will continue to stand up in this House every day that I have breath in my body to say that we cannot allow the democratic process and access to government to be compromised any more than it already has. We have to go back to opening up this government and making it really accountable.

I'm here to say: vote in favour of this amendment. Get rid of this Motion 37 that constrains and reduces our access to government. Do the right thing in the House today. I'm hoping the government members will hear that.

Hon. C. Richmond: I do wish to take my place in this debate and make a few comments, before we close for the week, on Motion 37. We've now heard about a day and a half's worth of comments, mainly from the other side of the House, on Motion 37, very little of it having any relevance to the motion. We've heard about every subject under the sun — how it's going to destroy democracy, how the sky is falling, and all the rest.

It reminds me very much of the debate late last year on the sitting hours in the House, when we decided to remove the evening sittings but keep the same number of hours and just change the starting and finishing time of the House. That was going to be the end of democracy, too, as we know it today.

I've heard a lot of misinformation come from the other side, such as how we won't have as much time to debate estimates. Well, the average time in the last few years of debating estimates has been 175 hours. Had we passed this motion yesterday, there would have been 188 hours left to debate estimates, but we've used up a day and a half, I think needlessly, which is going to shorten the time in the little House on estimates.

The member for Esquimalt-Metchosin, who spoke just ahead of me, was saying that she ran out of time last year and wasn't able to ask as many questions as she wanted to. Well, one of the reasons is that a lot of time was wasted in estimates last year. I sat through a lot of it.

For example, my critic asked the same question over and over, until I lost count. He didn't really like the answer he was getting, which was very truthful. In fact, he even said to the Chairman: "Mr. Chairman, why don't you make the minister give me a different answer?" I said: "Well, if you asked a different question, I guess you'd get a different answer." But it was a very complex question, and it went on and on. That's one of the reasons why estimates were a little short for some ministries last year.

There has been no overall change in the time allotted for estimates and bills. What this change does is to ensure that legislation remains the priority for time in the large chamber. Your own House Leader said yesterday:

Hon. C. Richmond: This chamber traditionally has been for debating legislation, and that, in my opinion, is what it should be used for. The estimates can just as well be done in the little House, as we call it, in the Douglas Fir Room. It will be televised. Hansard is in there. Television is in there. It will even be streamed onto the Internet.

I do want to take a couple of minutes to give the members who probably do not know this a very quick history lesson, and I shan't be long with it. Back in 1991, I was on this side of the House, in government, and the NDP was opposition. I'm not going quite back to the dark decade; I'm just getting close to the dark decade.

I was the Government House Leader at the time. I remember saying to the Opposition House Leader, who was a gentleman named Mark Rose…. He was a gentleman, a very nice man, and I liked him very much. He was a good guy, but he was a musician, so what do you expect? I mean, he had to be a nice fellow.

I remember saying to him…. Right in the Speaker's corridor out here I took him aside one day in about the summer of '91. I said: "Mark, we could get a lot more business done in this House if we started doing some estimates in the Douglas Fir Room." We used to do them all in here. He said: "Well, that's a thought. I don't

know if I can sell it to my caucus, so let me go back and see if I can do that."

He went back to his caucus, and the next day he came to me and said: "No way. We're not letting you take estimates out of this big House and do them in a committee room down the hall." It was all equipped for Hansard and everything. I didn't run again in '91, which was probably a good move, but one of the first things the NDP did when they became government was to move a lot of the estimates down to the Douglas Fir Room.

It seems that it's a good idea, as long as it's yours. If it's not your idea, it's not a good idea. I submit that doing the estimates in the little House, as we call it, will not hinder the ability of the members to question ministers and find out exactly how they're spending their money, which is what estimates are for.

Virtually every other jurisdiction in Canada has assigned responsibility for estimates debates to committees outside the main chamber. Furthermore, a number of jurisdictions limit their estimates debates to a hundred hours or less. We're not doing that. We're not reducing the time for debate. We're merely changing the venue where these debates take place.

The original rationale around having estimates debates in the main chamber was to facilitate the broadcasting of the proceedings to the public. This objective can now be met with the proceedings in the committee room rebroadcast every evening at 7:30 and on weekends. It also has live webcasting.

Just to go over my main point one more time, this chamber is the legislative chamber. This is the chamber where laws are made, and we will allow more time now for debating legislation rather than estimates. The members opposite will have many more hours in this chamber to debate legislation.

I submit that we have debated Motion 37 long enough. With that, I move that the question on the amendment be now put.

