2007 Legislative Session: Third Session, 38th 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, FEBRUARY 22, 2007

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 14, Number 11

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Page

Introductions by Members

Statements (Standing Order 25 B )

Lunar new year celebrations

R. Lee

Revelstoke heritage buildings

N. Macdonald

Coast Mental Health Foundation Courage to Come Back Awards

H. Bloy

Cowichan Valley Hospice Society

D. Routley

Mineral exploration worker training in northwest B.C.

D. MacKay

2007 B.C. Disability Games in Powell River

N. Simons

Oral Questions

Approval process for geoduck farm licences

N. Simons

Hon. P. Bell

G. Robertson

B.C. Hydro appeal of decision on Alcan power sales

R. Austin

Hon. C. Hansen

Deni House

C. Wyse

Hon. G. Abbott

Highway maintenance in Revelstoke area

N. Macdonald

Hon. K. Falcon

Performance bonus for highway maintenance contractor

D. Chudnovsky

Hon. K. Falcon

Funding for rural highway improvements

H. Lali

Hon. K. Falcon

Move of Wild Duck Inn for Pitt River Bridge construction

M. Farnworth

Hon. K. Falcon

Government targets for climate change initiatives

S. Simpson

Hon. B. Penner

Motions on Notice

Legislative sitting hours (Motion 40)

Hon. M. de Jong

M. Farnworth

A. Dix

Hon. G. Abbott

L. Krog

J. Horgan

H. Lali

D. Routley

N. Simons

C. Wyse

C. Evans

R. Fleming

M. Karagianis

D. Cubberley

B. Ralston

[ Page 5475 ]

THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 22, 2007

The House met at 2:03 p.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Introductions by Members

N. Macdonald: It's my pleasure to introduce, from

Revelstoke, Tom Tischik, Gerry Gardner and Adelheid Bender. They're here for

the tourism conference. As well, I'd like to introduce the mayor of the city of

Cranbrook, His Worship Mayor Ross Priest. Would the House please join me in

making them welcome.

Hon. S. Bond: We are delighted today to have in our gallery

Darrell Rouse. Darrell is actually a Canadian who for years has been living in

Florida, but he and his family are now thinking about repatriation. Although he

was born in Ontario, he has seen the light, and he's hoping to make this very

great province of British Columbia his future home. He is joined in the gallery

today by his sister-in-law Diana Beatty. I know you'll want to welcome him not

only to the gallery but to our province in the future. Please join me in making

him welcome.

M. Karagianis: In the gallery today we have a group of

students visiting us from Royal Roads University. They are, in fact, the new

members of the course "Writing for Media." I'm sure that we will all inspire

them today and welcome them and show them what the media buzz is all about in

the afternoon session.

B. Lekstrom: It's my pleasure today to introduce a number

of friends that are visiting from the great Peace country. Joining us in the

Legislature today are His Worship Mayor Mike Caisley; along with the economic

development officer for Tumbler Ridge, Ray Proulx; as well as His Worship Mayor

Jim Eglinski and his wife Nancy from Fort St. John. Will the House please

welcome them.

[1405]

N. Simons: It gives me great pleasure to introduce in the

House four guests, three from my constituency and one who should be. Up in the

gallery today are Bill Forst; his wife Pat Forst, a well-known ceramic artist

from Gibsons; as well as Erin Sikora and Sam Heppell, former co-chairs of the

YND. Will the House please make them welcome.

J. McIntyre: It is my pleasure today to introduce to the

House a very special friend and colleague, William Roberts. He is the founder

and president of the Whistler Forum for Dialogue, which is a centre for public

policy and leadership associated with the Aspen Institute. He also spearheads

the Leadership Sea to Sky program on building collaboration, which has been a

real benefit to all of us in our riding. This is the third year of training

up-and-coming leaders and bringing to life some of the key issues in our

corridor. Would the House please make William Roberts feel welcome.

R. Cantelon: It's my pleasure today to introduce some

longtime friends who have travelled far to be with us today: my first cousin

Lynn, who has recently retired from phys ed teaching but still plays ringette

with women 30 years her junior.

I'd also like to introduce Albert Lubkowski. We used to play high

school basketball. Albert now runs the very successful Blackfish charters.

