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)

THURSDAY, JUNE 25, 1998

Afternoon

Volume 11, Number 7

[ Page 9229 ]

The House met at 2:06 p.m.

J. Weisbeck: In the House today are Bill and Doreen DiPasquale. I had the pleasure of working with Bill when I was a city councillor in the city of Kelowna. Would the House please make them welcome.

S. Hawkins: It is my great pleasure to introduce Mr. Jagjit Singh Dhaliwal. Mr. Dhaliwal is visiting friends of ours in Kelowna and family in Vancouver. He is visiting from England. He is very interested in parliaments around the world, and I'm glad he's had the opportunity to come and visit us here today. Would the House please join me in making him feel welcome.

Hon. G. Clark: Earlier today the Women's Equality minister and myself had the great privilege and honour of meeting with some very accomplished women. They are the 1998 YWCA Victoria and Vancouver Women of Distinction award recipients. The minister will be introducing most of them, but as Minister Responsible for Youth, I'd like to introduce the 1998 Young Women of Distinction award recipients. Adriana McMullen from Victoria serves meals at the Upper Room, visits elderly hospital patients and lifeguards at Commonwealth Place. She is a tremendous community volunteer.

Leah Costello from Vancouver is the founder of her own catering business, although she just sold it, and is very active in community programs, particularly those related to youth and entrepreneurship. So Adriana McMullen and Leah Costello are the winners of the Young Women of Distinction award this year. I ask the House to make them welcome.

Hon. S. Hammell: As the Premier just mentioned, we had the pleasure of having lunch with these remarkable women. It gives me great pleasure to introduce to the House the Women of Distinction from both Victoria and Vancouver. Alma Lee has earned an incredible reputation around writing. Farida Sayani is the owner and managing director of Executive Inn Hotels and Suites. Leora Kuttner is an instructor at UBC's department of pediatrics and works in pain relief for children. Gillian Lockitch is a UBC professor of pathology and deals with the complex biochemistry of infants, children, adolescents and pregnant women.

Anita Dadson has devoted her life to working on behalf of people with disabilities in the community. Luba Lyons Richardson is a midwife and was recently appointed as the first-ever chief of the department of midwifery in Victoria. Georgina Wong is also from Victoria and is a committed community activist and volunteer. Pauline van den Driessche is internationally known for research in mathematical biology and combinatorial matrix analysis; she is a University of Victoria professor. Nella Nelson is a proud member of the first nations community and works with the Victoria school district.

Judy Joseph is a public relations officer for the department of athletics and recreational services at the University of Victoria. Christina Truscott is the owner of Body Blueprint, a fitness company in Victoria. Last, but not least, is the lifetime achievement award for Norma Mickelson, the chancellor of the University of Victoria, who has been a source of inspiration for many women in her role as scholar, teacher, author, lecturer and advocate. On behalf of the House, I welcome these women here and ask the House to help me welcome them also.

I. Chong: I have two introductions today. Firstly, it's my pleasure, on behalf of the member for Victoria-Beacon Hill, the hon. Speaker, and myself, to introduce two very special guests who are visiting in the gallery today. They are Mr. John Hopper and his son Tristin. John and Tristin were the hon. Speaker's guests for lunch today. John happens to be a constituent of mine, and he is here today in his capacity as a local businessman who is interested in the future of downtown and in the youth of Victoria. I ask all members to please help make him welcome.

Secondly, it is my pleasure to introduce to this House ten seniors who are residents of Berwick House, a seniors care facility in the riding of Oak Bay-Gordon Head. They are here today with their coordinator of activities, Mrs. Kendra King. I also ask the House to please make them welcome.

J. van Dongen: I'm pleased to introduce to the House today two visitors from the Victoria area, Rosalynn Karadimas and Sherry Davies. They are here as representatives of Parents for Healthy Children. I ask the House to please make them welcome.

Hon. J. Kwan: Visiting us today in the precinct is Mr. Shing Kuo Shih. He is the adviser of the Taiwanese Canadian Cultural Society. With him are his brother and two sisters from Taiwan and, as well, his son Eric Shih from Vancouver. Would the House please make them welcome.

Introduction of Bills

PUBLIC EDUCATION COLLECTIVE AGREEMENT ACT

Hon. P. Ramsey presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Public Education Collective Agreement Act.

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

Motion approved.

Hon. P. Ramsey: Hon. Speaker, this act puts into law the agreement recently negotiated by government and the teachers of British Columbia -- an agreement that is unprecedented in its commitment to our education system.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members . . . .

Hon. P. Ramsey: This agreement, which a strong majority of British Columbia teachers have endorsed, brings an investment of $200 million into our schools in the next three years. It provides lower provincial class sizes for students in kindergarten-to-grade-3, giving them more support and attention in the early years when they need it most. This is a good agreement for our children, and teachers have given up pay increases for two years in exchange for these investments in classrooms.

[ Page 9230 ]

The government is fully committed to funding all the elements negotiated in this new agreement and views it as a long-term investment in our education system. We have promised districts that we will work with them and with teachers to make sure that the agreement works for our kids. This bill makes that happen.

Once passed, the Public Education Collective Agreement Act makes the agreement negotiated by government and the teachers union legal and binding as of July 1, 1998, when the current agreement expires.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, hon. members, while the minister finishes his statement.

Hon. P. Ramsey: I was deeply disappointed by the trustees' rejection of that agreement. It is clear to me that trustees and teachers will not return to bargaining, let alone reach a better agreement for our children. As a government, we simply can't risk this agreement in the hope that these two parties will put aside their longstanding differences and work out anything better.

[2:15]

Right now children across British Columbia are packing up their school books for the summer. The beginning of a new school year is only 75 days away. I am not prepared to gamble with our children's education by allowing this impasse to drag on and risking the strong likelihood of teachers being locked out or on strike this fall.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Hon. members, come to order. Minister, we need the motion now, please.

Hon. P. Ramsey: I am not pleased about having to do this, but . . . .

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members will come to order.

Hon. P. Ramsey: I am not pleased about introducing this bill, but I honestly feel that it's the only way we can ensure that school opens this fall.

I move that Bill 39 be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Hon. members, come to order. I'm going to put the motion for movement to second reading.

Bill 39 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members, come to order. The House will come to order. Nothing further will proceed . . . . Order, hon. members.

Oral Questions

BUSING EFFECTS OF EDUCATION AGREEMENT-IN-COMMITTEE

A. Sanders: The B.C. Public Schools Employers Association has some frightening news for parents of school children across the province. They say that the government is about to impose -- and has -- a deal which removes any flexibility from the classroom. It means that children are going to be bused and taxied to and from school. They will not be able to go to their neighbourhood schools anymore.

Worse yet, children from the same family will be split and sent to different schools out of their neighbourhoods, and this can happen at any time of the year. Will the Minister of Education tell us why he is so intent on forcing five-, six- and seven-year-old kids to be bused or taxied to and from school every day?

Hon. P. Ramsey: I'm frankly shocked that this member would continue to misrepresent this agreement with teachers. The BCTF has assured both BCPSEA and government that there is no intent to bus children to other communities. That is simply not in the agreement, and I ask the member to stop fearmongering. We'll have ample opportunity to debate the elements of this agreement later this session.

The Speaker: First supplementary, the member for Okanagan-Vernon.

A. Sanders: This minister knows very well that that is exactly what's going to happen. It's happening now in some communities, and it will be happening more with the implementation of this bill. The minister doesn't understand that parents don't want to see their littlest school kids go off to schools across town; they don't want it. They don't want to see their kids split up, and that is exactly what this class-size deal will do and what is going to happen. Will the Minister of Education please tell parents of the most vulnerable school-age kids why he and his cohorts are willing and prepared to sacrifice and split up families by imposing a bad deal?

Hon. P. Ramsey: This agreement with the BCTF provides significant steps towards lowering class size and making sure our children have more attention. Our goal is clear: we want every child to have the individual attention he or she needs to be able to read and write before the end of grade 3. The lower class sizes in the agreement are significant steps towards making that possible. I look forward to the debate, when the Liberal opposition will try to explain to parents why higher class sizes are better for learning.

NATURE OF AGREEMENT WITH BCTF

M. de Jong: This minister cut duly elected school trustees out of negotiations with their employees. He cut them out of negotiations, and now he's going to impose a deal on those trustees that they can't afford. If that isn't bad enough, we've discovered this secret protocol -- that's the only word I can use to describe it -- signed between the ministry and the BCTF. It confirms that if school districts can't abide by the particulars of the agreement with respect to class size -- even one student -- those students are going to end up being bused across town to schools far from their neighbourhood schools.

That protocol is dated June 10. My question to the minister is: when exactly is he going to get around to telling the trustees

[ Page 9231 ]

and the school boards and the parents that have to abide by this agreement and pay for it that he's cut another secret deal with the BCTF?

Hon. P. Ramsey: I assume that the member is referring to a letter signed by the president of the BCTF and my deputy, which says very clearly that school boards are not required to take funds from other programs to fund this agreement, nor are they required to bus students more than they do now.

The Speaker: First supplementary, the member for Matsqui.

M. de Jong: Well, I'll tell you what the secret protocol of June 10 says, hon. Speaker. In it, the ministry acknowledges that meeting the obligations set out in this deal -- the deal he is about to legislate -- will require school boards to do the following: create more split classes, adjust school boundaries and bus or transport kids across town away from their neighbourhood schools. That's what the document says. When exactly was the minister going to get around to telling the parents and the students who are going to be affected by this secret protocol that he's cut another backroom deal? Why is it a secret?

Why is he so embarrassed to tell people the truth about the deal he's cut with the BCTF?

Hon. P. Ramsey: As classrooms fill up, school districts right now adjust school boundaries. At times kids are bused; at times these split classes are put in place. The member obviously . . . .

Interjections.

The Speaker: Hon. members, the question has been asked. The minister is entitled to make a response.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members!

Hon. P. Ramsey: Far from not telling anyone, the letter that the member refers to was faxed to every school district in the province. Far from being ashamed of this deal, we on this side of the House are proud of working for smaller class sizes so our kids get a better education.

TURNING LANES FOR HIGHWAY 97 NORTH INTERSECTION

J. Weisgerber: My question is for the Minister of Transportation and Highways. The minister has received a number of letters over the last few days requesting the construction of turning lanes on Highway 97 North at a place called Farmington Fairways. The site was the scene of a tragic accident on May 9 that took the lives of two local children, aged six and four. There have been a number of accidents at the same site, the most recent occurring last Saturday. Can the minister advise the people who use this busy highway, and particularly the grieving family, what action he has taken to deal with this issue?

Hon. H. Lali: I want to thank the hon. member for his question. We take the safety of the travelling public as a high concern. I knew that an accident had taken place. Certainly I'll get back to the hon. member with some details on that particular situation.

The Speaker: First supplementary, the member for Peace River South.

J. Weisgerber: There's a lot of traffic in and out of that golf course and campground during the summer months, when the traffic is the heaviest on the Alaska Highway. The ministry has just awarded a contract to repave the road in the precise area where the accident occurred. It would be a logical time for the ministry to put in turning lanes if they are intending to do so. Will the minister commit today to investigating the need for these turning lanes, and will he agree to give it the highest priority so that this opportunity can be taken advantage of?

