1998 Legislative Session: 3rd Session, 36th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

WEDNESDAY, JULY 22, 1998

Afternoon

Volume 12, Number 3

[ Page 10309 ]

The House met at 2:06 p.m.

Prayers.

Hon. H. Lali: I'd like to introduce to the House the assistant to the Leader of the Opposition, who works in his Vancouver office. She is sitting in the gallery. Her name is Patti Sahota, and she's from my hometown of Merritt. I might add that her father Ajit and I . . . .

Interjections.

Hon. H. Lali: Hang on.

I also want to point out that Patti's father, Ajit Sahota, and I . . . . When I first started working in the sawmill, he and I were both working on the greenchain together. Actually, he owns a house next door to my lot in Merritt. So I'd like to introduce Patti Sahota from Merritt.

G. Campbell: Actually, I was going to introduce the next MLA for Yale-Lillooet, Patti Sahota.

S. Hawkins: In the gallery today are some very special guests from my riding of Okanagan West. They are John Peacock and Brent Peacock, their dad John Sr. and a guest. I can't identify her right now; sorry about that. If the name comes to me, I will . . . . Anyway, they are good friends and good supporters of mine. I'd ask the House to make them welcome.

Also in the gallery is a very special guest of one of our researchers, Tracey Golab. She is her cousin, all the way from Italy. Her name is Rosaria. She is here in the gallery to compare the B.C. parliament and the parliament in Italy -- if there is one. Would the House please make her welcome.

Hon. I. Waddell: I'd ask the House to welcome a friend of mine who was born and bred in Vancouver and now teaches philosophy at the Sorbonne university in Paris. I'd like the House to welcome my friend, Dr. Steve Wright.

C. Hansen: I hope the House will join me in welcoming a friend of mine from Vancouver, Fraser Randall.

G. Hogg: It is my pleasure to introduce to the House three members of the Affleck family. Jane is a French teacher at Royal Oak Middle School; John is an avid basketball player and the former manager of the Canadian national basketball team. Their son Paul is also an avid basketball player and was learning about B.C. politics for his grade 10 year at Arbutus Junior Secondary School. Would the House please make them welcome.

Hon. D. Miller: I'm not sure you could learn much about B.C. politics today.

I'd like the House to welcome some personal friends of mine. They are Bev Carry, her son Ian Macphee and a friend, Claire Regan. As well, in the galleries today is Mr. Tom Kennedy, president of Rock Resources, a B.C. mining company doing business here with the ministry. I'd ask the House to make them all welcome.

Hon. J. MacPhail: I'd like to welcome to the House today a bright shiny face, rosy cheeks and thatch of white hair that we haven't seen for a while. It is a great delight, on behalf of everyone in the chamber, to welcome back the member for Delta South. We're delighted that he is here.

Hon. P. Priddy: I see in the gallery someone who has, for a long time, been both a well-loved teacher and an administrator in the Surrey school district. Donalda Whaites is here today from Surrey with her husband. I'd ask the House to make them welcome.

Oral Questions

PUBLIC CONSULTATION PROCESS ON NISGA'A TREATY AGREEMENT

G. Campbell: The Premier has said that he plans to spend $2.3 million on a communications plan to inform British Columbians about the Nisga'a' template. He's also indicated that he may recall the Legislature in the fall of this year to debate the Nisga'a treaty. British Columbians deserve to know how long they will have to consider the Nisga'a template, to analyze it, to meet and discuss it. Will the Premier let all British Columbians know today how long they will have to learn about the Nisga'a template, to organize and to participate in public meetings, before it's introduced for debate in this House?

Hon. G. Clark: We've made no decisions on that. I'd be interested in the Leader of the Opposition's comments as to the time he thinks would be appropriate.

G. Campbell: To the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs. The Nisga'a agreement itself says that the initial enrolment period won't be complete for the Nisga'a until September 30, 1999. I would assume that the Nisga'a voters list will be based on that enrolment list. Presumably, the Nisga'a won't be holding their vote until their voters list is complete. May I ask the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs whether or not he intends to bring this before the House prior to the Nisga'a themselves voting on the agreement?

Hon. D. Lovick: We have not formally made that decision, but I think the assumption we have been making is that there may indeed be a fall session of the Legislature to consider the measure. We are not going to make our decision based on when the Nisga'a do their own ratification procedure, but we're obviously mindful of their protocol, and we certainly want to make sure we don't do anything that may make them feel we are somehow pressuring them unduly by the course of action we pursue.

The Speaker: Second supplementary, the Leader of the Official Opposition.

[2:15]

G. Campbell: Obviously I think that British Columbians need to have as much time as possible to consider this. I don't see the point in rushing it through, when in fact the Nisga'a are not going to have an opportunity to vote on it until September of 1999. However, we can further discuss that later.

According to the treaty, the enrolment committee has been underway since last October, I understand, and the enrolment process is cost-shared 50-50 between the federal and provincial governments. Can the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs tell us how much the enrolment process has cost to date and how many Nisga'a are currently enrolled?

[ Page 10310 ]

Hon. D. Lovick: I'm sorry, Madam Speaker; I can't give the member that precise information. I will undertake, however, to get it for him as quickly as I can.

What I will say is that I gave him an estimate the other day of approximately 5,500, as the estimated number of people who will enrol. The specific details in terms of how many are formally enrolled and what our particular portion of that cost is -- no, I haven't got that information, but I'll be happy to get it to him as soon as I can.

IMPACT OF GOVERNMENT POLICIES ON FOREST INDUSTRY

G. Abbott: Last year, softwood production numbers fell in British Columbia, and lamentably, that trend continues. The latest numbers from the Council of Forest Industries are out today. During the first four months of this year, production on the coast of B.C. has fallen by 21 percent -- this at a time when in eastern Canada, production is up by almost 10 percent. These numbers clearly demonstrate that the NDP's forest policies are pricing coastal lumber out of U.S. markets. Will the Minister of Forests admit today that NDP policies have undermined B.C.'s ability to compete with other Canadian provinces?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: There is a slight problem with the coastal producers selling in the United States when they don't have quota.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, members.

G. Abbott: Obviously, this further shows how far this government has gone in losing its perspective -- when this is a slight problem. This is far more than a slight problem; this government ought to be completely ashamed of its performance in British Columbia. Since 1992 B.C. has lost 10 percent of its share of the U.S. market.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members, members.

G. Abbott: During the same period, the rest of Canada has increased its share by 10 percent. B.C.'s declining share is a direct result of the highest stumpage rates and the most expensive forest practices code in Canada. When will the Minister of Forests understand that the NDP's policies have been pricing B.C. out of U.S. markets?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: The reference to a slight problem was just to remind the members on the other side that there are a number of problems over which we don't have control. One of them is the quota situation with the United States, where two years ago the coastal companies were virtually laughing at the interior, which had to have their exports limited. They thought they were doing the right thing being in Japan. No one foresaw the decline in the Japanese market. Producer after producer on the coast is saying that the problem is a 30 to 40 percent decline in price in Japan and a 30 to 40 percent decline in demand.

Both of those add up to a significant problem. Plus there is a pulp problem, in that we have the problem of pulp prices and solid wood being down at the same time. Neither of those is a made-in-British-Columbia problem.

We as a government are taking seriously the concern of the many, many forest workers who are out of work, and we are taking the steps that we can to fix that. We are still working . . .

The Speaker: Minister, would you wind up, please.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: . . . on stumpage reduction. We have reduced the Forest Practices Code costs. Significantly, those add up to some $500 million to $600 million in savings that we've given industry in British Columbia.

G. Farrell-Collins: The corrective action the government says it's taken has undone maybe half of the damage that they've done since they came into government in 1992. That's why thousands of forest workers in this province have lost their jobs.

Since March 1996, when the NDP introduced its infamous jobs and timber accord, the share value of B.C. forest companies has dropped like a rock. Ainsworth Lumber shares have fallen by 60 percent, Doman shares have fallen by 59 percent, and Crestbrook shares have fallen by almost 70 percent. How does the Minister of Forests expect forest companies in British Columbia to invest in the forest, to invest in their workers and to create jobs when their share values are dropping through the floor and they can't get investment dollars anywhere else?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: It's not a surprise that when we're at the bottom of the market, there would be share devaluation -- no question about that. But let me give you a quote from an

article today: " 'Many of the benefits of the cost reduction, including a 25 percent reduction . . . . ' "

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, hon. members. The minister has the floor.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: This has to do with government policies in the forest sector. " 'Many of the benefits of the cost reduction, including a 25 percent reduction in B.C. stumpage rates, are still in the company's inventory accounts' -- this is referring to MacMillan Bloedel -- 'and haven't found their way into its profit and loss statements,' said Stephens." It seems to me that there is a slightly delayed response with respect to accumulating the benefits. It is regrettable that it takes some time for corrective actions to benefit workers and employment. I've said before that we won't see a return in stock prices and employment until the market turns around.

The Speaker: First supplementary, the Opposition House Leader.

G. Farrell-Collins: I would say that the time delay for the turnaround in the forest sector is about the same as the time delay for the next election.

The minister tells us about the 25 percent reduction in stumpage rates. This is a government that increased them by almost 200 percent, and somehow the forest sector is supposed to say thank you. Another great B.C. company, Interfor -- a major forest company in British Columbia -- has seen its share value drop by 72 percent, and they're laying off hundreds of workers. Can the minister tell the House how his jobs and timber accord is expected to create jobs in the province when forest companies see their share value drop by 72 percent and they end up laying off hundreds of workers?

[ Page 10311 ]

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: As we've said many times, this is a joint problem between industry and government. Government has taken some steps, and industry have admitted that they have to take some steps as well. Many of these companies are explaining that they have not yet got their cost structures into line and that they're working on it. The honest ones, like Interfor, when they're asked, what the problem is with their company, will say that there's a problem in demand. They can't fix it until there's an increase in demand in Asia. Price alone will not fix it; that's an elementary matter that the opposition should understand. I see no ideas over there.

The other half of the problem, they say, is government forest policies. Yes, we are now collecting stumpage that would have been collected at the U.S. border and spending it here in British Columbia, not allowing the Americans to take it and spend it. We're protecting markets in Europe and other places with a strong Forest Practices Code, and that opposition and the industry and the professionals have not yet come up with an alternative to the code. We are experimenting with alternatives, hon. Speaker. We have done an awful lot, and we will and can do more.

M. de Jong: If this is the minister's idea of protection, I've got four words for him: thanks, but no thanks.

I've got a copy of a report on B.C. forestry, prepared by Goepel McDermid. Let me read what they say in analyzing the state of the industry: "The biggest problem is that British Columbia is headed by a government that is ideologically opposed to the use of market forces, instead preferring to micromanage the industry right down to job targets." Can the Minister of Forests explain to this chamber why anyone in their right mind would invest in British Columbia when faced with the truth as reflected in this report?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: When it's convenient to the opposition, they use free enterprise arguments. The logical extension of that is an open border and logs travelling out of our regional communities to be processed somewhere other than where the jobs should be created.