Also with him is Doug Lang, Lynn's husband, who bikes some 15

kilometres — again, an inspiration for ActNow — to work and back every day,

which wouldn't be astounding except that they live in Winnipeg, and he does it

year-round. Would the House please give these prairie stubble-jumpers a warm

welcome.

Hon. G. Abbott: In the gallery today is my wife Lesley.

Joining Lesley is her sister Kathryn Temple from Creston and Kathryn's

daughters, our nieces, Erin and Brenna Temple — also originally from Creston,

now from various university towns. Would the House please make them welcome.

Hon. I. Chong: I do have some special guests to introduce

today. One is all the way from the city of Shanghai, China: Ms. Li Huang — Lisa,

as she's known by — a professional of urban infrastructure project management.

She is being hosted here in Victoria by Ms. Lian Hong, who has been a resident

of Victoria for approximately 15 years. She also was originally from China.

They're joined by two others, Ms. Muriel Gentlemen and Mr.

Guangkui Hong, who are from Victoria as well. Would the House please make them

all very welcome.

S. Hawkins: Today in the gallery is someone who's very

special in my life. Three years ago he put his life on hold so that I would have

a chance to regain mine. For six months he literally looked after me and did

everything for me that I needed and basically kicked my butt if he thought I

wasn't working hard enough at my recovery.

When he was born, my parents named him Lakhvinder Ahluwalia, but

we sisters chose to call him Lucky, not because he was a New Year's baby and not

because he was Canada's centennial baby. No, he's Lucky because he has five

older sisters who love him deeply, and we're lucky to have him as a brother.

Please help me welcome my brother Lucky.

R. Fleming: In the gallery with us today is a friend of

mine, Troy Sebastian, who is native to Victoria but left for Cranbrook and

environs with his lovely wife Jen some years ago. It's nice to have him back

here in the capital city. Would the House please make Troy Sebastian feel

welcome.

[1410]

[ Page 5476 ]

Statements

(Standing Order 25

B) LUNAR NEW YEAR CELEBRATIONS

R. Lee: Many British Columbians are celebrating lunar new

year this week. Last Sunday I participated in the lunar new year parade in

Vancouver's Chinatown with the Lieutenant-Governor, the Attorney General and

many other members of the House. An estimated 50,000 spectators and over 50

community organizations participated this year in this multicultural event.

On Sunday I also participated in celebrations organized by the

B.C. Taiwan Chamber of Commerce and the Burnaby Crystal Mall. An evening gala

with 1,000 people completed the day. Many countries and territories, especially

those in the Asia-Pacific region, celebrate the lunar new year, also known as

the spring festival.

In mainland China the spring festival comes with a seven-day

public holiday; in Taiwan, five days; Vietnam, four days; in Korea, Hong Kong

and Macau, three days; Malaysia and Singapore, two days; Brunei and Indonesia,

one day. This holiday allows family and friends to spend time together.

Although there is no public holiday in Canada to celebrate lunar

new year, there are celebrations in many Canadian cities. Canada Post has issued

postage stamps and numismatic coins for years to commemorate the spring

festival.

British Columbia, as a gateway for Canada to the Asia-Pacific, has

established many economic and cultural linkages with the Asia-Pacific region.

Presently there are no public holidays between New Year's Day and Good Friday in

British Columbia. Perhaps it's time to consider proclaiming a public

multicultural holiday to celebrate the spring festival.

Xin nian kuai le. Sun nin fai lok. Sin ni khoai lok. Sae hae

bok manhi baduseyo. Gong xi fa cai.

[Text provided by R. Lee.]

REVELSTOKE HERITAGE BUILDINGS

N. Macdonald: This week we are celebrating Heritage Week in

B.C. B.C. has an incredible number of stories, and it is by looking after

physical aspects of our history that we keep those stories alive.

A great example of community leadership in heritage protection is

the city of Revelstoke. I'm from Golden, so it was first in the election as I

walked door to door with longtime Revelstoke residents such as Jeff Nicholson

and Mike Dragani that I was introduced to the wonderful public buildings but

also the private heritage homes of Revelstoke. This is a community of 8,000

people, but that community has four museums, and they're great museums. So it's

a community that treasures and looks after its history.