Hon. H. Lali: The hon. member has been a member of this House for about a dozen years, and I take his advice quite seriously. As a matter of fact, I will direct my regional staff to meet with the hon. member so we can come to a resolution of the issue.

NURSES WORKING CONDITIONS AT BURNABY CORRECTIONAL CENTRE

S. Hawkins: The B.C. Nurses Union has asked the government for an independent review of the working conditions for nurses at the Burnaby Correctional Centre for Women. With the past track record of the corrections branch in covering up problems, the nurses' request is very legitimate. My question is to the Minister of Health: will she listen to these nurses and join them in supporting their call for a full independent review of the working conditions at this centre and ask the AG to order this for the nurses at the Burnaby Correctional Centre for Women?

Hon. P. Priddy: I'm not sure that it's not a question that's more appropriate for the Attorney General. But I have spoken with the nurses. I understand their concerns. I spoke with them as recently as yesterday. I've also talked with the Attorney General, who is conducting his own review. As a result of that, I expect that the Attorney General will decide on the next step. It is critical that nurses are able to work in safe working conditions, and I will absolutely support actions towards that.

The Speaker: First supplementary, the member for Okanagan West.

S. Hawkins: The nurses that work in Corrections are very, very concerned for their personal safety, and I know the minister recognizes that. There used to be ten nurses at the Burnaby Correctional Centre. Now there are only five, and three of them resigned because of the working conditions. I'll ask the Minister of Health again: will she ask the Attorney General to post a guard for the nurses today, right now, so that they don't have to worry about their personal safety anymore?

Hon. P. Priddy: In my discussions with the Attorney General about the safety of nurses in that facility and the concerns they expressed, the Attorney General indicated to me that their safety was his top priority -- in spite of the fact that he has a report pending, it is his top priority as well -- and that he would take whatever actions were necessary.

FOREST SERVICE RECREATION CAMPSITES

G. Abbott: Yesterday in this House we raised the hypocrisy of this NDP government in promising to create 1,500 new

[ Page 9232 ]

campsites while, on the other hand, threatening to close hundreds of Ministry of Forests recreation campsites. Well, hon. Speaker, a miracle has occurred. It's a miracle! The Minister of Forests has turned water into wine once again.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Hon. members, order. The member for Shuswap has the floor.

G. Abbott: Soon we'll have to get him to work on FRBC. Maybe he can do something there as well.

We understand that just moments ago the Minister of Forests announced that, miraculously, over a million dollars has been found to maintain the 1,400 recreation campsites in British Columbia. My question to the Minister of Forests: why is it that the opposition has to expose the hypocrisy and doubletalk of this NDP government before it will recognize its existing responsibilities?

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, hon. members, so we can hear the Minister of Forests.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: It is true that I've announced that the campsites will remain open this year.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Hon. members, order.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: But I have to assure the members that it is no miracle; in fact, it's due to hard work by ministry officials over the last three months that we were able to find the money to keep them open.

[2:30]

The Speaker: First supplementary, the member for Shuswap.

G. Abbott: If it was a product of hard work, why the heck didn't you start working a few months ago so we didn't have to go through this embarrassment?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Of course, the opposition would like to spend more and more and more -- until they're confronted with the realities of trying to do difficult things, like balancing the budget.

They're comparing apples and oranges. The recreation campsites have a much lower level of service, and it has in fact been two months of hard work trying to rearrange budgets since the regional staff first found out what their budgets were.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, hon. members.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: I'm pleased to say that it's been fruitful work and successful . . .

Interjections.

The Speaker: Hon. members . . . .

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: . . . and that we're able to keep the campsites open.

The Speaker: Second supplementary, the member for Shuswap.

FORESTS MINISTRY RESPONSIBILITIES AND FRBC BUDGET

G. Abbott: Hon. Speaker, it's a real pleasure to hear the new revisionist history of this particularly sad time in the government of British Columbia. My supplementary to the Minister of Forests: given that Forest Renewal B.C., in the last two years, had the funds to carry the cost of these campsites, what other . . . ? Next year, as the FRBC budget is cut, what other Ministry of Forests responsibilities that have been off-loaded onto FRBC are going to again be a problem to the Minister of Forests and will see those responsibilities undone?

Interjections.

The Speaker: Hon. members, order, please.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: FRBC is going to have a difficult time rearranging all its budgets to meet the needs. We will remain committed to creating jobs in the forests through enhanced silviculture. The board of FRBC will be going through a strategic planning exercise.

You know, I wish this opposition . . . . Had they given back the million dollars they spent on the mailer, we would have been able to open the campsites sooner.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members, come to order, please.

I recognize the Opposition House Leader.

G. Farrell-Collins: There has been some discussion about the adjournment of the House which took place this morning. I see on the order paper today, under "Adjourned Debate on Second Reading," Bill 26, which went by the wayside earlier this morning in the absence of the minister responsible for it.

The Speaker: This raises a point of order.

G. Farrell-Collins: Yes, it's a point of order.

Interjection.

G. Farrell-Collins: It would be nice to know. You probably wouldn't be in the situation you're in now, hon. minister.

I notice in the House of Commons Hansard , page 455, from 1952, the . . . .

Interjections.

The Speaker: Hon. members, come to order.

[ Page 9233 ]

G. Farrell-Collins: I call the attention of the House to page 374 of Erskine May, sixteenth edition, which discusses in some detail a similar occurrence which occurred in 1952. Erskine May is quoted:

"When it is essential that proceedings on an order of the day, cut short by an unexpected adjournment, should be resumed at the next sitting of the House, a notice of the motion is placed for that purpose, in the name of a minister of the Crown, upon the notice paper for the next sitting, at the commencement of public business, and the drop order is placed, printed in italics, at the head of the list of the orders of the day, or at the place among the orders of the day at which it is proposed to be taken."

I notice that it's been placed in Orders of the Day for this afternoon, the same day on which it occurred. Nothing has been changed or amended in Votes and Proceedings , so there is no notice of motion -- the other half of what I believe the government is going to try and do with this issue. Therefore I would argue either that the item be removed from Orders of the Day or that the notice of motion be made so the members of the House can have a chance to look at it and consider it at that time.

The Speaker: Thank you, member, for your point of order. You are correct that it is indeed listed on the order paper in italics. It is there as a traditional notion. The order is currently a dropped order -- and that is a correct point -- as a result of the adjournment of the House during consideration of the adjourned debate on second reading this morning. That is a traditional way of informing all of us about that. The bill may be called again after passage of a motion on notice to restore it to the order paper.

The Opposition House Leader rises on what point?

G. Farrell-Collins: It's the same point of order, hon. Speaker. That wasn't the point of order I raised that you just ruled on. The point of order which I raised, if I can restate it, is that there are two things that must be done. One is that it be placed in Orders of the Day in italics, as has been done; but also that the notice of the motion be printed in Votes and Proceedings , and that has not been done. So only half of the requirement has been completed. I would ask either that the notice be placed in Votes and Proceedings -- the first part of what must be done -- or else that it be removed from the order paper today and be placed on it tomorrow, when both requirements are met.

The Speaker: The second part of my comments related to the nature of when the notice of motion could be put on the order paper -- and that that must be done as well. That is in the hands of . . . .

Interjection.

The Speaker: No, it has not been done yet. But it may be called.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Hon. members, it cannot be called when it's in italics. A motion needs to be put forward in order to remove it from italics and put it in the proper order. It is not in the hands of the table officers to do that; it's in the hands of the government to do that.

G. Farrell-Collins: I understand that. That's not the point I'm making. The point I'm making is that there are two requirements that must be done in order for the issue to go forward. One is that a notice of motion be placed in Votes and Proceedings , and the second is that it placed in italics in Orders of the Day . The first half has not been done, so there's no need to do the second half. They should be done together, so members have a chance to see what's there before they're asked to debate it.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Hon. members, come to order. The Chair will say it again: the dropped order will remain on the order paper in italics. It cannot be acted upon until such time as a notice of motion is passed.

Petitions

J. van Dongen: I rise to present a petition signed by 9,200 people from many communities in British Columbia. These people all support the Surrey board of school trustees in their choice of instructional materials for children in Surrey schools.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Hon. members, order, please.

B. Penner: I also rise to present a petition. This petition is signed by 74 residents of Chilliwack who are calling upon the provincial government to install mandatory assessment of all those convicted of impaired driving.

Tabling Documents

Hon. C. Evans: I have the honour to present the 1997-98 annual report of the Okanagan Valley Tree Fruit Authority.

Orders of the Day

Hon. J. MacPhail: I think we should do something different this afternoon, so I'm going to call second reading of Bill 32, which is the Oil and Gas Commission Act, in this chamber. In Committee A, I call Committee of Supply. For the information of the members, we'll be debating the estimates of the Ministry of Finance and Corporate Relations, and of the Ministry of Environment.

Hon. P. Ramsey: Hon. Speaker, I seek leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

Hon. P. Ramsey: I've just been informed that Carole James, president of the British Columbia School Trustees Association, is in the precincts. I don't know if she's in the gallery now. Ms. James is well known to many of us in this chamber, and I'd ask the House to make her welcome.

OIL AND GAS COMMISSION ACT

(second reading)

Hon. D. Miller: I rise to move second reading of Bill 32. This bill is necessary to complete a commitment to the oil and gas industry as part of our oil and gas initiative. This is

[ Page 9234 ]

actually a critical component of our strategy to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of the province's regulation of the industry. We are creating a single-window agency to oversee oil and gas industry operations from exploration to reclamation, while maintaining environmental standards. The oil and gas initiative is expected to increase oil and gas production in the province to as much as twice its current level, leading to an investment by the industry of about $25 billion over the next ten years.

As part of the oil and gas initiative, the government has committed to reduce oil and natural gas rates by between 20 and 40 percent, share $113 million of revenues with local governments over the next decade under the oil and gas revenue reallocation program, and improve northern roads to secure access to important services and facilities.

This act is intended to give authority to the commission to issue permits required for upstream oil and gas activities, including those currently issued by other agencies, such as Land Act tenures and Ministry of Forest cutting licences, and to administer the new $5 million environmental fund established by industry to undertake research, to contribute to programs to enhance the environment in northeastern British Columbia, and to analyze and mitigate the impact of greenhouse gases.

Another significant part of the act will ensure that all stakeholders' views are represented, by providing for an advisory committee. This committee will support the operations of the commission and will be comprised of representatives from local government, environmental groups, local industry, first nations and oil and gas producers. The commission, which will be headquartered in Fort St. John, will cost approximately $12 million annually to operate. It will be fully financed through user fees and should be open for business in September of this year.

The joint industry-government initiative is part of the government's overall strategy to draw job-creating investment to the province. Oil and gas is important to British Columbia as a source of jobs and revenue, with annual investments in B.C. of about $1.7 billion. The oil and gas sector contributes over $400 million a year in provincial revenues through royalties, bonus bids and other fees. Direct and indirect employment is 40,000 persons. As government, we are committed to ensuring that the industry continues to grow and prosper. This legislation is part of that commitment.