With respect to the investment climate, let me quote Tom Stephens, from MacMillan Bloedel. He says: "Our biggest concern is the continued deterioration of the market for lumber in Japan. The situation in Japan will continue to retard our progress over the next several quarters." It's clear: Japan is the problem. Why don't you get it, stupid?

The Speaker: First supplementary, the member for Matsqui.

M. de Jong: Let me share with the minister what our biggest concern is: a government that promised thousands upon thousands of forestry jobs is confronted by the reality that there are 15,000 working families that aren't working anymore in British Columbia. That's what we're concerned about.

The report from Goepel McDermid goes on to say: "We predict that industry conditions will get worse before they get better. In the past six months, B.C.'s forestry industry has racked up hundreds of millions of dollars' worth of losses." Can the Minister of Forests tell us: is it going to take a bankruptcy of one of the major forestry producers in British Columbia before he and the Premier and the Finance minister realize that their ill-conceived strategy around the forest sector has been an abject failure and is throwing people out of work?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Let's go back a few years, to '94 and '95, when we had two of the most profitable years in the past 11. That was under policies of this government, but it was on the upside of the cycle. They don't understand that. It is no surprise that at the bottom of the cycle, companies are going to start losing money. As I read the press releases from eastern Canada, the losses are showing up there. That has nothing to do with B.C. policies.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, order.

G. Plant: Well, it's this government that came up with the idea of the jobs and timber accord, and that was supposed to be their solution to the challenges in the forests. So let's look at what a great job that accord is doing. Let me just pick six forest companies: West Fraser, Slocan, Doman, MacMillan Bloedel, Canfor and Interfor. Those six companies have suffered a combined loss of $212 million in the first half of this year. In fact, since the jobs and timber accord was first announced by this government in March of 1996, the value of B.C.'s top public forest companies has fallen by $1.7 billion.

When will the minister admit that his jobs and timber accord has cost thousands of British Columbians jobs and is causing forest companies to bleed to death and is a complete and abject failure?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: The reference to the jobs and timber accord and the job loss since that time . . . . I have to hasten to tell the opposition, remind them, that these jobs are temporary curtailments; they're not reported as . . . . They are shortened work-years, shortened seasons. But it is since, not because of, the accord . . . . Let me remind members of the opposition what the accord said. It requires a profitable, viable industry, which government and industry are working at together. It requires that we divert more wood to the small business program; we're doing that.

It requires that we bring into consideration, as we passed last night in the House, leaving the 5 percent takeback with those companies that maintain and create jobs. We're delivering on the elements of the accord that will poise us for a recovery, which will create more jobs per cubic metre. That's the vision in the accord, and we stand behind that vision.

Tabling Documents

Hon. C. McGregor: I rise to submit the annual report of the environmental assessment office for the periods of April 1, 1995, to March 31, 1996, and April 1, 1996, to March 31, 1997. Secondly, I table the 1997-98 annual report of the Environmental Appeal Board.

[2:30]

Hon. J. MacPhail: I have the honour to present the '97-98 annual report of the B.C. Transit Corporation.

Motions Without Notice

Hon. J. MacPhail: I'll be seeking leave to move several motions to establish committees.

Leave granted.

[ Page 10312 ]

SPECIAL COMMITTEE ON THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION AND PROTECTION OF PRIVACY ACT

Hon. J. MacPhail: By leave I move:

[That a Special Committee be appointed to review the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (RSBC 1996 c. 165) pursuant to

section 80 of that Act, and that the Special Committee so appointed shall have the powers of a Select Standing Committee and is also empowered:

(

a) to appoint of their number, one or more subcommittees and to refer to such subcommittees any of the matters referred to the Committee;

(

b) to sit during a period in which the House is adjourned, during the recess after prorogation, until the next following Session and during any sitting of the House;

(

c) to adjourn from place to place as may be convenient; and

(

d) to retain such personnel as required to assist the Committee;

and shall report to the House as soon as possible, or following any adjournment, or at the next following Session, as the case may be; to deposit the original of its reports with the Clerk of the Legislative Assembly during a period of adjournment and upon resumption of the sittings of the House, the Chair shall present all reports to the Legislative Assembly.

That the Special Committee of Selection will be empowered to compile the list of Members for the said Committee.]

Motion approved.

EXAMINATION OF MEMBERS' CONFLICT OF INTEREST ACT

Hon. J. MacPhail: By leave I move:

[That this House authorize the Select Standing Committee on Parliamentary Reform, Ethical Conduct, Standing Orders and Private Bills be authorized to examine, inquire into and make recommendations on the matter of the Members' Conflict of Interest Act (RSBC 1996 c.287). In addition to the powers previously conferred upon the said Committee by the House, the Committee be empowered

(

a) to appoint of their number, one or more subcommittees and to refer to such subcommittees any of the matters referred to the Committee, but to deal with matters in the order in which the Committee has been authorized to deal with them;

(

b) to sit during a period in which the House is adjourned, during the recess after prorogation until the next following session and during any sitting of the House;

(

c) to adjourn from place to place as may be convenient; and

(

d) to retain such personnel as required to assist the Committee; and shall report to the House as soon as possible, or following any adjournment, or at the next following Session, as the case may be; to deposit the original of its reports with the Clerk of the Legislative Assembly during a period of adjournment and upon resumption of the sittings of the House, the Chair shall present all reports to the Legislative Assembly.]

Motion approved.

SPECIAL COMMITTEE TO APPOINT AN OMBUDSMAN

Hon. J. MacPhail: By leave I move:

[That a Special Committee be appointed to select and unanimously recommend the appointment of an ombudsman, pursuant to

section 2(2) of the Ombudsman Act (RSBC 1996 C.340), and that the said Committee shall have the powers of a Select Standing Committee and in addition is empowered:

(

a) to appoint of their number, one or more subcommittees and to refer to such subcommittees any of the matters referred to the Committee;

(

b) to sit during a period in which the House is adjourned, during the recess after prorogation until the next following Session and during any sitting of the House;

(

c) to adjourn from place to place as may be convenient; and

(

d) to retain such personnel as required to assist the Committee;

and shall report to the House as soon as possible, or following any adjournment, or at the next following Session, as the case may be; to deposit the original of its reports with the Clerk of the Legislative Assembly during a period of adjournment and upon resumption of the sittings of the House, the Chair shall present all reports to the Legislative Assembly.

That the Special Committee of Selection be empowered to compile the list of Members for the said Committee.]

Motion approved.

Orders of the Day

Hon. J. MacPhail: Hon. Speaker, I call committee of supply. For the information of the members, we'll be debating the estimates of the office of the Premier.

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

G. Hogg: I seek leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

G. Hogg: It was with surprise and delight that I looked up and saw here my favourite aunt, Margaret Joyce, from Vancouver-Quilchena. I hope the House will make Aunt Margaret welcome.

ESTIMATES: OFFICE OF THE PREMIER AND

MINISTRY RESPONSIBLE FOR YOUTH

On vote 8: Premier's office, $2,295,000.

G. Campbell: There are a number of issues that I would like to canvass with the Premier, to give him a wee bit of a roadmap for where we're going to go. We have canvassed a number of these issues in the past, and we will do them again today.

Firstly, it would be appropriate for the Premier to outline for us the way he has organized his office this year. I have received what looks like a web page, kind of a printout, with regard to the office. But there is no real organization chart that shows the reporting relationships that are in place, similar to what his deputy has with him today. I'd appreciate at least a brief overview from the Premier of how his office is established and how it connects with cabinet and the ministries of government.

Hon. G. Clark: I don't know if the member has the flow chart, but I will be delighted to give it to him. I'll try to describe it briefly, if it's helpful.

Obviously there are two principal branches in the Premier's Office. One is operations, headed by my deputy minister who is sitting next to me, Mr. Doug McArthur. He is the head of the civil service and is responsible for all of the central apparatus of government, including cabinet secretary and cabinet operations. Then there is the political -- if I can put it

[ Page 10313 ]

that way -- side of the government, which is headed by the principal secretary, Mr. Adrian Dix. There is a relatively small unit under him, which includes the executive director or manager of the operation of the day-to-day functioning of the office staff. And there are people like my ministerial assistant and administrative assistant, etc. There is the manager of the correspondence branch, as well, because we get hundreds and hundreds of letters, of course. There's the mail and typing and the like; there's that piece of the business. I'd be happy to send it to the member.

G. Campbell: The Premier's deputy minister is at least reputed to be involved with a number of major policy issues, etc., within government and outside of government. Can the Premier outline for us where the deputy minister has been held to account and what specific projects he's been involved with over the last year?

Hon. G. Clark: My deputy minister is involved in many projects for the government. First of all, there are two functions, I guess. I'm speaking very informally; I'm sure there is formal documentation we can give you. One function is managing the system, the government, and ensuring that the cabinet's direction is implemented through the line ministries. It's an administrative function. It's ensuring that the instructions that cabinet deliberates are communicated to the system, to the deputy ministers and others.

Often committees are formed by the deputy minister on issues to ensure that the will of cabinet is, as best as possible, implemented by the staff. The implementation is completely the responsibility of the staff in the line ministries, and the deputy simply ensures that this work is done to implement collective decisions of government.

Secondly, the deputy does take on projects from time to time as assigned by me. It's the same kind of approach, but it's for cross-government projects which require a more hands-on approach from the Premier's Office, even though the line ministry is the ministry which implements it, or a variety of ministries. Whether it's the major consultation with business that preceded the budget, which my deputy essentially headed up with me . . . .

All of the implementation of the decisions made by cabinet that flow out of that are done by the line ministries -- in many cases, the Ministry of Finance and others -- and teams are put together to implement those decisions. So there are projects which come up from time to time which my deputy does pursue on behalf of the overall government.

G. Campbell: Does the cabinet policy and communications secretariat report through the Premier's Office or through another ministry?

Hon. G. Clark: It's located in the Ministry of Finance, but it does report through my deputy minister Mr. McArthur. That ensures that this agency is integrated into the budget-making process and is part of the central agency and part of the Ministry of Finance but is guided by the overall deliberations of cabinet, reporting through my deputy minister.

G. Campbell: Would that be included in the organization chart that you'll be providing me with?

Hon. G. Clark: No, but I'd be happy to give it to you, if you'd like. It's an organization chart that's available, and it's in the Ministry of Finance.

G. Campbell: Just so that I'm clear, do all cabinet ministries' deputy ministers report through to the Premier's Office through the Premier's deputy minister?

Hon. G. Clark: If the question is: do all deputy ministers report through my deputy minister, Doug McArthur, the answer is yes.

G. Campbell: One of the things that I think all of us in the province are concerned about is the whole issue of accountability: how programs are put out and announced and whether they perform according to the standards that have been set for them or according to the public pronouncements that come forth -- whether they are political pronouncements or staff ones. I really think that over the last little while, one of the things that has been most noticeable is how often the government has fallen short of the objectives that they've set for themselves.

One of the concerns I and others have is the whole issue of accountability. How do we hold either cabinet ministers or the staff to account for performance in terms of the objectives that are set forward and the objectives that are announced to the public.

We have heard from this government that they are concerned about jobs and the economy. What we have watched is the loss of literally thousands of jobs in the province over the last two years. We've watched as our economy has gone from first to last place. Within those broad frameworks we've even watched as individual projects have fallen far short of their timetables in terms of delivery and costs. It's hard to think of an area of government where in fact we have seen targets met and exceeded.