They've also organized themselves to preserve their heritage

buildings. The buildings the community has protected include the courthouse,

which is a beautiful neoclassical building built in 1912 and now owned by the

city. Its copper-top dome is a city landmark. The city hall is of modern

architecture, built in 1939. The post office was built in 1911 in the

neoclassical style. Private homes include Holten House, Minto house, McCarthy

House and Taylor House.

Each of these have stories. I'll just give you one quick example.

The post office sits in an unusual place in Revelstoke. It sits partway away

from downtown, halfway towards the old part of the city. The reason for that is

because you did at one time have two small communities, Farwell and Revelstoke,

that have since merged. Both communities wanted the post office. They were

writing to Prime Minister Laurier. His solution was to put the post office right

between the two cities in a uniquely political decision.

So for each building, there are stories. There is history. Our

past is worth preserving. Many communities do that well, but certainly

Revelstoke is one of them.

COAST MENTAL HEALTH FOUNDATION

COURAGE TO COME BACK AWARDS

H. Bloy: I rise today to speak about some truly

inspirational individuals. Each year the Courage to Come Back Awards honour

British Columbians for their courage to overcome in recovery from illness,

injury or adversity.

Last year I had the pleasure of attending the Coast Mental Health

Foundation's eighth annual Courage to Come Back Awards ceremony. I was amazed

and inspired by the stories I heard that night. Randy Miller and Gladys Evoy

overcame their long battles with addiction to become healthy contributing

members of society. Randy now speaks to school students about the dangers of

drug addiction, and Gladys has earned her alcohol and drug counselling

certificate.

Jeneece Edroff has a genetic condition that causes tumour growth

in the tissues that surround the nerves. She underwent her first spinal

operation at age five, and her parents were told she would never walk again. But

Jeneece did walk again, and now at age 13 she has raised over $400,000 for

Variety Club.

[1415]

Hearing their stories and seeing the pride on the winners' faces,

I knew I had to get involved. After speaking with Lorne Segal, a driving force

behind the Courage to Come Back Awards, and Peter Legge, a volunteer

extraordinaire in British Columbia and volunteer emcee for the awards, I

accepted the position as ambassador. I will be contacting everyone in this House

to bring names forward and to assist in this worthwhile cause.

This year I am honoured to be a judge for the ninth annual Courage

to Come Back Awards, which will take place on April 19 in Vancouver.

COWICHAN VALLEY HOSPICE SOCIETY

D. Routley: I rise today to bring attention of the House to

an amazing group of people who serve my constituency. These people who serve the

Cowichan Valley Hospice Society have done so for over two decades. They have a

history of incredible volunteerism and generosity to community. Like so many

other

[ Page 5477 ]

volunteer groups, the body of volunteers are made up of those who have

recently or in the past cared for dying relatives or friends and have turned

their grief into positive energy, which they apply back to the same issues.

The current status of the Cowichan Valley Hospice Society is

threatened by a lack of core funding. The society provides services such as

palliative one-to-one care in the community, formal adult grief support groups,

telephone support to the bereaved, bereavement follow-up with family, self-care

clinics, volunteer support to hospital programs and patients, libraries for

those they serve, as well as training of volunteers.

This incredible contribution of value saves great resources for

the Vancouver Island Health Authority. In October of this year, of their 30

clients, 15 were referred through VIHA programs of mental health, home care

nursing, health care centres or hospitals.

Many of our hospitals have been downgraded, and we have lost many

of the beds which used to support these patients. Currently in my riding, there

is one palliative care bed in the Chemainus hospital centre.

With the great dependence of this service from VIHA and the need

for core funding, I want to bring the attention of the members to the

circumstance of this group and many other hospice societies like them, who

struggle to offer the service that they feel from their hearts to people that

they care about in their community. With our help, we can continue to offer that

service.

MINERAL EXPLORATION WORKER

TRAINING IN NORTHWEST B.C.

D. MacKay: Mr. Speaker, $265 million spent on mining

exploration in B.C. in 2006 compared to $20 million in 2000-2001. That's an

800-percent increase in dollars spent on exploration in this province. As a

matter of interest, between the mineral exploration and the mining sector they

generate over $6 billion in annual revenues. Almost half of the dollars that

were spent on exploration were spent in the northwestern part of British

Columbia. Bulkley Valley–Stikine was on the benefit side of those exploration

dollars and will benefit once we see some of those exploration dollars become

mines.