In closing, I would hope -- and in fact I am reasonably confident -- that all members will support passage of this important bill.

[2:45]

D. Jarvis: I rise on second reading of Bill 32, Oil and Gas Commission Act. Strange as it may seem, we on the opposition side will probably support this bill, because we feel that this single-window approach is something that has been sorely needed and wanted by the oil and gas industry for many, many years. They have been approaching the situation . . . . Due to the fact that it was always so difficult to get a permit . . . . Prior to the NDP coming in in 1991, the industry used a sort of one-day, walk-around situation to obtain a permit.

That meant that in most of those cases, within that short period of time of a couple of days, they had to get approval from the energy and mines department, the Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks, the Ministry of Forests and the highways department. Then all of a sudden, due to a quirk of nature, the NDP got elected in this province. Their socialist philosophy came in, and the bureaucracy went to work. It then took two to six months to get the same permit that they used to get in two days.

This put everyone into a tizzy, especially the oil and gas people, because they were trying to speed things up and make money. Now the government has decided that it is going to go along with the wishes of the oil producers in northeast British Columbia and Alberta. It's called CAPP, the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers. They feel that this is a good deal. They've worked -- from what the minister has told us in the estimates -- pretty closely together in the last little while.

One of the purposes is that the government is trying to make it so that the oil and gas industry can double its production of oil and gas and, of course, bring in more revenue for this government. Why does this government need more revenue? Because they've destroyed our economy since 1991. Our economy has gone down to the point where we're almost at a disaster stage. For example, in the oil and gas industry itself the revenue that came in from the last six months was somewhere around $55 million. I haven't got the exact figures, but I'm not too far out.

Yet the year before, the revenue from gas and oil producers was over $200 million. Consequently you can see that the revenue situation of our resource industries in this province is desperately in trouble.

We do feel that there may be something that we'll look into in second reading, and that is the appointment of the commissioners. I can only assume and hope that the commissioners that are being appointed by this government will be in concert with CAPP. As I say, they have been working, and I just assume that the government's going to work with them and that these appointments aren't going to be people who are card-carrying NDP members or something like that. That's where the problem arises in all these situations.

The NDP does come up with some good ideas every once in awhile, but then they have to spoil everything by getting too political. As a result of being too political, everything seems to fall apart -- just like our economy. It's falling apart again now. We are in a desperate situation; we need jobs. We have the highest unemployment rate in the history of this province, since prior to the last depression. Now we're heading into another depression.

If we're not already into it, this gang will drive us into a real deep depression, and that's where it's going to cause a lot of hurt all through the northeast, especially up in the area that the bill is centred around.

Interjection.

D. Jarvis: As the member for Shuswap just mentioned, the new name of the NDP is now the "New Depression Party." We're heading down that road.

In any event, the appointment of the commissioners is a concern, and we will assume that the government will use common sense, listen to the oil producers and get someone in there who's going to be satisfactory to all concerned.

There is another aspect in the bill that does bring some concern -- but, as I said, not too much. We will look into it and check this out during committee stage. That is that the bill enables the commission that's going to be appointed to borrow and invest money and enter into agreements with almost everyone. So we'll ask the minister if he can possibly explain that. I assume he will, and we'll be looking forward to it.

This bill is ostensibly an enabling bill that is going to help the oil and gas producers in this province bring more revenue into the province, and that is good. But there's always that question as to whether we'll see too much government interference into a bill. That always leads me to great concern.

When I look back over a year ago, they said they were going to have the Mining Association . . . . The mining industry wanted a right-to-mine bill. They said they would put one

[ Page 9235 ]

in. Then a year later, two months ago almost to the day, on April 21, they brought forward a bill -- I think it was Bill 12, actually -- on the right to mine in this province. Again, that bill was pretty straightforward and agreeable to all parties concerned -- except the rules and regulations aspect of it. There was a great concern that they would get to enact this right away and deal with the problem. However, we're now two months down the road; absolutely nothing has been done. That is part and parcel of the way this government does operate at times: full of promises, and the promises are either broken or delayed for long periods of time.

Now, all these bills -- like this gas bill, the right-to-mine bill, etc. -- are bills that are necessary to go through in order to increase the production in our resource industries. These are classic industries. The energy division, which this gas bill comes under, and the mining division are second in production of revenue in our province today, and they have been for many years. But there are problems arising. It's the philosophy of this government that is driving investors and developers out of this province. The key thing that we have to be concerned with is that they act fast and act properly and in concert with the industry that they're working with.

On that basis, Madam Speaker, I would like to say that there's really not too much more I can say without going off on long tangents on subjects that would probably bore you to tears. But they are subjects that the rest of this province is interested in. The people out there are concerned. They're concerned about, number one, jobs and, number two, the economy. This government doesn't seem to have the knack of really concentrating their minds on the fact that these are problems. Instead of philosophies, there are problems out there: jobs and unemployment. So we will look forward to a discussion during committee stage. At this point we are prepared to support this bill.

M. Coell: I'm pleased to offer some comments on Bill 32, the Oil and Gas Commission Act. I guess my comment, Madam Speaker, would be: why did it take so long? The facts are that the people in the north part of this province feel abandoned by this government, and the oil and gas industry has been driven to the brink of disaster in many parts of this province, I believe, because of actions of this government -- or more, the inaction of this government. The inability to cut red tape and the taxation of the province have hurt this industry. It's taken seven years for this government to act. That's simply not good enough.

The people of the north deserve a government that spends a great deal of time and energy in that area. It is an area that, of course, has built the wealth of this province -- mining, gas and oil exploration, and forestry. This government has ignored that part of the province.

Interjection.

M. Coell: Well, it's ignored most of that part of province except the minister's own riding, which seems to get a lot more attention than the rest of the northern part of this province. So I am pleased to see that the oil and gas industry is at least getting the attention of the minister.

Hopefully, this will create jobs. The idea of this act is to create jobs. I would hope that's what the minister means. It's supposed to create jobs for the people in the northern part of this province. This industry has been a backbone of this province. This industry has created jobs in this province. This industry has been ignored by this minister -- totally ignored.

I am going to comment positively on a couple of areas. One is the $5 million environmental fund that CAPP and the ministry have worked out. I think that's very positive. I think that money can be well used in the north to create programs that enhance the environment. I think it shows a recognition of the industry and of the ministry that jobs can be created and that the environment can be protected.

I think that's what is important -- that government finally realized that there is a balance between economic development, job creation and industry. The oil and gas industry is an extremely important industry to this province. One which we're hoping for is that this commission act will improve exploration, job creation and the lives of many people in the northern part of this province, because it's been many years since the government has paid significant attention to this part of the province.

As the speaker before me said, at one time years ago, the oil and gas industry could come to Victoria and get a permit in two days to a week. In the time that this government has been in power, it's stretched from a week to six months. I think this act, in establishing a single window, is important to the industry. Red tape which has been created will dissolve, hopefully. We'll be watching very carefully to make sure that this does happen. The oil and gas industry will grow in this province if allowed to by this government.

We are supporting this bill. We have some questions for committee stage with regard to the appointees being arm's length from government, and we look forward to those questions. But just in summarizing my comments, I very much support the $5 million environmental fund, and I look forward to good projects and enhancement for the north out of that fund. We will have, as I said, some questions for the minister during committee stage.

[3:00]

J. Weisgerber: The oil and gas industry is, first of all, almost entirely located in the Peace region. Between the two Peace River constituencies, we account for probably 97 percent or 98 percent, or perhaps 100 percent, of the gas and oil activity in this province.

The gas and oil industry is, by far, the most mobile of all our resource industries. The gas and oil industry can be in British Columbia today, in Saskatchewan or Manitoba tomorrow, and back in Alberta the day after. It's a very competitive industry; jurisdictions tend to be competitive. I must say that British Columbia has always struggled with the differences between our province and the neighbouring province of Alberta, which dominates the gas and oil business or industry in this country.

We have historically had problems with things like our 7 percent sales tax and our different approach to things, such as safety through the Workers Compensation Board. There have been a number of areas that have been ongoing concerns for the industry. The whole issue of royalties and taxation is a key issue for the industry. The industry goes where it feels welcome. Initiatives by government are very much inclined to affect the industry and the judgments that industry makes.

Most recently, the frustrations have been over the length of time that it takes to get approvals for oil exploration. Let's be very clear. It's not the production of gas and oil that tends to be so dependent on these approvals; it's the exploration. Companies decide that they want to be involved in seismic work, in drilling in new areas. They have to build roads, they have to clear well sites and they need to deal with a whole range of ministries in order to get those approvals.

[ Page 9236 ]

When I was first elected in 1986, there was something called the "one-day walk-around" in Fort St. John. There was a protocol between the Ministry of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources, the Ministry of Forestry, the Ministry of Environment and, to a lesser degree, ministries such as Highways. A proponent, having prepared a proposal that was significantly similar to others that had gone before it, would be able to walk around and get the necessary approvals -- and it was literally that.

Someone reasonably senior in the company would take the company's drilling proposals and their requests for authorities and actually stand in the ministry offices while they were reviewed and stamped. That individual would then pick the package up and take it on to the next ministry.

Over the last six or seven years, that time frame has grown. It's grown in part, I believe, because of a greater bureaucracy. I think the government certainly has to accept some responsibility for the growth in time and the slowdown in approvals, but I also think it's fair for us to recognize that we're operating in a significantly different environment than we were in 1986, for example. The need for us to come to some new solution has become increasingly evident.

Again, I want to go back to this notion of the competitiveness of the industry. It's not only what is the norm in British Columbia that tends to guide actions in the gas and oil industry but also how well those procedures compare with those in other parts of the country, particularly in western Canada. I am pleased to see the government moving ahead with the establishment of this commission. I believe that as the government has listened to the industry, both in the area of royalties and with respect to this issue of approvals, there has been some appropriate action taken.

I too will be greatly interested not only in the appointment of the commissioner -- and that will be important -- but also in seeing how the bureaucracies in the line ministries respond to this initiative.

Bureaucracies can be strange creatures. If somehow they feel abused by a process, there is almost unlimited ingenuity in finding ways to get retribution or to deal with the problem. I'm going to look to see whether or not this exercise has cooperation, particularly from the Ministry of Environment. The Ministry of Environment, should it decide to do so, has an amazing array of hurdles that it can throw in front of a project. I don't believe we should ignore environmental concerns, but I think it's also important . . . . The real test for this exercise, and probably for the commissioner, will be the ability to bring into force the intent of the commission.

I have no argument with what is intended with the establishment of this commission. I recognize that the industry will be paying for the costs. They've already been paying for a significant amount of the cost, so what it does is tend to move the responsibilities around a little bit. It makes a more direct relationship between achieving something the industry wanted to see and the fees that they pay in order to get their approvals.