In six of the last seven years -- I'm sure the members opposite know this -- the average take-home pay for B.C. families has gone down. We have watched as the quality of life in this province has dropped. A growing number of people are without work, and unfortunately, there's a growing number of people who are losing their sense of hope. When you go out and talk with people in the province, one of the first things they'll say is: "We don't get any input; we don't get to participate with the government the way we'd like to."

I'm going to go to a number of areas that we've touched on in the past with regard to the entire committee setup that we have in the Legislature. Over the last little while . . . . In every throne speech we announce the creation of a number of committees. If people thought about what the most important areas of government were, I think they would identify, for example, health and social services. Those would be important areas of government. There have been massive changes in government in the way that health services are delivered.

We've heard the people of the province say that they feel that health care is actually deteriorating, for the first time in a long time, yet the Health Committee last met on August 25, 1993.

[2:45]

There is a major issue going ahead in the province where I think the Legislature would like to be able to speak with one voice, and that is with regard to the fisheries. The Agriculture and Fisheries Committee last met in May of 1978 -- two major industries in the province. We don't bring the committees of the Legislature together so that we can -- in an all-party, non-partisan way -- look for solutions to the problems that clearly exist. You can't look at the agriculture industry and say there are not problems. It's effectively leaving the province.

Certainly no one can look at the fishery and say there are not problems. We have 75 people who are elected, and I believe that many people in this House would like to be able to participate in formulating solutions and moving British Columbia forward. Again, that committee has not met since May of 1978.

We have a committee established on women's equality. I wonder if anyone can guess when the last time the Women's

[ Page 10314 ]

Equality Committee met. It has never met. It has always been established; it has never met.

We have a Education, Culture and Multiculturalism Committee. It hasn't met since at least 1977.

Again, in this Legislature we have talked, over the last two sets of estimates -- this is the third set of estimates -- about the potential for parliamentary reform, where we can actually have a committee system that works, where we can actually have an opportunity for legislators to not just sit on the back bench and keep their mouths shut or sit in the opposition and try to move forward and gather information from the government side of the House, but an opportunity for all MLAs to participate with the people of this province to formulate solutions so that we can move forward.

I am pleased to say that when we do come together with a common purpose, there is no question that MLAs can work together and come forward with comprehensive and, I believe, useful solutions to the problems that are in front of us. We have huge problems in front of us in this province.

We simply can't keep turning our back on the people at the front lines and on the people who are willing to work and contribute to those solutions -- whether they are front-line health care workers; whether they are teachers who are involved in our schools and our classrooms, teaching our students; or whether they are people involved in the forest industry who have solutions to the problem of losing 15,500 jobs in the last year.

Surely we can find a way and a will within this House, through our committee system, to bring together those people to ensure that we can start to come up with solutions that will help provide a stronger future for British Columbia.

My first question to the Premier is . . . . We have talked about this in the past; we've sort of treaded around it. I would really like to ask the Premier if he is ready to commit himself and his government to working with the opposition and all members of the House to establish a strong and vital committee system, which will include the people of this province, to come up with solutions to the drastic problems that we currently face.

Hon. G. Clark: It's a little bit ironic that the Leader of the Opposition has made a plea for more committee work within seconds of the Minister of Finance and Government House Leader announcing the creation of three committees to sit this fall. There's one standing committee to review freedom of information, one to appoint a new ombudsman and one to appoint a conflict-of-interest commissioner. We've now got a forestry committee that meets every year to review the business plan of FRBC. Public Accounts is sitting off-session. There is more committee work by members of the House than at any time in the history of British Columbia.

Does that mean we could do more? I think the answer is yes, and I'd be delighted. It would help somewhat if there was one constructive suggestion from the opposition at any time during the course of the session, which would give us pause that there would be constructive debate in committee. Having said that, I think it's reasonable to have more committee work.

Unfortunately, we've been unable to reach agreement with the opposition on reform in the House. What we should do . . . . In my judgment, the House should not be sitting in July. The estimates debates have been longer during this session than at any time in history, which is the opposition's prerogative.

Interjections.

Hon. G. Clark: There's no problem at all with the government; we're here in any event.

What should happen is that we should have time limits on estimates debates. We should have a legislative calendar where we're out in June, and the committees should be doing work on substantive issues. Instead of a committee of the whole debating estimates -- the only place in the Commonwealth where that is done -- the estimates should be debated in real committees, and they should be debated when the House is not sitting. We have been unable to convince the Opposition House Leader of the merits of a legislative calendar which has reasonable time limits and allows for committee work to be done.

It's very hard to take seriously the position of the Leader of the Opposition when we are unable to get reasonable rules in the House. I stand and say before all members of the House on both sides that we should have a fixed legislative calendar that commits the opposition to passing the estimates in a timely fashion, which is about a quarter of the time they currently spend, which would be consistent with the rest of Canada. We should have substantive committee work done when the House is not sitting -- or when the House is sitting, but in real committees canvassing real areas.

That's real reform; I support that. Unfortunately, it takes two parties to agree, and we haven't been able to agree.

F. Gingell: Hon. Chair, I had the honour to be appointed Finance critic in the fall of 1991, when the thirty-fifth parliament was elected. On the first day I came over to Victoria, I went for lunch with the then Minister of Finance. We had a very interesting discussion about the Legislature and the way that it runs and the hope for cooperation that would take place between the minister and his critic at that time -- about being told and informed of what was going on and what was happening. There was a feeling of cooperation.

It sounded to me as though it was going to be an exercise similar to that which I was used to on the school board, the college board and those kinds of things, where we all sat around the table and discussed common issues.

I would like to suggest that the failure of that proposal to blossom lies more on the minister's side of the House than on mine. I guess he got busy in the exercises of taxing people out of their homes on the west side of Vancouver and certain other matters that pushed from his mind the commitment that he'd made to keep me informed. But that was the fall of 1991. I remember subsequent discussions with the minister over a beer about the size of the Legislature. I must admit, in retrospect, that I think he was right, and I was wrong and I accept that.

But we have talked -- the Premier and I, and your side of the House and our side of House -- on many occasions about legislative reform. Why are we sitting here until . . . ? I mean, I wasn't here participating this past week, but I was able to turn my TV set on even in Tsawwassen and see that you were still at it at 11:30 at night. That's not good. That's not good for this government, and it's not good for people of British Columbia, and it's not the way you will get good legislation.

So how did we start off this session? Well, the House was called back on March 26. The appropriations for last year's expenditures expired five days later -- in fact, in less than five days. I mean, what absolute nonsense! Surely this government has calculated its budget and has done its planning by the end of January. Surely you can call the House back by the middle of February.

Surely you can leave enough time for thoughtful and sensible discussion to get the people's business done in one of the most important areas there is: how much money you're going to spend, what you're going to spend it on, what you're trying to accomplish, how you're going to measure that and how you're going to report.

[ Page 10315 ]

In the spring of 1996 the Premier promised . . . . There was set up a Select Standing Committee on Crown Corporations with a commitment that the committee would be allowed to sit intersessionally. When we got to the end of that session, it was put that either the Public Accounts Committee sits or the Crown Corporations Committee sits. Well, as in virtually all other parliaments in the country, the Public Accounts Committee now sits all year round -- I hope. It has enough work to keep itself going. But that's no reason why the Crown Corporations Committee shouldn't sit. It hasn't sat once.

The Crown corporations are as big a business as the consolidated revenue fund, and the committee never sits. All the issues to do with proper planning around B.C. Ferries and ICBC and B.C. Hydro are all pushed into estimates, in the wrong kind of atmosphere. Why is it in our committees -- and I've served on a few -- that we get away from this room, and we start to cooperate? We work together; we find common solutions; we remove ourselves from the partisanship of the two sword-lengths. Yet this government seems to be afraid to allow the committees to sit.

I categorically refute the statements that the Premier has just made about a lack of proposals for legislative reform. The Public Accounts Committee, in dealing with the accountability initiative of the thirty-fifth parliament -- not the thirty-six parliament -- made a complete set of recommendations on the way in which estimates are dealt with, expenditures and budgets are approved, and a sensible, thoughtful process for accountability reporting. Now, the Public Accounts Committee has a majority of government members on it. That report was endorsed by every single member of the committee.

Has the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council responded to that? Oh no. I've had the opportunity to have a couple of private discussions with the deputy minister which have encouraged me that the government would be moving forward, that there was seen to be some benefit and some worthwhile proposals, but nothing's happened.

We talk about a fixed legislative calendar. All these things are give-and-take; we can work out a fixed legislative calendar. One thing that we know it won't do is commence on March 26, for goodness' sake. That is ridiculous! With the way in which budgets are still prepared in British Columbia -- in secret, behind closed doors, and not disclosed until the minister stands up -- how can proper approval and debate take place within a period of five days?

We need to have a weekly calendar that allows members from Columbia River-Revelstoke, Peace River North or North Coast to be able to get back to their constituencies. It is relatively easy for the member for Delta South or the member for Esquimalt-Metchosin to get home to do those things that one needs to do on the weekends and to get back, but if you're from North Coast or Columbia River-Revelstoke or the more remote areas of the province, it's a very different problem. We need to get back into our communities, because we need to get the community response to the important and relevant legislation that any government tables during its mandate.

[3:00]

When we talk about the use of select standing committees, we're not just talking, in my mind, about general issues concerning health care or education or women's equality or whatever the particular issue is. Bills like amendments to the Labour Code, bills of consequence to this Legislature -- and there has been a whole series of them in this session -- should go to select standing committees too. Members of the Legislature from both sides of the House should have the opportunity of sitting together and listening to informed, knowledgable, thoughtful input from experts and experienced people throughout the province who will be affected by this legislation.

I often accuse this government's mode of governing as being press releases and photo opportunities, and I think that it is fair to state that this Premier's commitment to parliamentary reform has been nothing but press releases and photo ops. I think there is a very genuine opportunity for us, particularly as we come to the dying days of July in a nice warm summer, to recognize that legislative reform can't be done all in one big jump. We have to take it one step at a time.

Let's not boast about setting up parliamentary committees for the appointment of an ombudsman, as required by legislation, or about evaluation and review of the Forest Renewal business plan -- which exercise I sat through for two years; a great exercise by Forest Renewal, in my opinion, to tell us as little as possible about their plans -- or the need for review of issues dealing with conflict of interest, as required by legislation. Let's talk about setting up committees and giving them projects, important things to consider on behalf of the people, that are not required by legislation but by good governance. I'd be most interested in the response from the Premier on this.

Hon. G. Clark: Well, I'm disappointed in some of the remarks that the member made. We have made more parliamentary changes in the last few years than really almost at any time in the history of the province, other than the last NDP government. You know, if the member feels that way, then maybe we shouldn't allow Public Accounts to sit out of session, because that was a major change that we made which no government has ever agreed to. We made it.

F. Gingell: Every other province does it.

Hon. G. Clark: Nobody's ever agreed to it; we did it.