Although the motion before us, I know, is not debatable, I also know that the motion is discretionary, upon your consideration. The key things, according to MacMinn's second edition, are that there has been enough time for debate and whether or not there are members who still wish to speak, and the number of members who have already spoken.

I would submit to you, hon. Speaker, on the amendment, that there have been not a lot of members speaking on the amendment and that there have been a significant number of members who have not been able to speak on the amendment and who wish to do so. Given our parliamentary practice and the rules by which this House operates, understanding 46, I would ask you to take that into consideration before you make your decision.

Mr. Speaker: Hon. Member, I have carefully considered Standing Order 46. I have carefully listened to the debate on the amendment, and there has been ample time for members on both sides to talk to the amendment. With that, I'll proceed with the question.

Hon. C. Richmond: Using the same argument that I used on the amendment, I think we have had sufficient debate on the main motion. I therefore move that the question be now put.

M. Farnworth: Again I recite and bring to the Speaker's attention Standing Order 46, of MacMinn's third edition of Parliamentary Practice in British Columbia.

While I understand the reasons — I may not agree with them — around the issue of the amendment, I would like to point out to the Speaker one of the key issues that he must recognize — and I quote from MacMinn's third edition, Standing Order 46 on page 95 — is the rules which govern the Speaker in coming

to a decision. "The Speaker would consider such factors as time already occupied on the debate in question and the weight of the question under debate."

Mr. Speaker, I would put it to you that a question which removes privileges from members in this House, not just for the opposition but also for the government side, not just for today but into future parliaments, is a serious question that the Speaker must take into considerable consideration. As well, the issue around members who would still like to speak to the motion and those who have not spoken….

I draw the Speaker's attention to the weight of the issue under discussion and ask you to take that into very serious consideration.

Mr. Speaker: Hon. Member, on Standing Order 46, as I mentioned earlier, I did take into very serious consideration the input by both the opposition side and the government side. I listened to you, as the designated speaker. I listened to the Leader of the Opposition. I listened to the Government House Leader. There was lots of very good debate that took place on Standing Order 46, on Motion 37, but I still believe, in all fairness, that the question should be put.

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.


	YEAS — 38

Falcon	Reid	Coell
Ilich	Chong	Christensen
Les	Richmond	Bell
Krueger	van Dongen	Roddick
Hayer	Lee	Jarvis
Nuraney	Whittred	Cantelon
Thorpe	Hagen	Oppal
de Jong	Taylor	Bond
Hansen	Abbott	Coleman
Hogg	Sultan	Mayencourt
Polak	Hawes	Yap
Bloy	MacKay	Black
McIntyre		Rustad

	NAYS — 20

Brar	S. Simpson	Fleming
Farnworth	Ralston	Simons
Puchmayr	Gentner	Dix
Trevena	Robertson	Karagianis
Evans	Krog	Austin
Chudnovsky	Wyse	Sather
Macdonald		Conroy


	YEAS — 38

Falcon	Reid	Coell
Ilich	Chong	Christensen
Les	Richmond	Bell
Krueger	van Dongen	Roddick
Hayer	Lee	Jarvis
Nuraney	Whittred	Cantelon
Thorpe	Hagen	Oppal
de Jong	Taylor	Bond
Hansen	Abbott	Coleman
Hogg	Sultan	Mayencourt
Polak	Hawes	Yap
Bloy	MacKay	Black
McIntyre		Rustad

	NAYS — 20

Brar	S. Simpson	Fleming
Farnworth	Ralston	Simons
Puchmayr	Gentner	Dix
Trevena	Robertson	Karagianis
Evans	Krog	Austin
Chudnovsky	Wyse	Sather
Macdonald		Conroy


	YEAS — 38

Falcon	Reid	Coell
Ilich	Chong	Christensen
Les	Richmond	Bell
Krueger	van Dongen	Roddick
Hayer	Lee	Jarvis
Nuraney	Whittred	Cantelon
Thorpe	Hagen	Oppal
de Jong	Taylor	Bond
Hansen	Abbott	Coleman
Hogg	Sultan	Mayencourt
Polak	Hawes	Yap
Bloy	MacKay	Black
McIntyre		Rustad

	NAYS — 20

Brar	S. Simpson	Fleming
Farnworth	Ralston	Simons
Puchmayr	Gentner	Dix
Trevena	Robertson	Karagianis
Evans	Krog	Austin
Chudnovsky	Wyse	Sather
Macdonald		Conroy