I believe also that we will see as a consequence of this, either intended or unintended, a much greater focus within the petroleum sector of the ministry in the area where production takes place. I think the exercise of creating this commission and putting it in Fort St. John will strengthen the role that government has and the amount of activity that takes place in Fort St. John and in the Peace region versus the activity that has been taking place in Victoria. I think that's good news.

For those people who are currently employed in the ministry here in Victoria, who may find their jobs now being located in Fort St. John, that may or may not be good news. I hope they look at it as an opportunity, as a change that is good for them professionally and financially. Certainly they'll find housing and other things much less expensive when they move into the Peace.

But I'll make it clear that I -- and, I believe, my constituents -- support the establishment of the commission. We are going to look with great interest at committee stage of this bill, where we can ask some specific questions, and we will watch with great interest the successes we hope the commission enjoys in the very near future.

Hon. D. Miller: Briefly, to respond to some of the comments . . . . I appreciate the comments of the last speaker, the member for Peace River South, in terms of his knowledge of the industry, but it really is a bit much. I know people like to use these little chances to make their political pitches, but really, let's put on the record what has happened with respect to the oil and gas sector in British Columbia.

Notwithstanding the spurious nonsense I heard from the member for Peace River North and from the member for Saanich North and the Islands, who clearly knows nothing about the industry, this industry has experienced significant growth in this province, particularly over the last couple of years -- and this before we attempted to deal with the sector more broadly in the accord and with this initiative and others. There has been a huge growth in the oil and gas sector in British Columbia.

To stand in this House and say that it has been ignored and that the industry is in decline portrays a fundamental misunderstanding of what's really happening in British Columbia. While it might be fine to stand here and make these uninformed statements, it seems to me that for people who are watching this House for some kind of leadership, they do a disservice to British Columbians. To stand up and say that the oil and gas industry somehow is suffering, when the exact opposite is true, is irresponsible.

Surely the members opposite, if they want to criticize the government -- and there are lots of areas in which they can criticize the government -- have just a small obligation to try to be accurate and informed, rather than just spouting whatever comes into their minds.

Interjection.

Hon. D. Miller: Perhaps I do give them too much credit.

Just a couple of statistics. The drilling activity last year had huge growth in terms of what took place the year before that. This year in drilling activity, 437 wells were drilled by the end of May -- a 30 percent increase over last year, which was a record increase over the year before. Don't give me this nonsense about the oil and gas sector. Try to do some homework. Let your critics, the people who actually do a bit of work in this . . . . Maybe they could be informed, like the member for Peace River South.

Interjection.

Hon. D. Miller: No, I never . . . . I'm talking about . . . . The member for Peace River South takes the time; he's informed. I'm disappointed in the member for Peace River North, because he knows better. Ever since he skipped from the Social Credit Party to the Reform Party to the Liberal Party, he's been trying desperately to ingratiate himself with his new Liberal caucus. I think he's trying too hard.

[ Page 9237 ]

I deviate, Madam Speaker, I stray from the purpose that we're here to . . . .

Interjections.

Hon. D. Miller: Why I care so much about the opposition, I don't know. I mean, I'm tempted to give up on them almost every day, but I continue to try to give them some advice, and they continue to ignore it.

Interjections.

An Hon. Member: Are you just going to stand there?

Hon. D. Miller: No, I'm just kind of waiting for a little order here, Madam Speaker. You know I could speak louder, but . . . .

As well, I want to say that this is the first significant attempt to change a regulatory framework. It's not always easy. Again -- listening to the member for Peace River South who recognized that we do live in a changing environment and changing world -- while it's easy on one hand to say that regulation and red tape inhibit investment, I think the days of simply forging ahead without consideration of some issues are gone.

I would only draw the House's attention to an issue that occurred in Fort St. John, where my ministry did give tentative approval for a company to drill a well. I think they did it without taking an undue amount of time to do that. That well was well within our guidelines. We borrowed our guidelines from Alberta, in terms of proximity to built-up areas. Yet there was an adverse reaction in Fort St. John, where people in a particular neighbourhood said: "We don't want you to approve that well.

It's too close to our residential neighbourhood." That same member for Peace River North has now been assailing me, saying: "Don't approve that well." So I just use that to illustrate that it's not quite as simple as saying: "Well, we should be able to give you a permit in half a day, and to heck with the consequences." As the population centres grow, as you get the urban interface with industrial activity, you'll find more and more that people are saying that you need to give more consideration to some of these questions.

[3:15]

One of the features of the commission -- beyond simply bringing all of those line agencies together under one roof, with the authority to issue permits -- is the authority for it to examine these kinds of questions with the population in northeastern B.C., to look at issues around proximity of wells to populated areas and to look at issues around sour gas flaring. There was a major report in Alberta today, by the way, on sour gas flaring. It's a little bit more problematic in B.C. These are significant issues to people who live in northeastern B.C., and they're not easy issues to solve.

But the commission has been given a pretty broad mandate to look beyond the narrow focus, as I say, of simply issuing permits and to consider all these kinds of questions. Being buttressed by an advisory board of citizens, as I indicated in my opening remarks, should serve the commission in good stead.

I finally comment on the attitude that might be encountered in the line ministries. I've had one comment from a senior person in the Ministry of Forests, whose comment to me when I was in Fort St. John was: "Thank goodness you're doing this; it's overdue. We tend to be tripping over ourselves in the line agencies." In other words, from that individual at least, I received an indication of strong support for the direction we're taking.

This is really the second initiative. I would argue again that the Mining Rights Amendment Act put all the authority for issuing permits for access and for exploration under one roof -- my ministry, the Ministry of Energy and Mines -- instead of having applicants go around to the various agencies. So there is a real new beginning with respect to looking at the way we administer rules and regulations, trying to do it in a more efficient, more streamlined way and in a way that works not just for the industry in question but for other issues that are also important in the communities.

Having said that, Madam Speaker, I would move second reading.

Motion approved.

Bill 32, Oil and Gas Commission Act, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

Hon. D. Miller: Madam Speaker, I call committee stage of Bill 27.

NORTHERN DEVELOPMENT ACT

The House in committee on Bill 27; P. Calendino in the chair.

section 1.

J. Weisgerber: My question under the

definitions

section doesn't deal with the commissioner, which is defined, but with the lack of a definition for the north. We've established a northern commission and a northern commissioner, but as I examine the legislation, nowhere do I see a definition of north -- north of Hope, north of Williams Lake, north of Quesnel, north of Prince George, north of Fort Ware. North normally has to be north of somewhere.

So I wonder whether the minister could tell us whether or not he intends there to be a definition, whether he can provide us -- perhaps on the record -- with a definition for it, or whether or not he might seek a friendly amendment that would serve to define the north for him. I know that, as a member who resides in the North Coast riding and who has lived many years in Prince Rupert, the north means something to him. It means something to me, but it may mean something entirely different to a person living in Quesnel, for example.

Hon. D. Miller: I'll tell the story, then I'll give you an answer. I think I've told the member this story before. I was in Fort St. John speaking to the B.C. Petroleum Association and talking generally about some of the initiatives we were working on for "northern B.C." These guys all started yelling at me and telling me that Prince George wasn't in the north. That's a definition I refuse to accept.

My own definition is the constituencies. That's generally what I use. There are nine "northern" constituencies. I don't think that we should have a solid line in terms of defining the north, because all too often you're working on issues that might cross that line. So that's generally been my definition. If, for example, someone in Hickson or Quesnel thought that what we were doing in the north was something that might be more germane to them, and they wanted to be able to tap into those kinds of things, then I think we ought to be fairly

[ Page 9238 ]

accommodating and flexible. Given that there's no particular measure in the bill . . . . For example, if there were a specific tax measure . . . . Let's say, theoretically or hypothetically, that we were going to give a tax break to everyone who lived in "northern B.C." We would then have to define that. Given that the bill is general in nature and that it's the establishment of the commissioner's office, our feeling was that an explicit definition of the north was not required. My own definition is that it's generally the constituencies that represent the north.

J. Weisgerber: I would, with all due respect, suggest that perhaps regional districts might be a better way than constituencies. First of all, they tend to follow areas of economic interest a little bit more closely and follow geographic lines a little more sensibly. I think the real question is around the area south of Prince George and where you draw that line -- Quesnel being the classic question. Is Quesnel a northern community? Are their ties closest with Prince George, or do they . . . ?

I think one could argue quite successfully that by the time you get to Williams Lake, when you move into that south Cariboo area, the direction of commerce and interest tends to be more southerly and more easterly.

The constituencies -- unfortunately, I think -- are now up for grabs every decade or so. And let me say this: if we were successful in persuading the Electoral Boundaries Commission to establish . . . . I've pursued this notion of four northern constituencies, and I'm coming to the conclusion that maybe we should describe an area as the north and allot eight seats whose boundaries could be moved within that area, but for which there could be a larger variation in population. I just use that to stretch the point, in order to get some thoughts I've had recently on that topic into the record.

I do think that regional districts would be a good idea. I think that would give you an opportunity to bring all those things that are going on in the relevant regional districts into the commissioner's hierarchy of economic development activities. For example, if you're going to call the regional economic developers together for a conference, that would relieve the commissioner of having to decide, on an almost case-by-case basis, whether some of those southern areas should or should not be included. I don't think it's a huge issue, but it's something that is worthy of some thought and some discussion.

Hon. D. Miller: I certainly take the advice of the member. He's right, at least with respect to the constituencies on the far western and far eastern side. I guess both of them . . . . My own, for example, goes to the mid-coast. Interestingly enough, I've had inquiries from northern Vancouver Island, not asking whether they are in the north, but asking could they please be in the north. I've been flexible. So I take the advice of the member.

Section 1 approved.

section 2.

M. de Jong: These purpose sections, by their very nature, tend to be general, although I think the question begs asking. The establishment of the office itself won't create one job or any economic development. The question is: what action will the commissioner and the office that arises around him or her take, and what is in the minister's mind in sponsoring the establishment of this additional office within the government bureaucracy -- beyond simply the hope that that will happen?

Hon. D. Miller: Let me make it clear that this is not being established "within the government bureaucracy." It is being established outside of government bureaucracy. The reason for that is very clear. At the Premier's Summit on Northern Jobs and Development, northerners were very outspoken in their advice to government, saying: "We don't want another bureaucracy; we want an organization, if you like, that's small, that's focused, that can work on our behalf." We've taken great pains to try to reflect that in the legislation, particularly as we move into other parts in terms of reporting relationships and of those kinds of questions.

I don't think it's possible to define in absolute terms the kind of role in a way that just wraps everything up that succinctly. The commission really needs to not only work with existing agencies and organizations in northern B.C., of which there are a number that are in fact engaged in looking at ways to expand the economy, ranging from the work that municipal and regional governments have done . . . . Aboriginal communities are a very important consideration in northern British Columbia. There are a variety of sort of quasi-municipal business organizations.

There is the Northwest Communities Coalition; the northwest mayors have a group that meets regularly. There are a variety of these kinds of organizations that are working on certain initiatives. We've got our northern transportation corridor corporation. So the commission really needs to work with all of those.