We have Committee A sitting to hear estimates. That was a major change to try to shorten . . . and it was done when the now leader of the PDA was leader of the Liberal Party. The former House Leader and the member were part of those discussions to try to find a way to remove some of the partisanship from this House and have an expedited estimates process.

A funny thing happened: we added a whole layer, another committee room, and it simply doubled or tripled the amount of time in estimates. There's no politics in it for you folks, but that's up to you. There's certainly no pressure on the government; we've just extended the sitting time. So we made historic changes, which were partially implemented. The change to add a second committee was supposed to reduce estimates time, to allow for further committee work to begin; that's the discussion we had. We did the first piece of it.

Unfortunately, the opposition, for some reason inexplicable to me, filibusters everything. So a thing which used to take minutes takes hours and hours. That was a huge change to the thing. It's debatable whether it's better. I think we should get rid of it, frankly, and go back to the old way. But I'd be reluctant to do that. We'd be here ten months, with the way members opposite consume time. That was a huge change that we made.

These things you refer to . . . . We did the conflict-of-interest commissioner. We didn't have to put it in legislation that we'd pick by an all-party committee; we did that. The changes to the Forest Renewal board reporting to a committee

[ Page 10316 ]

-- never been done before -- to give an all-party committee the power to scrutinize that kind of Crown corporation in that fashion . . . .

Members opposite may not like it and may disagree with it, but these are big parliamentary changes we've made. If the member opposite is saying that we haven't made enough parliamentary changes, I agree; I've done this every year. But we've got to have an agreement which works both ways. There must be . . . . We can no longer agree to what we did initially -- naïvely agreed to all these committees, Committee A and all of that stuff -- if the opposition then simply consumes the time. It was designed to shorten the time, so we could get on with more productive business, because it's . . . . Frankly, a lot of what's done around here is a historical anachronism; the public know that.

We should redesign what we do here so it has more relevance. But we can't get the opposition to give up the kind of power that they think they have by taking us into August every year. I mean, I know that maybe there's lots of criticism of when we were in opposition. We never once went past June -- once, to make a big case, we went past June 30. And we thought we were a pretty effective opposition. Now, suddenly, to the opposition, time seems to be the measurement: "Well, we'll show those guys.

We'll take them into August." I'm sure that everybody in the public thinks they're an effective opposition because they've taken us into July. Trust me, folks: nobody knows the place is sitting in July. Nobody knew we were . . . . We kind of figured that out, so we got out at the end of June. We only once took it into July, just before an election, to make a major point. Now we've got an opposition that feels that filibustering everything at great length is an effective tool, so we don't get any business done.

The Premier's estimates, when I was in opposition -- I know I sound like an old veteran -- never lasted more than one or two or three hours. I don't want to give hints to the opposition, but the gallery was packed when the Premier's estimates came up. It was a wild two hours of tough debate. Then we adjourned and got out for the summer.

But we come in here, and it's the structure of the Premier's Office -- which we could give you, and we could give to everybody . . . . You get it by FOI, go into details and all that stuff, and take hours and hours of discussion. Everything seems to be done that way now. I don't know when it changed. It changed in '91; we had lots of new members. So estimates, which were short and sweet and wild and fun, with lots of debate and partisanship and action and interesting times, now have become an incredibly boring . . .

An Hon. Member: Chinese water torture.

Hon. G. Clark: . . . and torturous process of how long we can go to put people to sleep. I don't like it. It doesn't hurt us; it doesn't hurt the government. We're here. It doesn't hurt me; I'm here in July anyway. But it doesn't seem to be very effective for anybody. So we should get rid of some of this debate and agree to time limits on it.

I want to give one other piece of advice to the opposition. After a record debate, taking it into July, there was always a headline in the Vancouver Sun, saying: "Opposition Caves." You're going to get that whenever the Legislature adjourns, whether it's in August or in June. That happens, and I'll just give you that little warning. Whenever it happens, you'll get a thing saying that the opposition is caving in to the government's agenda. We always had that, and it didn't take very long to figure out that it's just what the press does. It doesn't matter how long you go, they're still going to say you caved in. So you try to make your points.

What we should do is have time limits on estimates. By the way, you'd get a media report saying the opposition caved in, if you agreed to that -- which is probably why you haven't. But you should agree to time limits. Have a family life in the summer and get out in June. Have short, intense debates, where you actually make some political points, I get to make political points, and we all go on and have a family life. And then have some detailed, substantive committees working on policy issues, which might actually contribute to the public debate in British Columbia. That's what I'd like to do, and if the members opposite want, we'd be delighted to try again.

F. Gingell: I wonder if the Premier would like to give us the number of bills that this government has tabled just in the month of July. He keeps talking about how they were finished in the month of June.

An Hon. Member: They were ready.

F. Gingell: Then why didn't you table them before?

If I may, Mr. Chairman, I would like to bring the Premier back. This parliament and the parliament before have never allowed committees to sit and deal with the substantive issues of the select standing committees. The Public Accounts Committee has met intersessionally. Why? Because the deputy ministers' council prepared a report on an accountability issue, and you wanted the Public Accounts Committee to look at it and discuss it and go through it thoroughly and report back to the Legislature, which the committee was pleased to do.

The next time, why did you want to do that? The Minister of Finance -- your predecessor, sitting on your left -- wanted us to look into the issue of the entity: what should be included in the consolidated revenue fund. That couldn't be done while the House was sitting, so we sat intersessionally. Both of these things weren't done with the Public Accounts Committee delving into the things that the Public Accounts Committee normally deals with, which get dealt with throughout the rest of the country and the Commonwealth -- issues to do with government expenditures.

Both have dealt with accountability issues and the Minister of Finance at the time looking for some -- I hate to say guidance -- support for initiatives that the government supports.

I'd like to leave the issue there. It may well be that other members of the opposition wish to move this thing forward. But I think that the Premier doth protest too much. You really haven't thought about the contribution that committees can make to this process, which can reduce the partisanship and can get us working towards solutions rather than disagreements. Really, all the committees that have been set up and that have worked have been required to appoint an auditor general, to appoint an ombudsman and to appoint a child commissioner.

We need to get into more of the public policy debate, which you can't do during legislation because the legislation is far too focused on specific issues rather than on broad public policy issues.

The time is now; the time was last year; the time was the year before. There was a real opportunity in 1991-92, when we came into the House as neophytes and were looking for you to give us some guidance as to how one in opposition should act. I remember getting beaten up by you, the minister from North Coast and the minister from Esquimalt-Metchosin, and dis-

[ Page 10317 ]

covering that was how you were supposed to behave in this House. You beat them up, on the other side, and chew them up and spit them out. But there is an opportunity. There is a desire by members of this House on all sides, I'm sure, to serve their constituents and the citizens of this province well. We can do it a damn sight better than we do it now, and it takes government leadership to bring it about.

Hon. G. Clark: You know, the opposition has to be able to do a deal with the government that works both ways. I want to say one thing very clearly: the member is absolutely correct that if there was a calendar, then the business and the bills of the House must be in by a certain date, whether it's June 15 or whatever the date is. That's what we would have to commit to -- to give up our ability to bring in legislation in July or at any time. We would have to give that up. I say clearly and just for the record, because the member knows, that we offered to the opposition to give that up.

We offered to give a time limit on when the bills would come in -- it was in early June -- in exchange for a time limit of estimates completion, by the end of June. In case you weren't aware of that, I still make an offer to you generally again. We were quite prepared to agree. It requires both sides.

[3:15]

Second, I just want to say for the record that in the old days, when I was in opposition, the estimates sat for about 100 hours in total on average. In '93 it was 248 hours, so it's doubled; then 226 and 245; 1996 was 212; 1997 was 446 hours in debate -- four times the normal hours. Now, it's the opposition's prerogative, and I completely accept that and am not the slightest bit worried about it. But it's puzzling to me, because it doesn't lead to an effective chamber.

What's required is for the opposition to agree to the kinds of time limits that every parliament agrees to and for the government to give an absolute commitment to the timing of the legislation in the House. Those are the key variables. We offered ours. We did not get commitments on time limits. Therefore we're back to what we've done forever; we're here in July.

It doesn't affect the government. In fact, one could argue that it's good for the government to sit in July, because very few people . . . . If there are controversial things, it's not as big an issue to the public. So from the government's perspective, we probably should want to sit in July. But it's dumb, it's not good parliament, and it doesn't make sense. We should be sitting till the end of June. That requires discipline on both sides.

I say again to the member who raised the question: I'd be delighted . . . . I will once again for next year make formal overtures from the Government House Leader to the opposition for a legislative calendar which requires those kinds of compromises.

G. Farrell-Collins: I heard my name being taken in vain, and I thought I'd come in and participate in the debate for a little bit, if I may. I think we're all saying the same thing. I think what we're saying is that this place needs to work better, to be more efficient, to be more focused and to allow for a couple of other things too. The Premier talked about time commitments on estimates debate and an agreement to introduce bills at a specific time. Both of those are very valid requirements, and they're both very doable.

But there are more things that need to be done to make this place work well, to make it relevant and to allow the people who work here to have a life, to see their families, to visit and keep in touch with their constituents on an ongoing basis -- to make sure that marriages don't fail, that people don't lose contact with their children and that we don't forget what our constituents are there for and what they're telling us. Those are all important things.

It's also important to make sure that those people who sit in that corner of the chamber, the government backbenchers, have the opportunity to participate in what goes on in this House. I can't imagine what it would be like to be a government backbencher in this chamber. It must be difficult. I'm not trying to be political about that; I'm sympathizing. It's fun to be a minister, because you get to do things. You get to be part of the decision-making process; you get to bring the ideals of your constituents forward and to make changes.

Interjection.

G. Farrell-Collins: The member for Surrey-Whalley asks how I would know. Well, I'm dreaming. I know she used to know; she doesn't know now.

On this side, in opposition, it's also challenging; it's also stimulating; it's also interesting. We get to participate in the debate; we get to get up and talk in estimates; we get to get up and ask questions in question period. We get to bring the concerns of our constituents to this House and pursue them aggressively. We feel like we're being effective. We feel like we're changing in some small way government policy or direction -- modifying it, encouraging them to go one way, encouraging them not to go another way.

I do, in all sincerity, have a great deal of sympathy for members of the government back bench, whatever party it's been in the 60 or 100 or however many years. I can remember how bad it used to be. We rarely get the chance to hear the concerns of their constituents in this chamber. I'm sure that they discuss it in caucus meetings and at party meetings and retreats, etc., and in ministers' offices. But they never or rarely ever get the chance to stand up and grill a minister, to stand up and ask tough questions, to stand up and speak on behalf of their constituents. They're always sitting there.

I know they want to get up, because they heckle so loudly. I know they've got strong concerns, so you would hope that there would be some opportunities.

I think the Premier is looking at it from the Premier's viewpoint in that he wants to get out, and he thinks, justifiably, that it's important to have a reasonable length of time for the legislative session. One could argue that he's also thinking about it from the opposition's point of view to a certain extent. But if you look at the way our standing orders are structured, the government back bench and indeed in many cases the opposition become virtually irrelevant. We have the most restrictive standing orders in opportunities for individual MLAs to bring stuff before this House and actually debate it.

Every year on the order paper there are dozens of private members' bills, pieces of legislation brought forward by private members -- those who don't give up after seven years and stop even trying to introduce them. Year after year private members' bills are put on the order paper. Members spend hundreds of hours; volunteers spend time drafting them; government backbenchers do it. And year after year there are 50, 80 or 100 motions on significant and real policy issues brought forward by members of the opposition and, more importantly, by government backbenchers, which never see the light of day in this House.

Those members never get a chance to bring the issues of their constituents to the Legislature -- the job they were hired to do. They weren't hired just to attend caucus meetings; they weren't hired just to go on bended knee to

[ Page 10318 ]

ministers. They were hired by their constituents and sent here to raise in a public way issues that are important to them. That means having the chance to stand up and actually open their mouths and participate in debate.

This House has the shortest question period of any jurisdiction in the British Commonwealth. Every other province and every other country in the British Commonwealth or around the world with the British parliamentary system has a longer question period than we do, if they have one. There's another opportunity.

There are lots of things that we need to talk about if we're going to turn around the way this place works. You can't just say: "Okay, so many hours for estimates. We'll bring the bills in on a certain date. And that's all we need to do."

Interjection.

G. Farrell-Collins: The Premier says it'll be a start. Yeah, it would be a start. That doesn't give the government backbenchers any more opportunity to do anything; it gives them less opportunity. He's got a caucus too. He doesn't just have a cabinet. He's got a caucus, and they've got something to say about this, as do members of the opposition. They have the right as members of this Legislature to be able to bring issues of concern to their constituents before this House.

If there were opportunities for private members' debates, if there were opportunities for private members' bills to be debated in this House, for motions, for written questions on notice to be answered -- if you can imagine that . . . . In this House they've stopped putting written questions on the order paper, because they're never answered. If there were opportunities for members to do those sorts of things, then they wouldn't be lining up around the block to spend time in estimates, because they would have had an opportunity to debate them here in this House and get a resolution on them.

Instead, as a critic . . . And I have great sympathy for the Health critic in particular, the Education critic and a few others who, every time their estimates come along, have a list of 30 caucus members who have issues they want to debate in their estimates. That's why the estimates go so long. Their constituents are saying to them: "I want you to bring this to the House. Why won't you bring my issues to the floor of the Legislature?" And instead of having a constructive debate, we end up in these protracted, lengthy estimates debates, which don't get us anywhere.

Hon. Chair, when we were approached late last fall with the idea of going to some sort of fixed parliamentary calendar, which would get us in here and get us out of here in a particular amount of time, our caucus took that very seriously. We had lengthy discussions in caucus; we debated back and forth what some of the opportunities might be, what some of the suggestions might be, and we came forward with a proposal. That proposal was mailed to the Government House Leader. I don't know if the Premier ever saw it; I'll be glad to give him a copy.

The Premier said that we never made any suggestions, that there's been no discussion, that there's been no response. Well, there was response; there was a five-page letter. And albeit it was late -- it should have been there at the beginning of January -- I explained to the Government House Leader why that happened. My father was ill and eventually passed away, and that took time.

But on February 5, I sent a letter to the Government House Leader -- five pages with suggestions to change the rules of this House. I'm not going to read it here, but there are five pages of suggestions for ways to make this Legislature more relevant to constituents and more relevant to MLAs, particularly backbench MLAs -- opportunities for government members to speak in question period, a daily and weekly

schedule that would allow us to compress our workweek into perhaps even three days and allow members to spend Monday and Friday in their constituencies dealing with their constituents' issues. Why do we need to sit here on a Monday when we debate for only about three and a half hours? It would make more sense to try and compress those days, to work hard on Tuesday to Thursday, to be in our constituencies on Monday and Friday -- to actually sleep in our own beds and see our families on Sunday night and Friday night and try and keep our families together too.

I suggested a weekly schedule, which would have looked something like what's done in Ottawa. The House sits for three weeks, and then you spend a week in your constituency. You spend three weeks here and a week in your constituency, so you don't end up becoming disenfranchised from your constituents. You're not just talking to them on the phone and reading their faxes, but you're meeting them face to face. You're in your constituency office; you're in the community where they can come and talk to you. What wrong with that? We may not want to do it exactly like that, but it's a suggestion; it's an opportunity.

How about actually having some time for private members' days -- actually allowing government backbenchers and opposition members a couple of hours a week to really have debates? Right now we have these private members' statements on Fridays, where if you say anything that's at all political, you're out of order. Well, this place is political.

An Hon. Member: You only have ten minutes to do it.

G. Farrell-Collins: You've got ten minutes. I mean, why not allow some of the private members' bills to be debated? Why not allow some of the motions to be debated? There are some good motions in here. A lot of them I don't agree with, but there are some motions in here that I know would spark some good debate in this House. You know, the Premier's got the order paper there, and he can look through them. There are 50 . . . .

Interjection.

G. Farrell-Collins: The Premier says we spend too much time on estimates. I know he was talking to his colleagues when I highlighted that problem earlier. The reason we spend so much time on estimates is because there's no other opportunity for backbenchers or for opposition members to raise their constituents' concerns but estimates. If there were other opportunities, they wouldn't be lined up around the block to do it. The Premier talks about the hundreds of hours spent in estimates.

Well, when they used to spend 100 hours on estimates, the budget was a lot smaller -- and I might add that the debt was a lot smaller too. You've got about four times as much spending and about four times the debt, and that has an impact on it also.

The Premier should look at the order paper. There are opposition members, government members -- the member from Burnaby, the member for Vancouver-Burrard, the member for Comox Valley . . . . There's a whole bunch of them. There are 50 motions in here, all on important issues to those members and their constituents, which never get debated. I know the member for Surrey-Whalley has had to fight tooth and nail to get an issue that's dear to her heart before the House, the MAI. Now it's in a standing committee, and credit

[ Page 10319 ]

goes to her for being able to do that. But I know that she would like to have had that opportunity to debate that issue in the House at length or in different ways -- bring forward legislation or motions or resolutions to try and do that. So there are some opportunities.

Committees. The Premier and the member for Delta South talked about the committee structure. There were four different suggestions for the way committees could work in this House, not just the standing committees but special committees -- committees on legislation. Oftentimes the Premier wants to move things through the House quickly. Why not take bills where there's a contentious nut that needs to be cracked or a complex piece of legislation and refer that to a legislative committee?

Then allow them to go out and hear what people have to say; to do some travelling around the province and listen to what constituents have to say about it; to take back their recommendations and hammer out some changes, amendments, compromises; to bring it into the House in the same session or perhaps in a fall session and put the thing through. You'd move legislation way faster through this chamber if that were the case. It's done in Ontario and other jurisdictions, where legislation in committee in the House takes almost no time, because the work is done. You know what?

You'd get better legislation, and you'd get it quicker.

[3:30]

What happens now is that the government brings in legislation in the middle of July. It's a complex or controversial piece of legislation. It gets debated for however long, usually between 2 and 3 a.m. It gets passed, sometimes within days of being introduced. Then about two weeks or two months later, the people that are affected by it say: "Holy smokes, I can't believe you did this. Look at what this is going to do to my society or my community group or my business." What the government ends up doing is not implementing the legislation; they don't actually put it into effect.

So you end up with this half-completed piece of legislation floating around out there. Nobody knows when it's actually going to be implemented. What happens is that the next year you have to bring in an amendment to the bill, which hasn't even been implemented, in order to fix the mess you did the year before because you didn't take the time to do it right. You end up waiting a year later to get the legislation you could have had six months earlier if you had done it in the fall after having sent it to committee.

That was another suggestion in the letter that was sent to the Government House Leader. There are other suggestions -- and I'll give the Premier a copy -- on policy committees. An education and health care committee is a pet issue with the Leader of the Opposition. I don't know if the standing committee on health and the standing committee on legislation have ever met. Maybe they have met in the past hundred years, but certainly not since I've been alive, I think.

Health care and education are two issues that the government says are its biggest concerns, and the committees have never gone out and talked to British Columbians about what they'd like to see done in health care and education. So there are some other opportunities to do things.

A fixed calendar. There's a whole page here on fixed calendars and how that might work. It's touchy . . . .

Interjection.

G. Farrell-Collins: I'll ask a question, or perhaps one of the other members wants to get up and yield the floor to me.

The question, I guess, is: if there are all these opportunities put forward, all these suggestions . . . . They weren't "take it or leave it." The last line of the letter . . . .

L. Reid: Hon. Chair, I'll happily yield to the member.

The Chair: Opposition House Leader.

G. Farrell-Collins: Thank you, hon. Chair. I'll try and wrap it up relatively quickly. I won't take another 15 minutes, but I'll take a few minutes.

The line says: "We should discuss this important area further." This is a five-page document with suggestions. I don't expect the government to agree to them. I don't necessarily expect them to agree with any of them. But they're a starting point for discussion; they're a starting point for debate. I didn't get a response to that February 5 letter until, I think, the day the House sat or the day before the House was supposed to sit. Again, I'm not holding the Government House Leader responsible for that. Part of that was my fault in not getting it to her until February. I couldn't do it any quicker.

But there are opportunities there for discussion that will not just help the government and the opposition get in and out but help all members of this House to be more effective for their constituents and to actually have a life -- to actually spend time with their families, to know their kids as they grow up, to keep their marriages intact. All of those things, quite frankly, are a heck of a lot more important than what we do in this chamber. There is no reason why those things can't be done.

I don't want to belabour the point; I don't want to go on for hours on this issue. I think everybody knows the need; we agree with the need. Everybody in this House, I think, would like to see that change, and all I would ask is that . . . . We're now at the end of one more session. There will be some months before the next sitting of the House, whether it's in the fall or next spring. I think we should work in a serious way to discuss these issues. It shouldn't be just the Government House Leader and the Opposition House Leader.

There should be some government backbenchers; there should be the independent members of the House; there should be some other members of our caucus. Maybe a couple of cabinet ministers would want to be part of it, too, because they have a unique view on how this place works. Put half a dozen people together ad hoc, and we'll start talking about how this place might work. Get some advice from the Clerks who know what's done in other jurisdictions. Let's try and do it. But let's not wait until December to start. Let's start now or on September 1 or in the middle of August. Let's get on with this process now.

I claim no pride or ego with these recommendations; they are some suggestions. If the government has other suggestions, let's talk about them. But let's get started. Let's not find ourselves another year later in this House doing exactly the same thing in the middle of July, having moved nowhere on this topic. If the Premier will give us the commitment to do that -- to involve all members of the House, not just two members; to have a realistic discussion about this and give us some time to work at it -- I can almost guarantee you that by this fall you'll have some changes that all members of this House can agree to, which will make all members of this House far more relevant.

Hon. G. Clark: I'd be delighted to give a general commitment, with the Government House Leader. But whether we have a committee of our caucus or not, I'm not prepared to

[ Page 10320 ]

give a commitment at this time. The Government House Leader sets up her own elaborate consultation process with members of our side of the House, so she has the mandate to negotiate on our behalf. I'm not ruling it out; I'm just saying that that's how we generally proceed. I'll consider whether it will be a broader committee or not. But I have absolutely no hesitation in committing once again to having the Government House Leader and/or other members on behalf of our caucus revisit the rules to see if we can find a way of improving the chamber.