[3:30]

In addition to that, and I think perhaps even more importantly, it has to engage northerners in developing broad-based strategic initiatives that will create economic expansion in northern B.C. A lot of that work is partly underway. The agreements we've reached between B.C. Rail and C.N. Railways, for example, have led to a renewed optimism in the Peace region for the agricultural sector. But that is just the beginning. Those agreements, while they're important, have resulted in the ability to ship Peace River grain now at a more cost-effective rate to the northern port of Prince Rupert, which is closer to the Asian market.

But there's a lot more that needs to be done. A lot of that, in fact, is to work with the government of Alberta, which we're doing through a transportation task force that we've established with them that has the strategic vision -- and I think the member for Peace River South clearly shares this; in fact, he scooped me on this in one of our forays up north -- to ask: can the municipality of Dawson Creek be the grain-gathering centre for the Peace River region of B.C. and Alberta? And can we then look at ensuring that we ship that grain out through the northern port?

The government of Alberta seems to share that vision. We share that vision. But there are a lot of specific initiatives that need to be concluded before we can actually realize it. There's a lot of work to be done, but you can't do it on your own. You have to harness the energy and talent of those people who are interested in that specific issue to focus on that particular question.

I won't go into other . . . . There are three or four discrete initiatives that we've been working on with respect to northern economic opportunity, and the commission will be working on all of those.

I've been . . . . I haven't, actually. One of my assistants who knows how to use the Internet has been spending some time looking across western Canada at the approaches taken by governments with respect to that question of northern development. It's clear to me that all of them have a strategy. It varies somewhat. Alberta has the Northern Alberta Develop-

[ Page 9239 ]

ment Council, chaired by an MLA. They undertake a strategic analysis of issues -- some of the ones I've talked about -- for example, on the movement of grain. There are other initiatives that they've looked at that may be germane to our province around the areas of training, the difficulty of sometimes attracting specialists, both medical and non-medical, to the smaller communities.

There are common problems in northern Canada, and I would say that that's another issue that the commissioner needs to pursue -- finding out, looking at . . . . One of the topics we talked about last Friday in Prince Rupert, at a meeting of northwest ministers, was best practices. What are they doing? Is there an idea that's working in Saskatchewan, for example, or northern Manitoba, for example, that might be germane to northern British Columbia?

There's an endless number of initiatives and work that can be done. The commissioner's job will be to bring focus to those questions, to fight for the northerners and there's some other . . . . I'm sure we'll get into it in terms of some other sections of the bill. Perhaps I've gone on too long in that answer.

M. de Jong: I should begin by saying that I wish I were as confident as the minister about the independence of the office, but we will get to this later as we debate the bill in committee stage. Things like the appointment process and

section 6, which really places the commissioner at the disposal of independent ministers, suggest to me a role that is something different than the completely independent advocate that I think the minister was trying to present this person as being.

What many of the people in the north are looking for out of an office of this sort is an individual who will, at times when it is appropriate, call to the attention of government the impact that various policies might be having in the north -- negative impacts which may have been unforeseen and may have been unintentional but which, nonetheless, are very real. An individual, who at the same time is responsible for replying and responding to the demands of various ministers in terms of preparing reports, doesn't possess, to the extent that the minister would have us believe, that degree of independence.

We have come to expect from the various advocates -- House officers who are appointed to advocate on behalf of various segments of our society -- a degree of independence that will allow them to be critical of any government, not just this government, with whom they are dealing or reporting on. I'm not sure that the minister and I are in complete agreement as to the degree in which this commissioner will play that role as an advocate.

Hon. D. Miller: Well, I don't know what I can do to help you.

G. Abbott: I want to ask the minister how the office of the northern commissioner will dovetail with the new position of the jobs accord advocate. How will those two mesh? Obviously a part of the jobs accord advocate's responsibilities, as laid out in the jobs and timber accord, is job creation and economic development and so on. How will those two offices merge or mesh in the government's vision here?

Hon. D. Miller: I haven't given it a great deal of thought. I presume that the jobs and timber accord is focused on a particular sector. It's not the wish of the commissioner -- or indeed myself as Minister Responsible for Northern Development -- to supplant or replace existing line ministries and their responsibilities. It wouldn't work. Any attempt in the past to try to do that has failed. The job, rather, is to look more broadly and strategically at the north. What are the opportunities?

What needs to be done in a variety of areas to create the conditions for economic expansion generally, without being limited to any particular sector? I'm sure that if there is any overlap with respect to particular initiatives, they'll work it out.

G. Abbott: Some of the differences between the way in which the jobs accord advocate and the northern commissioner are being put into place . . . . In this case, the northern development commissioner is gong to be set out in statute, as opposed to the jobs accord advocate, who has no statutory basis. The only basis on which the jobs accord advocate exists is via the jobs and timber accord.

In the case of the jobs accord advocate, the government has hired the advocate for a five-year period, which in fact goes beyond the term of the accord itself. As the minister explained it in estimates, the accord advocate will be something which may or may not be continued, at the will of government, beyond the five-year term for which the commissioner has been appointed. Could the minister advise: (

a) whether there is some difference in thinking in terms of making the office statutory as opposed to non-statutory, as in the case of the northern development commissioner; and (

b) whether the minister foresees, unlike the accord advocate, a northern development commissioner being a permanent office, rather like the job protection commissioner?

Hon. D. Miller: I don't understand what this has to do with the jobs and timber accord. We're speaking to a bill that creates the northern commissioner. It's a piece of legislation. The answer is self-evident.

G. Abbott: I'm sorry to hear that the minister feels that the question is not in line. I think the question is entirely in line; it's just a matter of asking how, from the public policy perspective and vision of the government, these different offices are going to fit in.

Interjection.

G. Abbott: I'm just asking you the question, for God's sake.

Interjection.

The Chair: Member, through the Chair. Minister, through the Chair, please.

G. Abbott: Frankly, hon. Chair, I'm quite astounded that I'm getting this violent reaction from the minister to what seems to me to be entirely legitimate questions about two offices that are being created in the province. They're new offices. Given that, I simply want to know how the offices merge. I'd like to know . . . . Again, as I explained in my question, the jobs and timber accord advocate is a non-statutory office. This is a statutory office. I'm just interested in the government's thinking around that. Does the minister envision this to be a permanent office that works with the other new offices that this government has created?

Hon. D. Miller: I don't really want to be rude, but we're debating a piece of legislation that creates an office, and the

[ Page 9240 ]

member is asking me whether he thinks it's going to be permanent or not. You wouldn't bring legislation in to create an office . . . unless you wanted it to be permanent. If you wanted to use the vehicle of legislation but you didn't want it to be permanent, you would do what was done previously with the JPC, and that is put a sunset provision in it. There is no sunset provision in here. Therefore I'm simply trying to point out to the member that the answer to the question he's asking is very self-evident, and indeed I think that he probably knows the answer.

G. Abbott: I thank the minister for his patient and thoughtful response to my question. There seems to be some edge to the minister across the way with respect to what I think are relatively innocuous questions about the nature of the office. I am sorry that it provoked such a violent response from the minister. It's merely exploring the minister's vision with respect to this. Normally the minister is more than delighted to share his vision with the House. I guess that he's not feeling really visionary today and just wants to be a kind of meat-and-potatoes guy, as opposed to a visionary sort of guy.

That's fair enough. We all have those sorts of days. It's unfortunate, perhaps, that the minister's having that kind of day today, but I guess we will have to try to live with that situation.

[W. Hartley in the chair.]

We know in the case of the jobs and timber advocate, the advocate will be paid an annual wage of $168,000. Of that $168,000, the portion which will be carried by the provincial government will be equivalent to a deputy minister's salary, and the forest industry, through one of its organizations, will be carrying the balance. Could the minister advise what the projected salary will be for this office?

Hon. D. Miller: I'm not sure exactly, but it's associate deputy level. It's in the $100,000 range.

Section 2 approved.

section 3.

D. Jarvis: On the appointment of the commissioner, I'm not from the north, but I have worked in the north quite a bit . . .

An Hon. Member: You're from the North Shore.

D. Jarvis: . . . and I'm now from the North Shore. That's correct. The member from northwest Burnaby told me that.

Anyway, there's no question that a commissioner in the north is required for this job. It's going to require a very, very special person. I was referring to the fact . . . . The minister cannot hear me. I guess there's too much discussion going on over on his side of the House, because no one's talking over here. In any event, I just feel that there needs to be a special person for that type of job. I think everyone agrees on that. But there is a great concern as to how the minister would discern what a special person is. Is that special person going to be an NDP hack?

Is that person going to be a friend of the NDP, who would tend to favour what the government would do or something along that line? We need someone really independent.

[3:45]

We keep hearing rumours around town that the campaign manager for the Minister of Education in his recall campaign is going to be appointed. I believe he's still the mayor of Prince George, or he may be the former mayor. That concerns us, because, as I say, this truly needs someone who is independent and who is concerned about what is going to go on in the north, not just someone following a political party's philosophy or taking orders from that political party. I wonder if the minister could illuminate us as to what his intentions are with regard to the appointment of a northerner?

Although Prince George really physically isn't . . . . It's below halfway. Did you know that? The true north is just about a couple of miles outside of Prince George, I think. I'm wondering if the minister could discuss with us what his feelings are with regard to appointing an independent commissioner in this instance.

Hon. D. Miller: Yes. We intend to try to select someone who is capable and who has a proven track record in northern B.C. The responsibility lies with government to do that. I don't think there's a real problem. I think there are lots of people in northern B.C. who are capable. We'll make an announcement and make a choice at the appropriate time.

J. Weisgerber: This is an important position. I think it's one that northerners are anticipating and have a very genuine interest in. As we get along in the bill, I certainly want to spend some time talking about the role of the commissioner. Also, obviously, the qualifications of the commissioner are going to be key to the success of this undertaking, as I said in second reading of the bill. I too am curious to know whether there is a formal process or whether it's an informal process. In other words, will the position be advertised? Is there going to be some review process?

Is there going to be a process similar to that of hiring an assistant deputy minister? I understand from the minister's comments that this position will be roughly on a level consistent with that of an assistant deputy minister. I wonder if the hiring process will in fact follow those guidelines, and whether, for example, there will be preference given to staff who are currently employed at a senior level within government. Will there be preference given to those people who currently reside in this area that we call the north?

Again, I guess that with the lack of a clear definition, it would be one of those times when, if we were to say that the commissioner should reside in the north, we would obviously have to know where the north is.

Are there any formal job requirements? Has a list of credentials that would be beneficial to this position been identified?

Hon. D. Miller: I guess the really strong message out of the summit was that they want a northerner. In other words . . . . I think the member referred to someone out of the bureaucracy; I think that was firmly rejected. I think people want someone who knows the north and who is familiar with issues. The decision is essentially a cabinet decision. We're not going to do normal public service hiring. I'm just trying to recall what criteria were used in the regionalization process -- the member will know what I'm talking about -- in '87-88.