L. Reid: I rise to volunteer my services on this committee that the Premier may or may not call. I too have been a member of this Legislature for seven years, and the best intentions have never produced a plan or a product. I agree with my hon. colleague the Opposition House Leader when he talks about commitment over the past seven years. I believe that this opposition has demonstrated that commitment, and I've been in discussions with members opposite where they have agreed.

My hon. colleague the member for Delta South talks about this House not sitting five days before the budget needs to be in place for this province. There's $22 billion-plus in spending, and the government gives it less than five days' consideration.

I would like the Premier to get to his feet and indicate that this House will sit at least 30 days in advance of April 1, that we will sit in early March or late February, and that we won't wait until there's a handful of afternoons -- two or three of which have a ceremonial intent -- that do not allow adequate consideration or scrutiny of a very important budget document. I will commit -- and I trust the Premier will agree -- that the budget has been a failing point for this Premier and this government.

They indeed have an opportunity next March to allow some useful consideration time and to allow the public at large to get a better handle on how this government will choose to expend well in excess of $22 billion. Three afternoons don't make for good, careful deliberation.

I put that question to the Premier: will he commit to putting in place a reasonable 20-to-30-day time line for consideration of the budget in the next session of this parliament?

Hon. G. Clark: Once again -- and I'm not saying that there isn't . . . . It takes two to negotiate an agreement, so I'm not suggesting that we are perfect in terms of our discussions. But I will say that part of the discussions we had, at least preliminarily, with the Opposition House Leader was that not only do we have to have a fixed end date, which is really the opposition's call, and a fixed date for when legislation can come in so that it's reasonable, we also have to have an agreed-upon start date.

I was offering, through the Government House Leader, a specific start date which was in advance of the date we came back. But in the absence of any agreement in terms of reasonableness at the time, I felt that if we came in three weeks early, we'd just be here three weeks longer. We'd still be here at the same time, and no commitment was made.

That's not to say, however, that we shouldn't still come in earlier anyway, aside from any agreements we might have. I think that's true. Part of it is discipline on the government's side in terms of preparing for the House. Again I apologize for this, because as one of the few members who have been here for 12 years . . . . The Socred government never came in before March 31. I mean, the budget was late every year of the Vander Zalm administration. I think every single year the budget . . . .

Interjection.

Hon. G. Clark: Yeah. And they were a bad government -- I agree.

We established a revolutionary principle: that we were always going to bring in the budget before the end of the fiscal year. I appreciate that maybe it's been too close to the end of the fiscal year; I think that's valid. But it is a modest accomplishment that in seven years, we have never brought in a budget after March 31 -- which was the case every single year previously, when I was in opposition. I think it was every year; there might have been one exception to that.

So we've improved it. We're coming in before March 31, and the budget comes in before the end of the fiscal year. That's an improvement over past history. Can we improve it further by coming in earlier? Frankly, to do other business -- the throne speech even before we do the House -- I think the answer is yes. But the incentive to do that comes from an overall agreement, which has a beginning and an end and a time, and that's what we've been trying to accomplish. We haven't been able to do that, and I'll accept some responsibility for that.

It's because we did not agree to some recommendations from the Opposition House Leader. We put forward our suggestions, and there was -- I don't say this in a critical way -- a late response, which was fulsome. It looked like it was just so far out that we couldn't agree.

But I've made a commitment, and I'd be delighted, again, to take seriously this suggestion and see if we can come up with something next year. You know, it's not a question of time for members -- sitting in July. We're all working in July in any event. It's a question of just having the business of the House done more efficiently and more effectively, both for the opposition and for the government, in terms of the focus and sharpness of the debate.

Once again, I think we've unfortunately gotten into some bad habits. I'm not trying to be critical of the opposition when I say that, but when you go from a hundred hours in estimates to 400 hours in estimates . . . . Is it three times more effective for you -- for the opposition -- or three times . . . ? Is it better for anybody? I don't think the public or the media would see that the opposition has improved the quality of the debate because it's now three times longer, nor do I think the government has benefited or been hurt because it's three times longer. It's a question of if it were shorter, then you might get sharper debate and accomplish more.

I mean, even this discussion that we're having today, which I'm delighted to have, is a not a discussion that would normally have been the case in the Premier's estimates at any time prior. It would be a more lively debate about politics and ideology and differences. In some ways, this is a better debate and a not insignificant one and reasonable for members to be discussing. But anyway, I'll just say that I recognize the member's concerns, and we certainly agree to try again to see if we can do a better job.

L. Reid: I think it's a fascinating ramble that the Premier engages in when he is positioning himself as being slightly better than the Socreds. For the first three years that we sat in this chamber, every issue had befallen them only because of the mess they were left by the Socreds. I mean, this should not be a drive to mediocrity. Certainly when the Premier gets to his feet and says that perhaps we did not meet all his demands so that's the reason we have not reached an agreement . . . . What rubbish!

At some point, this Premier has to stand up and be counted on the issue of good government, which is delivering timely, reasonable debate to the individuals in this province -- the taxpayers who pay for this chamber's operation.

[ Page 10321 ]

[E. Walsh in the chair.]

Yes, I'm looking for some political leadership on this question. I'm looking for some political will from this Premier to commit to actually doing it this year. He's made the commitment to me, personally, every year for seven years. I would expect that every once in a while, a commitment would be kept. I expect this Premier to get to his feet, accept the offer of this opposition -- and my offer personally -- to work with him on this question and deliver, before the House next sits, a reasonable calendar that sees us sitting before the end of March. Period.

M. Sihota: I'm sure the Premier might be concerned that I might offer my opinions after 12 years on this debate, but I'm not going to do that. I would like to have leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

M. Sihota: On a day when, in the midst of this debate, we're talking about long summers here and family, I look up in the chamber and see my family rather unexpectedly. They have to come here to see me this time of the year. I must confess that it's a real privilege for me to introduce my wife Jessie, who is here with my mother-in-law Mrs. Parhar, from Nanaimo; my wife's cousins who are visiting from Derby, England, and who arrived in Victoria today; and of course my 11-year-old daughter Karina, who I have no doubt one day will have a seat in this chamber. Will all members please give them all a warm welcome.

[3:45]

G. Farrell-Collins: It's very appropriate that the introduction was of family members. As the member said, they've got to come here to see him. Some members aren't that lucky, that their families can come here to see them. I do notice that as we get past the end of June, there are more and more children in the precinct -- children of members who are taking their only opportunity to come and see their father or mother at work. It doesn't make for a great playground, although it would be great if you had roller-blades, I've often thought, in the halls of this Legislature. You could have a great time -- but I'm not encouraging anyone to do that.

The Premier committed to having some ongoing discussions. He said that he wouldn't make the commitment that it be broader-based, only that it would be between the House Leaders, the Government and Opposition House Leaders. If that's the only option, I think we have to pursue it, but I'm going to ask the Premier a really quick question. What would be so bad about having a representative from the government back bench and the members of the third party and perhaps an additional member from the opposition participate in that, in an effort to try and come to some conclusions?

It need not be a committee that's struck by this House. It can just be a committee or a group of people sitting down, trying to solve the problem. What would be so difficult about doing that?

Hon. G. Clark: There's nothing wrong at all with that. I think it's a very good suggestion. I'm hesitant to make that commitment until I talk to my caucus. We've already delegated the Government House Leader that task, but I'd be happy to bring it back to my caucus and discuss it with them.

G. Farrell-Collins: I look forward to the answer to that, because in all sincerity, I do want to try and get to the bottom of that, and I think there's an opportunity. I'm going to take a copy of the letter that I gave to the Government House Leader on behalf of my caucus, and I'll get a copy to the Premier, if he hasn't seen it. I think I'll also give copies to government caucus members so that they can have a chance to look at some of the suggestions and see if they've got any ideas of ways to try and do these things differently.

I want to say a couple of things about the debate that has gone on and about a couple of things the Premier has said. He said that we filibustered everything this session. I'm not sure he's aware of how this session went, because I know he had other duties. The reality is that there was one piece of legislation that the opposition was adamantly opposed to, and that was the labour bill. That debate did go for some time -- not as long as it needed to go, but thanks to some members of the government, it went longer than we'd anticipated. That was the one issue.

I must admit that in the estimates this session, the opposition has reduced the time dramatically over last year. I think if he checks with his House Leader, it's probably about two-thirds or less of what it was last year. They're not quite completed, but they will be completed shortly.

We also had a commitment that we had worked out with the government. The government felt it needed to have supply by the end of June. We agreed to do that in a meaningful way. We had scheduled to complete it by the end of June, and then the deal went out the window one day. Just all of a sudden, it changed. No consultation. We were just told: "Forget it. We're not going to do supply now; we're going to go do this." You know, it is hard to try and manage the House agenda when we go out of our way . . . .

Members from the opposition tighten up the time they're going to spend on their issues and have to go tell their colleagues: "Sorry, you can't spend as much time on that issue as you may have liked, because we're trying to behave in a responsible way. We're trying to move the supply bill through the House in a reasonable fashion and complete it before the end of the 90 days required under the interim supply act that was introduced at the beginning of April." That was an effort by the opposition to try and move the House's business along and try and get that completed.

All of a sudden, without any advice or any consultation, we're sitting until midnight. The estimates are off, and legislation is on.

It's hard from the opposition's point of view. When is it that we're supposed to agree to a deal to manage the House business that's going to actually work and run its course, and when is it that we're just being played with? That makes it very difficult for that element of confidence, as the minister knows, because he was Government House Leader when I was Opposition House Leader. We didn't have a lot of trouble with that; that seemed to go relatively well. So it's hard for the opposition to know when the government is serious and when it's just playing with and trying to have its way with the opposition.

The Premier needs to understand that it's not just the government's House; it's the opposition's House. It belongs to the 75 members who are here representing over 4 million British Columbians, and they have a job to do and a duty. That means that if the government brings in a piece of legislation or a particularly abhorrent resolution or something that a large number of members of this House think is wrong for the people of British Columbia, they also have a duty to do everything within their power and everything within the rules to try and convince the government not to proceed. We will

[ Page 10322 ]

always do that, and we have a right to do that. We have a duty to do that, and so did the government when they were in opposition.

The minister said they never went past the end of June, I think he said. I would assume, then, that they never had bills introduced in July. I have my count here. In this session we've had eight bills since July 1, and one of them, a particularly odious piece of legislation, Bill 50, was introduced on July 17. It's what I call the Louis XIV act, which is basically that the government can do whatever it wants. It's another rendition of that one. That comes on July 17, and then the government complains that we're not moving the legislation and the estimates through the House in a reasonable fashion.

How is the opposition supposed to respond when something like that is brought in at the end of the month and when the government was saying that they wanted to be out three weeks previously? In fact, if you look at the last week of June and the month of July, there were 11 pieces of legislation. Over 20 percent of the legislative load that was placed on this House this session has come in the last three or four weeks. In the last three and a half weeks, over 20 percent was introduced, and some of that was fairly major legislation. As the member for Richmond East said, this issue has come up and has been discussed for years in this House, either formally or informally.

Interjection.

G. Farrell-Collins: Well, the Attorney General may not be aware because he was on the back bench at the time, but this issue has been discussed since 1992. I'm sorry I'm misunderstanding or perhaps I'm not hearing the Attorney General, but the reality is that this issue comes up every year, and every year the Premier, who used to be the Government House Leader, talks about doing these great things, and then nothing happens. I remember that when he became Premier, and within days of becoming Premier, something happened. I think it was the day before he became Premier . . . .

An Hon. Member: The day of.

G. Farrell-Collins: The day of? No, it was actually the day before; it just seemed like that, I guess, because of the papers, but it was about that time. The Premier offered . . . . I think it had something to do with B.C. Hydro. In fact, he said, he made a commitment, that he was going have the Crown Corporations Committee examine what was going on at the Crown corporations. They could sit and discuss and debate it, and that would solve that problem. They could make sure that that type of thing never happened again, because they needed to be overseen more tightly. Everybody said great, and he said it was a good idea.

Well, it's now two a half years later, and that committee has never met -- and it's still a good idea. The election happened shortly thereafter, and the Premier was too busy to actually get that committee up and running. After the election it became: "Well, you can have either the Public Accounts Committee or the Crown Corporations Committee meet, but you can't have both of them." Well, if it is a good idea, it should be a good idea, not based on the role or actions of another committee. The Crown Corporations Committee has a vital role to play, but so does the Public Accounts Committee.

The member for Delta South has chaired that committee for seven years now and has done -- and I know all members of this House will agree -- a spectacular job. He has done it in a constructive manner. They have made real progress -- and I see the former Finance ministers all nodding their consent -- working with the bureaucracy, the various Ministers of Finance, and the members of the committee from both government and opposition sides to change and improve the way the government keeps its books and to improve the accountability of the government of British Columbia. That is valuable work.

It is done in a very efficient manner, it is done in an effective manner, and it is something that they should continue to do every year. They shouldn't have to put that on hold so that we can examine the Crown corporations.

The Crown corporations need to have some accountability. There is none there. Quite frankly, as the Premier and the former minister responsible for all the Crown corporations . . . . As the opposition critic who, at one time or another, has had a lot of fun being the opposition critic for various Crown corporations, I would think that he, of all people, would realize how unaccountable the Crown corporations are in this province and how difficult it is for ministers of the Crown to oversee them. If you appoint your hacks to run them, they may run amok.

If you're not paying close attention, they can get you into an awful lot of hot water as a minister. He should know that, having overseen virtually all of the Crown corporations at one time or another, and having dealt with the problems and the fallout of the lack of accountability with those Crown corporations.

Those are important issues that need to be dealt with. If in 1996 the Premier thought it was a good idea to have the Crown corporations report to or be accountable to a committee of the Legislature -- one for the Crown corporations that the government had the majority on, much like a public accounts committee for the public sector . . . . It could look at their business plans, could look at how they're spending their money, look at the projects and be a check and balance. I think that would be very productive.

I remember in the first year we were elected here, I was lucky enough to be put on the Public Accounts Committee -- and lucky enough to get off it, from what I understand the workload is, with the member for Delta South. That first year I was on the committee, and I remember . . . . I don't know how the Public Accounts Committee used to work before, but I don't think it worked the way it works now. I think it was far more political. I think it did far less work and was more of a playpen, rather than an accountability venue.

I remember sitting there at one of the very first meetings, and one of the issues that the auditor general had written about in his report was a sinking fund used by B.C. Hydro with regard to the B.C. Gas sale. Two people from B.C. Hydro showed up at the Public Accounts meeting -- fairly junior people from their finance department -- and proceeded to give us what I thought was a fairly incomplete and low-level, condescending briefing on how that worked. I remember that the member for Delta South, who chaired the committee, took offence to that, and he proceeded to grill them for about 45 minutes.

When he saw the little beads of sweat going down the temples of the people from B.C. Hydro, the member for Delta South directed them to go away and come back the next week -- and they had better well have some answers to the questions that he wanted. The following week, when I went to that committee, there were about 30 people from B.C. Hydro there, and they were all top people. They had the slides that you do -- what are they called? -- the PowerPoint slides. They had briefing books; they had notes; they had every expert and consultant there they ever needed.

They answered the questions like that, and they were out.

An Hon. Member: Are you filibustering?

[ Page 10323 ]

G. Farrell-Collins: Actually no, I'm not, but I can if the member wants me to.

Interjections.

The Chair: Order, members.

G. Farrell-Collins: That just proves the case that the Premier was making -- that if there is an opportunity and a desire for Crown corporations to become more accountable, then that's the venue for them. If it was a good idea in 1996, it should be a good idea now, and the Premier should be able to make a commitment to ensure that that committee will meet.

Year after year, when that committee appears on the order paper as a committee that may or may not meet, the opposition has put forward the member for Abbotsford as the potential chair of that committee. The member for Abbotsford is a very serious member; he's very concerned about accountability issues; he is hard-working; he is determined. I know that the Minister of Agriculture has worked with him and knows his character and knows the type of job he could do in that capacity.

I think that if that committee were allowed to meet and that member were to accede to be the chair of that committee, you would find that it would be as successful over the long term and do as much for British Columbia and for Crown corporation accountability in this province as the member for Delta South has done with the financial sector.

[4:00]

I'd like to ask the Premier a question. I would like to know if he can commit to us today that he will -- perhaps he will personally or will direct the Government House Leader to -- move a motion that will allow the Crown Corporations Committee to meet. Let's try it for one year. Let's see what work can be done. If he's nervous about doing that, let's sit down ahead of time and talk to the member who I think was in the original motion to be the chair of that committee. We can sit down and talk about terms of reference beforehand and about a business plan for that committee.

Let's give it a year and see what happens. Let's try it out. Will the Premier give this House a commitment to do that before this House rises, before the end of this session?

Hon. G. Clark: It took a long time for you to get to that point, hon. member. I certainly agree that . . . . I'm not backing away from a commitment on the Crown Corporations Committee. I do think we should try to get it up and running and functioning. I don't want to make a commitment right now, but I will take it on advisement.

Interjection.

Hon. G. Clark: No, the issue has been -- and this was the challenge when we first did it, and the reason the member referred to this -- about whether it should be Public Accounts or Crown Corporations, which the member didn't agree with, and I respect that. It was because we had the Aboriginal Affairs Committee meeting on Nisga'a, and they were holding hundreds of meetings. We ended up with a workload question about how many committees could sit in the fall. We are, as you know -- and I've made no secret about this -- looking at a fall sitting of the House itself, and we've got these committees.

We just announced three today; I acknowledge that they are to appoint people. But at some point, if you've got three or four committees meeting -- I think four are now meeting -- and we've got the House sitting . . . . It's just a functional question. That's what I want to consider. But I certainly agree with the principle, and I certainly will again talk to the Government House Leader about the possibility of it.

G. Farrell-Collins: Maybe the Premier can talk to the Government House Leader from six to 6:35 tonight and come back with an answer. Every year we ask this question in one form or another, and every year we get the undertaking, but we never get the commitment. The member from Penticton showed me that it's actually in the throne speech for 1996: " . . . a new Crown corporation committee of the Legislature, modelled on the Public Accounts Committee and chaired by a member of the opposition." It's right there. It was in the throne speech in 1996. We've had 1997, and we're now at the end of 1998. The commitment was made; I just hope that it can be followed up on.

Interjections.

G. Farrell-Collins: I'm going to ask my members to calm down, because I don't want to make a big political deal about this, but I do want to get more than just an undertaking. Perhaps the Premier can tell us when he'll get back to us on that. Can he tell us when he's going to get back to us on the Crown Corporations Committee? The reason I ask is because we are getting somewhat toward the end of the session, and as he knows, that needs to be done by a resolution of the Legislature.

Hon. G. Clark: I'll certainly commit to getting back before the end of the session. Again, it's a question of looking at all the committees that are sitting and the possibility of the House sitting and seeing if we can't ensure that we have a quorum and that we literally have enough members prepared to do the business.

G. Farrell-Collins: Just a couple more points, and then my colleague from Richmond Centre has a couple of questions for the Premier regarding one of the Crown corporations. In other Houses, in other parliaments, committees meet while the House is sitting. Ontario is one that I'm familiar with, because I've been there a number of times, and Ottawa, certainly, but it's a much bigger House. Ontario is somewhat bigger than ours but not huge.

One of the suggestions in the letter that was full of suggestions made to the government was that some of those committees could be smaller. Not every committee needs to be big. There could be committees made up of three government members and two opposition members. That's certainly a possibility. Those are the types of things, if it's a matter . . . . I understand the tight majority that exists right now, so I think it's possible to have committees -- the MAI committee, for example -- that needn't have 15 members or 12 members or whatever it is. They could have five. They don't all need to do that.

It would save money, too, and they could travel more freely if there weren't as many members.

There are other things that could be dealt with on an ongoing basis. I think that Public Accounts and Crown Corporations do require a larger membership, but maybe not as big as the ones we have. There's no reason why, if it's a workload problem, we can't cut down those committees and have more of them meeting and doing the work they need to do. Quite frankly, it becomes a more onerous job for the members doing it, but it also becomes something that is intriguing, something that's interesting and something they can take the time to

[ Page 10324 ]

become expert and proficient at, rather than having them sit on five or six committees where they're off doing things and never on the subcommittees. They never really get to do the work of the committee.

So that's another suggestion that the Premier may want to look at. If he, in his thoughts of how this might work . . . . We in the opposition are certainly willing to have smaller committees. We're willing to have them meet in locations that are more practical for government members. Perhaps they can meet in Victoria, in this building if the House is sitting, where they're well within the bells in case of a vote. There are all sorts of things that could be done. Perhaps when the Premier responds to that suggestion, he can also tell us whether or not we're going to have a fall sitting. Are we going to know that before the end of session, or is this one of those things where . . . ?

Interjection.

G. Farrell-Collins: The Premier jokes. I know that traditionally it's sort of been a hide-and-go-seek thing here. I don't know why that is; I've never understood that. I remember that the Premier once announced that this House was going to sit and then the Finance minister, the Government House Leader -- who is now the Premier -- went out and contradicted him within minutes. Even within cabinet, it seemed it was a big secret. I don't know why there's some advantage to that.

I don't understand why there's an advantage to someone knowing when the House is going to sit and someone not knowing when the House is going to sit. Perhaps if we can get from the Premier a commitment or some sense of when that will be, it would allow members and committees to

schedule their time. That would let us know sort of where we're going as far as how that's all going to come together.

I'll just cede the floor for a minute, and after the Premier answers, the member for Richmond Centre has some questions for the Premier.

Hon. G. Clark: My colleagues on the government side are waiting for the answer to the question as much as the members opposite. I'm sorry, there is no . . . .

Interjections.

The Chair: Order, members.

Hon. G. Clark: There is no secret. There has been no decision made for a fall sitting. That's not being cute or anything. It's a question of timing and workload and whether the Nisga'a debate requires a fall sitting -- whether it's our judgment that we should have a fall sitting on it or just wait until the spring. So we haven't made . . . . I've been fairly transparent about it. We're kind of leaning toward the possibility of a fall session, but we haven't made the decision. I don't think we'll make that decision until probably early in September about whether we'll come back in the fall or in the spring.