I think there were positions filled at that time, and no doubt there may have even been allegations made at that time about their qualifications. But what's most important is that you get someone who's got a track record in northern B.C. and has a record in terms of having the confidence of people there, of getting things done and of working with others. As I say, I think there are a lot of good candidates up there. I am anxious to proceed, and once we get authority through the bill, I hope we can move fairly quickly.

[ Page 9241 ]

J. Weisgerber: Just as a matter of interest, during the regionalization process there was an undertaking to hire RDOs, I believe they were called -- regional development officers -- and one of those was hired in each of the regions. I can only tell you that in the northeast region, where I started off as the parliamentary secretary for Tony Brummet, who was at that time the minister responsible, we did in fact advertise, and then we sat down and interviewed the staff and various applicants and made a recommendation to cabinet based on those interviews.

It wasn't a full public process, but there was a mechanism whereby we put people on notice that these positions were available and asked them to submit résumés.

I can tell you without embarrassment that I went around and talked to an individual in the northeast who I believed would be particularly well suited to the job. It was a person I had worked with on other community, economic and social activities. He wasn't a political friend, but he was certainly an acquaintance through my work in the community. With a little bit of arm-twisting, I was able to convince the minister of that day that that was the person we should hire. It wasn't a perfect process, and I'm sure that perhaps some of those who were interviewed felt that the decision at the end of the day was pretty arbitrary; maybe it was.

I guess I'd like to leave the minister with a thought, though: even though people know that there is a commissioner's job that's going to be available, anyone who watches closely would know that with the passage of the legislation, the next logical step would be the appointment of a commissioner. I do believe that the position and people interested in the position would be well served by some kind of advertisement, some kind of notification: "The position is now under consideration. Here are the basic criteria. Here's where you would send an application." Then take it from there.

So I would leave that with the minister. If the goal . . . . I have no reason to believe that the minister wants to do anything other than find the most capable person available to fill this position. I think you would be well served by putting out that kind of an advertisement.

I also think that it would, perhaps to a degree, address any concerns in the region outside of Prince George. There's a

section in the bill -- I'm jumping way ahead --

section 15, that says: "The head office should be in Prince George." I don't have any argument with that, and I've said that before. But I think there is the issue in the northeast and in the northwest . . . . I think that if the position were advertised, people in those communities might feel a greater sense of inclusion in the process. Perhaps the minister could give that some consideration.

Hon. D. Miller: I think the member makes some useful suggestions, particularly the issue around the regions. I think that's going to require a lot of work. I've been trying to preach, if you like, in various visits to northern communities this idea that we've got to stop competing with each other -- in some cases, actually running each other down -- and look at how, particularly in the subregions, we can collaborate in ways that emphasize the strength of the regions. I spoke to the mayor of Kitimat on Friday.

Although he and I have actually had some political debates, some of them quite public, my message to him is: "We should be getting together -- Kitimat, Terrace, Prince Rupert. I'd like to sit down with the mayors to discuss how we might collaborate in a better way to market the strength of the region and what we have to offer: serviced land, a labour force, those kinds of things." He was quite agreeable. My experience is that you can cut through politics pretty quickly if you're not there spinning a line but are actually wanting to do something. That has been my experience in northern B.C.

Talking particularly to mayors, who come from all political stripes, there's really a willingness to try to deal with the issues. I think you have to maintain that. If you're up there playing politics, it won't work.

I can recall . . . . There was a gentleman named Barry Carter, who was part of that regionalization. I'd heard accusations that perhaps he was too close to the government, but at the end of the day, I don't think it impeded what they were trying to do. I'll leave aside any criticism of the process, but I think you've got to look at people . . . . I honestly do reject the notion that if people have publicly displayed their politics, that somehow renders them unfit for consideration for these kinds of appointments.

If we were to take that narrow-minded view in our society generally, surely we would be limiting ourselves in our ability to select people who are qualified. And surely one of the features of our society ought to be that people be quite open and public. If they want to display their political leanings, so what? Why should that somehow remove people from consideration? I don't understand that argument. Art Phillips was appointed to be the first job protection commissioner. He worked well. He was a Liberal. Everybody knew he was a Liberal. So what? He did a good job.

This fixation that somehow we're going to put a political label on somebody's forehead, and if it has certain initials, they're somehow unfit to do the job is nonsense, absolute nonsense.

I know where some members would like to go with this, and they can do what they will. At the end of the day, for northerners, for people who live there, it's what real work happens. That's going to be important. We're serious about what we're doing here. We haven't gone through this exercise . . . . It doesn't take a year to plan a northern summit for the Premier as some sham exercise. We haven't followed up with, you know: "Fifty percent of the highway funding for northern B.C. is just some . . . . "

I'm serious. There are serious problems in many of our northern communities. The regions of our province have not had the kind of growth rate, nor have they had the same kind of economic opportunity, as you get generally in the broader lower mainland region. Look at the poorer coastal communities now, with this fisheries announcement . . . . Does anybody over there really understand what's happening in some of those small towns? It's fine to stand up and make political speeches -- "the government this" and "the government that" -- but do you really understand what's happening in people's lives?

You clearly didn't when it came to Skeena Cellulose. You haven't got a clue. So you guys want to play politics with us -- and I exclude the member for Peace River South, because he's not doing that. Go ahead.

Interjections.

The Chair: Members, please direct your comments through the Chair.

The member for Peace River South continues.

[4:00]

J. Weisgerber: At my peril, I suspect. But nonetheless I rise to the bait, as it were.

I agree with the minister inasmuch as I don't think belonging to a political party and being a political activist should be a handicap to a position. I don't think it should be

[ Page 9242 ]

the fast track to a position, any more than it should be a handicap to a position. In our political life, we . . . . I don't know if it's only here in British Columbia, or whether it's something that's happening across the country, but we as a society are in danger of discouraging people from being involved in the public process at all. We immediately, when someone . . . .

Interjection.

J. Weisgerber: No, it's . . . . We can point across the floor at each other, and we will both be accurate in the way we approach it.

But you know, what we're doing in this society . . . . And we're getting off topic, but that's all right; the minister started it. What we're doing is saying to people: "Don't get involved in the political process, because that will be a handicap to you personally. Don't contribute to a political party as an individual or a corporation, because the party that you didn't contribute to will take the first opportunity to raise that issue publicly, to embarrass the other party with respect to affiliations and contributions." You know what happens as a result?

Fewer people get involved, fewer people make contributions. And I don't think that that contributes very much to our political system at all.

As I have the luxury of standing back and looking at this issue, I think that as members we've got to start thinking about that pretty seriously. We've got to quit attacking people for their political beliefs. On the other hand, I think that criticism of a person appointed to a position because of their political activity rather than because of their attributes and abilities is a legitimate criticism. Again, I don't think we're ever going to wind up this debate.

But let me move on to some of the minister's earlier comments. The one thing I was very much impressed with at the northern conference was that, in my opinion and for the first time in the more than 20 years that I've been involved in economic activity and in northern issues, I saw northerners start to think of themselves not as Peace River South constituents, or as people interested in what's happening in the South Peace and in trying to take away business from the North Peace, but starting to think about the ways we could address issues to our mutual benefit. That's been said before, and I think it's worthy of being said again.

I think we've probably come back around to where we started. I do believe that, all these lofty thoughts aside, there is a bit of a danger that people will see this as too great a concentration in the Prince George area. I respectfully submit that an advertisement or two in some of the regional papers announcing that a job is available would perhaps be a step -- a pretty modest step -- in trying to play down some of those fears.

D. Jarvis: I agree with the minister fully on his last statement when he got up. That is why we've been trying to say we really feel there should be a non-partisan individual in there. The minister just turned around right after that and had the audacity to insinuate that I didn't know what was going on on the coast with regard to the fisheries and all the rest of it. Here's a gentleman who ostensibly has been all his life in one little small town in the north, and then he turns around and suggests to us that we do not know what's going on all over this province. That's a ridiculous statement.

I've worked in nearly every community in this province, and I'm quite aware of what's going on. I have family in different places throughout this province. So we know what's going on just as well as you do. The problem with what's going on is the fact that the government has become so political in everything they do that they've driven this economy down almost to its knees -- except for the fishing. They haven't done anything there, either, because they've been in a problem where they can't compete with the federal government, and the federal government's the one that has made the decisions over this government.

As I said earlier, that could have been rectified earlier, maybe, if the provincial government had done a little better lobbying of the U.S.A. The Minister of Fisheries doesn't understand the situation himself, I don't think.

I feel as though it's a non-partisan job. Sure, it could be a person who could have a little bit of political knowledge of events and what's going on in the province and all the rest of it. Look at the government's position: nearly every appointment they have made in this province has been a political hack or friend of the party. And you go into the bureaucracy . . . . They've gone so deep into the bureaucracy with political friends that we know the decisions are all warped when they come up to the surface and are put forward in some of the legislation they put out.

The only reason they're going into legislation like this right now is that they're worried sick as to what's happening to our economy and our province, not because . . . . If they had been concerned, they would have done this years ago -- since '91 -- with things such as looking after the north and all the rest of it. But no, they haven't done that, but now's the time. What I want to ask the minister is: how can we be sure that a partisan individual is not going to be put into the job as commissioner? I wonder if he could illuminate me on that aspect without going off on a diatribe as to whether we have any knowledge of what's going on in this province of ours.

Hon. D. Miller: I've tried many times to give reassurance to the opposition and have failed miserably on all occasions, so I don't know how things might change now.

P. Nettleton: I'm delighted to have this opportunity to discuss the whole question of the northern commissioner with the minister. I guess it has been something of a disappointment to me personally, in that I represent Prince George-Omineca and a number of the communities affected by the appointment of a commissioner and this act, and at no time has the minister or any of his staff contacted me or my office and asked for any input in terms of this position or who it is that might be suitable for filling this position.

In a very real sense, I've felt very much out of the loop in terms of what's happening. I read the paper, like everybody else, and I see the speculation -- there's certainly been enough of that. I recall one newspaper heading. I think the heading read: "Party Hacks Need Not Apply." That pretty much captures the sentiment of a lot of the folks I've talked to about the appointment to the role of commissioner. I can tell you, hon. Speaker, everything I've heard here today hasn't been reassuring in terms of the whole question as to whether or not the minister is about to appoint a partisan appointee.

It's very much the view of northerners that what is needed to fill this role . . . . I should say, first of all, that there has been some question as to whether or not there should be a northern commissioner, and if, in fact, the addition of another level of bureaucracy would be helpful in addressing what are the obvious and very real concerns with relation to the resource sector in the north. Having said that -- and having, for the moment gone beyond that question, which we could

[ Page 9243 ]

talk about for some time -- there's the whole question of the appointment of a commissioner and whether or not that commissioner should or should not be partisan. I think it's generally agreed . . . . I have a number of newspaper clippings, all of which point to the need for a non-partisan appointment. For the minister to take the position that he -- or his colleagues -- is unable to find a suitable candidate who does not have some partisan affiliation . . . . I would reject that response outright.

In any event, I will give the minister a chance then to respond perhaps to some of the comments I've made. It may be that the minister wants to comment on that. I have a number of questions which I will put to the minister.

Hon. D. Miller: No, I don't want to comment, Mr. Chairman.