But certainly I want to give some comfort around that, if I can, and to give as significant an amount of notice as we can to all members of the House, including the opposition. It won't be a flash thing or a secret thing. We just haven't made the decision on it. So that's the answer to the last question. We'll inform all members sometime in September, I think, about whether there'll be a fall session.

Interjection.

Hon. G. Clark: I think probably a little --, 24 or 48 hours. No, we'll certainly try to give more notice than that.

On the suggestion that the committees be smaller . . . . I think that's an excellent suggestion. I think it's just important for the record to say that we do have a committee on choosing a new FOI commissioner, a committee of the House to choose a new conflict-of-interest commissioner, I believe . . .

Interjection.

Hon. G. Clark: Oh, sorry. It's reviewing the conflict act.

. . . and a committee, as well, to choose a new ombudsman. We have the Public Accounts Committee, which will sit separately. We have a committee on the MAI, which will be sitting in the fall. We, the government, are considering another one or two select standing committees on issues which we have not entirely decided upon yet. Within that context, we may have a fall session. So I'm not, for any reason, saying this to try to defer or evade answering the question. It's just the practical reality. We have a lot of committees which will be sitting this fall. Again, this is relatively new for this House and is, I think, a very positive development. It's within that context that we have to decide.

So perhaps, actually, a very good suggestion is to fairly significantly shrink the size of the committees, so we can in fact have more functioning committees take place. I think that's a suggestion we'll look into right away.

D. Symons: It is indeed a pleasure to get up and debate with the Premier, you know, because he's always very amiable in these discussions and manages to give us very plausible-sounding answers. I'd just like to make reference also to the fact that in '96 you did make the recommendation in the throne speech that we would indeed have a public Crown corporation committee set up and that you would use that. You've talked about having the committees used in a more effective manner and about involving the members in the House more in the committee stage in the legislation. Well, none of that's taken place.

The Premier's words sound very nice, but when it comes to following through, that's another matter.

Also, the Premier just earlier, in speaking in response to the question from the member for Richmond East about starting earlier in doing things . . . . The Premier may remember, if he's listening . . .

Interjection.

D. Symons: Good, thank you. I just wanted to make sure.

. . . that he made a comment there about the fact of how late the Socreds began the session, always in April; they never began on time, before the end of the fiscal year. Well, hon. Premier, in 1985 they met, and March 1 was the throne speech; in 1986, March 11; in 1987, March 9; in 1988, March 15; and in 1989, March 16. Hon. Chair, really, the Premier made that comment quite bold-facedly just a half-hour ago, talking about how late they always began and implying that we're doing better than was done before. Well, we're not.

The only two times when they didn't meet in March were the last two years of the Socred administration, when basically they were disintegrating -- two years. But in all those other years, you know, they met much sooner.

There's absolutely no reason logically, where . . . . The Premier says, well, if we began three weeks earlier, then we'd

[ Page 10325 ]

still go the same length of time. That's not correct. If we meet three weeks earlier, we can be moving the business along earlier in the season and then will not necessarily have to go into a fall session or into the late part of the summer, as we're currently into. So the NDP's record is that the NDP has never, either under a previous Premier or this Premier, begun before any of those dates that the Socreds met -- the dates I read off there.

Now, that wasn't really what I got up to speak about. I was going to get up to speak -- since you'd brought in the question of Crown corporations -- of the B.C. Ferry Corporation. I have a concern, because the B.C. Ferry Corporation has gone out with requests for expressions of interest in the purchase and leaseback of the three fast ferries, that program that, in my estimation, has run deeply into the red. From the figures that the Premier gave me when he was minister responsible, this program was going to cost $70 million a ferry -- $210 million for the three ferries.

I rather suspect that the first ferry is actually over $100 million, and all three will certainly be in the $300 million range -- considerably more than the Premier indicated, about 60 percent more.

So I'm curious now, since you seem to be going out for requests for expressions of interest in a purchase-lease arrangement on the three ferries, with an option to build seven more ferries in the future, if we're going to do that . . . . Crown corporations really belong to the people of this province. We are, in a sense, the shareholders of those ferries that are currently being built by CFI, which is a subsidiary of the B.C. Ferry Corp. If B.C. Ferries or the government is planning on selling off CFI, it is only right and proper that the people of this province should know exactly what we are selling and the value and costs of what we are selling.

It's only appropriate, I would think, that the people should know. If we are going to sell off the fast ferry program, what investment did we have in that program? In order to do that, I think it's essential, since the government's bookkeeping has not been too reliable in past years, particularly when it comes to budget figures . . . . I'm wondering if the Premier would agree that it's essential to clear the air on the costs of the fast ferry program, that we do have a full, public, independent audit of that program before any sale and leaseback arrangement is made.

[4:15]

Hon. G. Clark: What kind of audit is the member referring to? It's clear that the books are audited, and they are open to public scrutiny. I don't have any hesitation; it doesn't bother me. I mean, it's a public corporation; it is owned by the shareholders. We're quite open and transparent about it, and the members opposite are obviously opposed to some of the decisions we've made. That's their right, and we're pursuing that agenda.

It is correct that we've put out a request for proposals to see if we could, if you will, privatize the construction of fast ferries or other ferries. The reason for that is pretty simple: B.C. Ferries is not in the construction business, and we didn't intend to be in the construction business. But because of both the superferries and the fast ferries, the existing yards weren't capable of building them on their own -- or that was the contention. And because we wanted to spread the work around the province, they set up a corporate vehicle, as you know, to construct them.

Now that the first one has been constructed but has not had sea trials or anything yet -- there is still work to be done -- there is a very good argument to be made, it seems to me, now that we've invested and now that we've formed a structure that appears to work, to try to sell it to the private sector. We obviously wouldn't do that unless we wanted to recover all of the costs that were invested in that operation. Further, it's to allow for the further expansion of it through a mechanism which does not require debt on the books of B.C. Ferries. In fact, someone else takes on that responsibility.

I remind the member, as well, that there are ferries in British Columbia which, ten years ago or so -- or a little more than that -- were sold and leased back, and they're in operation. It's quite a common technique to help the balance sheet of any corporation. There is an RFP which looks at selling and leasing back some of the fast ferries. What the corporation is looking at is (

a) getting out of the business of construction, which I hope members agree is not an unreasonable proposition; (

b) finding a way to finance the ferries with the private sector, so that it's kind of a partnership; and (

c) seeing if we can't use this to lever further non-B.C. Ferries work by having a private operator look at construction of other vessels either for themselves or elsewhere.

I don't know the status of any of that; obviously there is an authorization to proceed with this expressions-of-interest kind of idea. I know that the member is an able critic, and I say that sincerely. All of that will have to bear public scrutiny in a very serious way, especially if we're to sell what has become a public asset, with the investment made. You're quite correct: the auditor general, the comptroller general, the audits of the books of the corporation, public debate . . . . All of that must meet the public test, or we shouldn't do it. If we did do it, I'm sure we'd be criticized for it.

In a general sense, I have no hesitation in agreeing with the member, but it seems to me that there are lots of public vehicles now for exposure of all of the costs associated with this enterprise.

D. Symons: Yes, and as I said earlier, the Premier answers very nicely, but I find that . . . . Last year, I believe it was -- certainly the year before -- I was asking about the costs of the construction shed that was going to be $9 million, and would that be amortized or added into the costs of the fast ferry program. The answer was yes, that basically you amortize over the three ferries -- $9 million, so $3 million each ferry. This year, however, when I asked that question, the answer was: "Well, no, we're not going to be calling that cost of the fast ferry shed . . . .

" By the way, it didn't come in at $9 million; it came in at $13 million, a 40 percent increase. So that's not going to be counted as part of the fast ferry one.

Then my next question to the minister responsible was: "You said last year that you were going to count part of it. Which part?" The answer: "Well, we haven't quite decided yet." "Is it 25 percent, 50 percent, 75 percent . . . ? " "Well, 50 percent." To give me an answer, they picked a number out of the blue. This is not the way you do proper accounting for the cost of the fast ferry program, where you throw figures into one account and then into another account.

When he was the minister responsible, the Premier told me that there was $9 million going into upgrading the terminals for the fast ferry program. They do not appear on the books for the cost of the fast ferry program. We've had training of welders; we've had money to upgrade the shipyards that are building the ferries. All of those are not now counted in the books as costs of that program. If we're going to sell that program off to some private enterprise, we need to make sure that those costs are all part of the expenses of operating and putting into place the fast ferry program.

[ Page 10326 ]

I would also mention that when the Premier was responsible for the introduction of this whole program, as minister responsible at that time, it was never mentioned that there was any intention of selling this program off. This was the great thing that B.C. Ferries was going to do. They were going to build ferries; they were going to sell them through CFI around the world. This was going to be a B.C. Ferries production thing for the world market.

No mention of: "Well, after we get this thing halfway along, we'll try and off-load it." They only started to do that in the last year or so, when they realized they had a real white elephant, a really overexpensive project, on their hands, and they wanted to get the money off the books. As the Premier said, indeed we don't want it as part of the debt.

That debt has not yet been put into B.C. Ferries. The debt in B.C. Ferries is pretty close to $800 million now; it's quadrupled since this government got into office. But we find that that does not yet include the money that's been spent on the fast ferry program -- not till they're capitalized. Not till the three ferries are built and added to the ferry fleet will that be capitalized -- if indeed those ferries are still part of B.C. Ferries. If you manage to off-load them, well, you can hide $300,000 by leasing back. But nobody is going to buy that fast ferries program and lease them back to B.C. Ferries, unless they make a profit on the deal.

I guess that the Premier's saying basically: "Maybe we built these and maybe they're more expense and what not, but we'll hide them off the books by selling them off to somebody and leasing them back." But nobody's going to buy them unless they're going to make money on it. So they're going to have the government on the hook for lease arrangements that are going to pay back all that they paid for the program, with interest, and we the taxpayers of the province, the users of that service, are going to be paying for it for years and years to come.

Hon. G. Clark: First of all, I just want to remind the member that I'm not the minister responsible for B.C. Ferries, and you've canvassed this with the minister.

Secondly, I recall that in fact we allowed it to come back into the House for debate after it being passed so that you could canvass these questions. So you're better to be questioning to the minister responsible. I try to be informed on these questions, so I'm delighted to engage in some discussion, but if you want to sort of pin me down on some detailed and specific thing here, compared to the minister . . . . The minister would be right, not me, because he has the file.

I have one substantive comment to make. There are ferries that are leased right now that were sold and leased back. The auditor general and others reviewed them and found them to be sound, partly because of tax considerations for depreciation. I assure you that similar considerations are being given with respect to any sale and leaseback now, and if there isn't a business case for it, I'm sure that the members opposite will raise that, and we'd be held accountable for it. So they're doing it if there is a business case for it and to try and encourage the private sector to participate and to pursue other opportunities.

Also, the members opposite have been complaining about the debt load at B.C. Ferries. Of course, with the construction s