P. Nettleton: I have a couple of very direct questions for the minister then: has the position been filled; has the decision been made as to who he or she might be?

Hon. D. Miller: No. I've been waiting for the bill. We need the authority of the bill to do that, so the quicker we get it, actually, the quicker we can get on with the job.

P. Nettleton: Well, the minister hasn't answered my question. Do I take that to be a no? Is the minister saying that the position has not been filled?

Hon. D. Miller: To the best of my knowledge, it hasn't.

P. Nettleton: I take that to be a denial that the position has been filled. Correct me if I'm wrong, minister.

Does the minister, then, deny that a gentleman by the name of John Backhouse has in fact been chosen and assigned this role? Does the minister deny that?

Hon. D. Miller: Well, my understanding is that you need the authority of the legislation in order to appoint someone to the position. I've canvassed and have had discussions with quite a wide variety of northerners on this topic. But in answer to the member's question -- and I think I'm right -- technically, one requires the legislation to create the office in order to appoint someone to fill the office.

P. Nettleton: A simple yes or no would do. It's not a difficult question. A simple yes or no would suffice. Does the minister deny that he has hired John Backhouse to fill this position?

Hon. D. Miller: Help me, Mr. Chairman. Let me say it slowly. You cannot fill a job that doesn't exist. This piece of legislation creates the job. Once the legislation is passed, we will then appoint someone to fill the job created by the legislation.

The Chair: This is becoming repetitive, members.

P. Nettleton: Does the minister deny that he intends to hire John Backhouse as the commissioner?

Hon. D. Miller: I'm not in this chamber to be quizzed in terms of: do I deny this or that or the other thing? The bill is fairly clear. We are on

section 3, and if the members have any questions about

section 3, fair enough.

I've canvassed a range of names and have discussed that with northerners. The fact that I haven't discussed it with that member is something I can't account for. I talk to the other northern MLAs. They come and see me; they call me, and we have discussions about issues. That member has never knocked on my door once; he's never phoned me once. So I don't know what to say to the member.

S. Hawkins: I think people in the north have a lot of hope for this position. Maybe I can get the minister's attention. Sssh. Listen, for a change.

People in the north -- this minister purports to represent people in the north -- have a lot of high hopes for this position. I had the pleasure this morning of attending the Public Accounts Committee, and the minister a short while ago raised the issue of appointments to health boards. It's interesting, because that's what we discussed this morning: how the government made appointments to health boards. The auditor general had concerns about the way the appointments were made and what kinds of people filled those positions.

[4:15]

I would like the minister to put his attention to maybe answering some questions here today, instead of going on with his rhetoric and diatribes. Perhaps he can tell us if cabinet, which is going to be appointing this position, has a set of competencies, a set of qualifications, and is going to make the process transparent so that people can actually say: "Yes, we have confidence in the process; we have confidence in the way this government appointed this person; and we can put our hopes in this position." We're not hearing that at all.

This minister stands up and just says: "Oh, well, we're going to appoint, and we're going to appoint someone that's going to be good for the north." Well, we have a northern member over there who is saying that he's not very confident in what this minister is saying -- and he's refusing to answer the questions of the member from the north.

Everyone in the province has a vested interest in this position being successful. What the government is doing is investing taxpayer dollars in creating this office. Hopefully, this person will help drive some economic activity or some job creation in the north.

What the members previous to me are trying to get out of the minister is some confidence, some answers from this minister that there will be a transparent process, that there will be a process of selection that people in the north and all over the province and certainly the members here will have confidence in, and that this will be somebody who will have the competency and qualifications for this job. Does the minister have any of this information, or is this just something they're making up as they go along?

Hon. D. Miller: I'm just wondering what the member means when she refers to those kinds of people who are appointed to health boards. Just what does she mean? Perhaps she might want to expand on that. The fact that ordinary British Columbians -- for example, people who work in ordinary, menial labouring jobs, people who are not the elites -- were appointed to health boards because they live in their own communities . . . . What does the member mean by "that kind of person"?

Interjections.

The Chair: Order, members.

S. Hawkins: I'm very happy to answer the minister's questions about those kinds of people . . . . If the minister

[ Page 9244 ]

would read any of the reports of the auditor general, he meant the kind that this government appointed to those boards that didn't have the qualifications and didn't have the experience and were responsible for $4 billion worth of taxpayers' money. That is what the auditor general was talking about. He was saying that this government made appointments based on whatever they felt like. There was no transparent process. There were absolutely no competencies set up. There was no process of selecting people that had the qualifications. There was absolutely nothing.

He couldn't find the kind of process that would select people for these positions that were responsible for doling out $4 billion -- $4 billion, count it -- worth of taxpayer dollars to health care. That's what I mean by those kinds of people.

Interjections.

S. Hawkins: Yeah. The minister is trying to put words in my mouth. I'm taking them out of the auditor general's report. If he read the report, perhaps he would see that when they're appointing a northern development commissioner, people get a little nervous, because in the past the appointments that have been made haven't exactly had the confidence of this House or the people of the province.

An Hon. Member: Yes, they have.

S. Hawkins: No, they haven't. The Minister of Women's Equality says yes, they have. But they don't.

The Chair: Member, could you take your seat for a moment, please.

All comments have to come through the Chair, not across the House.

Interjection.

The Chair: Order, member. All comments are to come through the Chair.

The Chair really needs to remind members that we are dealing with

section 3 of this bill and that we need to have relevancy in regard to this discussion.

S. Hawkins: That's what I meant by those kinds of people, and I hope that's clear enough for the minister. It was the kind of people that didn't have, perhaps, the legal or administrative or financial background that was needed for the kind of appointment that they were appointed to. That's why we're asking the government if they have a list of competencies, a list of qualifications they're looking for, if they've set out a transparent process, so that people have the confidence that the person who's going to fill this position can actually carry out this role.

H. Giesbrecht: The hon. member who just spoke would not willingly, I would think, mislead this House or anyone else listening to this debate, particularly in terms of what happened in the Public Accounts Committee this morning -- which was recorded. If she hadn't left early, she would have heard the auditor general's office remark, quite categorically, that any statement they made had absolutely no reflection on the competency of the people who were appointed to those positions. They were merely commenting on the fact that there were no written criteria existing for the appointments.

After I asked a question about what the minimum criteria should be, it was very clear that there was no reflection on the people who were in those particular positions.

I just want to then ask the minister a question, which I guess could be very simply stated as . . . . Would he explain how . . . ?

Interjections.

The Chair: The member for Matsqui, on a point of order. What is your point of order?

M. de Jong: I'm thrilled that the member is engaged in the debate. I may have been mistaken, but I thought I heard him preface his question -- which we're all awaiting with bated breath -- with the comment that the member for Okanagan West may have misled the House deliberately. If that is the case, I would ask him to withdraw that remark.

The Chair: I'm sure the member will consider that.

H. Giesbrecht: Thank you, hon. Chair. I'll withdraw -- simply because what I said was that the member would not willingly want to mislead. So I provided the clarification.

I wanted to ask the minister a question. Since we're debating this particular bill, which is of critical interest to those of us who live in the north, I wonder if he might explain how we northerners feel about being lectured by members from the southern part of the province.

Hon. D. Miller: Mr. Chairman, I'm just about to ask for your help. I think we've been spinning our wheels for far too long on a very simple

section that authorizes the appointment of a northern commissioner. I think we've had a pretty wide-ranging debate that has had nothing to do with the section.

Interjection.

Hon. D. Miller: You can sit down; take it easy. You'll be able to get up when I sit down.

I would really make a simple observation, Mr. Chairman, that with respect to judging people's ability, I guess it's always done through some kind of filter. All of us in this House are here by virtue of the fact that under our Election Act, all the qualifications you need to run are to be a citizen and a resident of this province, to have lived here for a certain period of time. You're free to run and go out and seek the confidence of the electorate in your particular constituencies. I would say that there's a wide variety of experience in the House. There are those who indeed are highly qualified, have academic degrees; there are those like myself who are simply humble tradespeople . . . .

Interjections.

Hon. D. Miller: Well, I've done lots of menial work, I can tell you.

But it's a wide variety of experience that we all bring to this place. Who am I to suggest that any one of the members of this House is superior to another because of history or background? That suggests to me a somewhat elitist view of the world. Perhaps I'm wrong, but that does suggest a fairly elitist view of the world, and it's one that I reject. I grew up with the belief that regardless of what I did in life, I had equal

[ Page 9245 ]

opportunity and equal ability to deal with people who are the very highest to the very lowest. I don't think that trying to categorize people and taking an elite view is one that is shared by the public in this province at all. So I don't know . . . .

Interjections.

The Chair: Order, members.

Hon. D. Miller: Does the Chairman . . . ? But at any rate, I just want to make the point. I think that in terms of kind of going around the Horn on this one, we've been there. I've tried to answer the questions. I guess that we've engaged in a bit of debate that has not led to anything productive at all. Apart from that, we could probably move on.

S. Hawkins: I've tried to get some questions answered, and the minister has very craftily avoided answering the question that I've asked at least three times. I'm beginning to think . . . . I'm getting in the habit of asking my questions at least three or four times before I even get the semblance of an answer in this chamber. What I asked . . . . First of all, the member for Skeena was wondering what the qualifications of the members over here were for asking these questions. Well, we do represent the people of B.C., whether I represent Okanagan West or people around the province.

I take responsibility for representing a cross-section of people around the province. I did have the experience of living in northern and isolated communities in different parts of Canada, so I am familiar with northern communities.

But let's get back to the question I asked two or three times already, before I forget it; I think the minister must have forgotten it. I asked whether the minister has outlined competencies and qualifications for this position, whether there is a process in place, whether it will be transparent, and whether the position will be posted so that there will be competition for the position and it won't just be a picking of a favourite person that the minister might want to appoint.

Hon. D. Miller: The bill is very clear with respect to how the appointment will be made.

S. Hawkins: Well, the minister hasn't answered any part of the question. If this is the kind of arrogance we're going to see in this chamber, and when a minister is asked a question about whether there are going to be set qualifications, whether we have competencies set out, whether there is actually a process for appointing this position . . . . Those are all fair questions under this section, and the minister hasn't answered one of them. What kind of confidence is that going to instil in the people up north that are counting on this person? It's these members that went up north, hon.

Chair, and had their northern summit, and out of the whole northern summit they came out with a position. Out of all these jobs they were going to create, they created one job. They're going to create one job out of this bill, and it's a northern commissioner. You know what? We don't even know what the qualifications for this job are going to be. We don't know what competencies for this job this minister is looking for. We don't know what the process is going to be -- whether it's going to be transparent or done behind closed doors. We don't know that. This minister isn't telling us.

Either he doesn't know, he doesn't care or he just doesn't want to tell us. At committee stage it's fair to ask these kinds of questions. If the minister were serious about northerners, if the minister were serious about this appointment and if the minister were serious about getting the confidence of northerners, he would answer these questions for them. I'm sure that a lot of them are wondering.

The north is a huge place, as the minister knows. We hope the minister knows. It covers a large area. "This person will be from the north, hopefully, or at least have a good understanding of the north," and that's all we get from this minister. That's all we get about the qualifications for who is going to fill this position. What we get is: "This person will be from the north, and he will work in the north." Well, that could be just about anyone. We have no idea what qualifications they're looking for.

Then the minister wonders why people don't have confidence in the appointments they make. They have absolutely no idea, they say, about why people have no confidence in the appointments they make. In the past, we've seen -- certainly I saw it this morning in the Public Accounts Committee -- that there were concerns about the kinds of appointments made by cabinet to boards that have very serious responsibilities in expending taxpayer dollars and in holding positions where they're accountable to the taxpayers. This is the kind of appointment that I think people in the north are . . . .

[4:30]

Interjections.

S. Hawkins: Hon. Chair, I'm kind of having trouble keeping my thought processes together here, because it's awfully noisy on the other side. I wonder if . . . .

Interjections.

S. Hawkins: I want to make sure the minister can hear what I'm saying, hon. Chair.

The Chair: Perhaps the member could ask a question.

S. Hawkins: Well, I've asked the question three or four times, and I haven't heard an answer. Perhaps the minister would care to answer . . . .

The Chair: Member, could you take you seat for a minute, please. The fact that you're stating that you have asked a question three or four times leads the Chair to decide that you are being repetitious. Perhaps the member would like to pursue another line of questioning.

S. Hawkins: I'm wondering, then, if the ministry has a document that already outlines, in some kind of form, what the job description of the northern commissioner is, and if, on the basis of that, they will be putting an ad in the paper so that it will be an open competition for this job and so that people will know exactly what qualifications and competencies are required for this position.

Hon. D. Miller: The duties of the commissioner and the process of appointment are outlined in the bill.

P. Nettleton: I have a few comments, and then I'd like to pursue the line of questioning I introduced earlier. You know, hon. Chair, through you to the minister, I take this bill to be an admission of your failure -- not only your failure personally but also the government's . . . .

The Chair: Member, all comments are directed through the Chair, please.

[ Page 9246 ]

P. Nettleton: Through the Chair, my suggestion to the minister is that this bill is nothing more than the minister's failure. The minister has failed the people of northern British Columbia. He is a senior minister who has been around for some time. He has had a number of responsibilities tied to the resource sector. The very fact that he and his government have seen fit to introduce this bill at this time is an admission of failure. Sir -- through the Chair -- you are a failure. You have failed . . .

The Chair: Member . . . .

P. Nettleton: . . . the people of northern British Columbia.

The Chair: Member, would you take your seat, please. Your comments are not relevant to

section 3. I would suggest that if you're going to continue, you should direct your questions to the

section we're on.

P. Nettleton: Has any commitment been made to Mr. Backhouse with reference to the commissioner's position?

The Chair: The member may wish to pursue another line of questioning.

Interjections.

The Chair: Relevance and repetition, members. The same question was asked. Member, you have the floor.

P. Nettleton: Hon. Chair, with all respect, I would submit that in fact the same question was not asked. The word I have used now which distinguishes this question from the previous questions is the word "commitment." Has any commitment been made to Mr. Backhouse with reference to this position?

Hon. D. Miller: With all due respect, this is an enabling bill. We're debating the bill. The

section we're on is the appointment of the commissioner; it outlines the process of appointment.

P. Nettleton: Does the minister deny that a car has been leased in the name of Mr. Backhouse for this position? Does the minister deny that?

C. Hansen: This is quite relevant, I think, to the exact wording that we have here.

Section 3 is to authorize the appointment of a commissioner, and the question to the minister, I think, is totally in order as to whether or not any commitments have been made to Mr. Backhouse with regard to this position. It seems to me that it's directly relevant to the clauses before us, and I think it's incumbent upon the minister to give us an answer. He's talked about it being enabling legislation. My question to the minister is: have there been commitments made to Mr. Backhouse in advance of this enabling legislation being passed by this chamber?

The Chair: Members, the standing orders are very clear. The minister is not required to answer questions, and questions that are repeated are not relevant.

D. Jarvis: Just one quick comment, and that is that he was talking about non-partisan appointments and referring to the summits and everything like that. I just wanted to say that the northern summit that he keeps talking about wasn't non-partisan. It was so partisan that only select people could get into it. I'll say the same thing for the Kamloops summit. It was supposed to be a non-partisan summit to allow people from all over the province to look into . . . . Yet I myself was excluded from going. I was refused entry into it.

I would like to put forward a motion on

section 3 as on the order paper.

[SECTION 3, to amend subsection 3 by adding the text highlighted in bold:

Appointment of the commissioner

(1) The Northern Development Commissioner is to be appointed by the Lieutenant Governor in Council, upon recommendation of the Northern Development Commissioner Hiring Committee as per (a), (b), (c)

(

a) The Northern Development Commissioner Hiring Committee shall consist of all MLAs from the Northern region of British Columbia.

(

b) The Northern Development Commissioner Hiring Committee will advertise the position of the Northern Development Commissioner.

(

c) The Northern Development Commissioner Hiring Committee shall review all applicants for the position of Northern Development Commissioners and shall make three recommendations to the Lieutenant Governor in Council. ]

On the amendment.

D. Jarvis: I feel that this amendment is quite a good one, in the sense that if the minister is talking about being non-partisan and having an open policy towards appointing a person for the northern development commissioner's position, nothing could be better than that a hiring committee be submitted and all MLAs in the northern region be invited to come in and discuss it. Who else would know better, than the minister, than all the rest of the northern MLAs in the region?

Furthermore, subsection (1)(

b) of the amendment states that the job be advertised in the northern papers and all over the province prior to doing so. This is certainly an open-ended situation. I don't know if the minister has already concluded that, but that's certainly a good way of making sure that the job is well exposed to everyone in the province.

Thirdly, subsection (1)(

c) says: "The Northern Development Commissioner Hiring Committee shall review all applicants for the position of Northern Development Commissioners and shall make three recommendations to the Lieutenant Governor in Council." That is ostensibly what our member for Peace River North felt would be a good idea to put forward. That should take away any thought that the commissioner who was appointed would be a biased one -- that this would be a full and open procedure. I urge the minister to support the amendment.

Hon. D. Miller: It is a bit puzzling, because five minutes ago we listened to a diatribe -- at least, the member for Prince George-Omineca attempted to deliver a diatribe -- saying that I was somehow a failure for bringing in a piece of legislation to create a northern commissioner's office. Now they want to bring in an amendment to ensure that their MLAs are on a hiring committee to fill a position that they don't like. I'm a bit puzzled by it.

On the face of it, the common feature of all legislation promulgated by government is that it's government's responsibility to carry out the actions that are required under this bill. That's the responsibility of cabinet, and that's the way it should be.

M. de Jong: People watching this are going to be a bit mystified. If this is too difficult for the minister to appreciate -- that in debating a bill . . . .

[ Page 9247 ]

Interjections.

M. de Jong: Look, I know the Minister of Labour is having some difficulty confronting the fact that he badly fumbled the ball earlier today, and he's here trying to make . . . . I know that the only reason he's sitting in the House is because he has been penalized by the Whip, who's also here.

The Chair: On the amendment, member.

M. de Jong: I do want to return to the point. The minister seems to take exception to a line of questioning from the opposition that says: "You are on the verge of statutorily creating a new position in the province, and we are led to believe that you're already having discussions about who's going to fill that post." Quite frankly, if the minister has difficulty understanding the relevancy of that line of questioning, then maybe he's in the wrong line of work.

It's not that difficult. The minister says that he has a shortlist of candidates. Well, he didn't use those words, and I don't want to put words in his mouth. He has already been in contact with several northerners. That's what he said: he has already been in contact with several northerners, to fill the commissioner's spot. Who are those northerners?

[T. Stevenson in the chair.]

Let me try this a different way. The minister began his discussion on this

section of the bill by pointing out that it warranted the support of everyone in this House on the basis of the independence that the person filling the position would bring to his or her role as commissioner. Now, speaking specifically to the amendment that is presently before this chamber, I think there's a better way to insure that independence, and that is to remove the selection process from the hands of the cabinet exclusively and put it in the hands of representatives of the north from both sides of this House. Is this such an unprecedented thing? Is the minister saying that this is so without precedent -- that we would have an all-party committee?

Interjection.

M. de Jong: If the member from Golden wants to get up, I'm the first person to sit down and give him a chance. He knows how accommodating I will be to him, hon. Speaker. I'll even travel to Golden to give him an opportunity to speak.

This House has hired advocates before -- a family and children's advocate, House officers. We have hired advocates for various segments of our society. What I hear the minister saying is that this is the role the northern commissioner is supposed to play on behalf of people in northern British Columbia. So what is the difficulty in going that next mile and saying: let's have a truly independent person, who to all appearances is independent, including the manner in which they've been selected and brought to the position? Have a committee of this House, exclusive of the cabinet, exclusive of partisan political considerations . . . .

The people who are watching this debate are going to ask this question themselves: what's wrong with removing the politics from the appointment of a person who is not supposed to be political? The minister doesn't want to answer it, but it's a logical and entirely appropriate question. What is wrong with an amendment that says we will advertise for the best person available, give everyone an opportunity to apply for this position, and then members from both sides of this House will pick the best candidate on the basis of qualifications to represent northerners? What's wrong with that?

[4:45]

Hon. D. Miller: I think the member puts on a good show, but I think he's being just a tad disingenuous. Mr. Chairman, I remain a bit puzzled. Here we are, bringing in very straightforward and quite simple legislation to create the northern commissioner's office . . . .

Interjections.

Hon. D. Miller: Tut, tut, tut -- just settle down. Relax.

We're bringing in a very simple bill -- in terms of its construct -- to create the northern commissioner, and I've had a variety of responses. There appear to be a variety of positions staked out by members opposite. We start with the member for Prince George-Omineca, who doesn't like the idea at all. Then we move to the member for North Vancouver-Seymour, who proposes an amendment which we're now debating -- that the Liberal caucus, or at least the northern Liberal MLAs, be included in the hiring. I can tell you that the variety . . . .

And then, when two Liberals wind up in Terrace, as they did on June 3, the member for Kamloops-North Thompson says: "Why do you need a commission? Why do you need a commission, if you've got a minister?" So he appears to be disagreeing with the establishment of a commission -- and they still want to have a hand in the hiring.

When I suggested that the member was being a tad disingenuous, I do respect the fact that politics is played from time to time by all of us in this forum. If there's politics being played, Mr. Chairman, I think there's a great deal being played on the other side. Let's try to get back to the . . . .

I think the members have tried to make a point here, and I understand the point they've tried to make -- and I think they've made it. Now, you don't have to take all day to do it. There is the old theory, of course, that work expands to fill the time available. But I think you've made your point, and I really think we could move on. This is, in the normal course of events, what governments do; it's not unique to our government. When governments create these positions in legislation, they do it in this manner; the way this bill is constructed is nothing new. So I think we should move on, Mr. Chairman -- defeat this amendment, and let's move on with the bill. Time's a'wasting and we've