But it's not all rosy. We could not find enough people with

experience to help with the exploration that was underway from diamond drilling

to on-the-ground exploration to camp setups and other related jobs so necessary

to help with the exploration of minerals that was taking place.

Northwest Community College, in concert with the Smithers

Exploration Group, decided to do something about the lack of skilled workers for

the mining industry. They embarked upon a program to train people that were

needed by the industry. The province contributed $1.5 million and the feds $1.9

million for a total of $2.4 million to train people through the Northwest

Community College school of exploration and mining in Smithers.

It's been a huge success story. The greatest attribute of the

program is that it's mobile. It takes the program to the students throughout the

northwest. Students live in the camps and instruction is provided on site.

Recently at the mining roundup in Vancouver during the latter part of January, I

worked a booth that displayed the mining school program and can report that it

was a very busy booth with people from around Canada and around the world

interested in how the program was being delivered.

A big thank-you goes to those involved in the delivery of such a

program: Gary Thompson from the Smithers Exploration Group, Christine Ogryzlo,

Judi L'Orsa and the Warren family — Joyce, Lorne and Chris — and the great staff

at Northwest Community College.

[1420]

2007 B.C. DISABILITY GAMES

IN POWELL RIVER

N. Simons: I'm very proud to announce that B.C.'s 2007

Disability Games are being hosted by Powell River this coming July. More than

700 visitors from across B.C. will be joined by three international soccer teams

from the Netherlands, Russia and Ireland.

The theme of this year's games is "No boundaries." Visitors to

Powell River, which lies in the traditional territory of the Sliammon Nation,

will include athletes, attendants, officials and family members. It's an

excellent opportunity to showcase the city as a model community.

The model communities project is headed by Dr. Geraldine Braak, a

member of the Order of Canada and a member of the Order of B.C. It is a project

that strives to make communities accessible to everyone regardless of their

abilities. Last June, in fact, Powell River joined Whistler and Vancouver at the

World Urban Forum as examples of such communities.

Already a city with a huge volunteer base, Powell River will be

recruiting and training approximately 600 volunteers, all of whom will be

directly or indirectly involved with the games. The city of Powell River,

Sliammon First Nation and school district 47 will join regular major funding

partners: the province of B.C., B.C. Games Society, B.C. Disability Sports and

Air Canada Jazz. Local unions and businesses have already jumped on board as

friends of the games, as providing volunteers, funding or in-kind donations.

We're looking forward to welcoming the Premier, the Minister of

Tourism, Sport and the Arts, esteemed dignitaries and all British Columbians at

the opening on July 11. When a community is accessible to people with

disabilities, it is indeed a model community with no boundaries.

Oral Questions

APPROVAL PROCESS FOR

GEODUCK FARM LICENCES

N. Simons: Recently the Minister of Agriculture and Lands

has granted three geoduck licences off the Sunshine Coast. My question is for

the Minister of Agriculture and Lands. Before these licences were

[ Page 5478 ]

approved, what kind of consultation was undertaken with first nations?

Hon. P. Bell: It would be helpful if the member did his

research. In fact, there has been one licence issued and two additional

applications for a potential issuance somewhere down the road, upon full

consultation. This process actually started back in 1991. There's been in-depth

consultation with first nations and local communities since 2001, and it is part

of a pilot project.

Mr. Speaker: Member has a supplemental.

N. Simons: In fact, the Minister of Agriculture and Lands

is on record as saying that the consultation was adequate and that it served its

purpose. If you ask the Chief of Sliammon Nation, you'll get a different story

altogether. In fact, I'll quote. When asked whether or not the consultation was

adequate, he said: "In no way is it adequate. Despite our opposition and despite

the complete lack of meaningful consultation, the ministry approved the geoduck

farms." He went on to say: "If I do not hear from you in the near future, we

will assume that litigation or direct action are the only options available to

us."

Will the minister admit that the consultation process was a farce,

and will he go back, respect what is being referred to as the new relationship,

and engage in meaningful consultation with the Sliammon Nation and the other

first nations involved?

Hon. P. Bell: Well, I find it interesting that the member

is all of a sudden finding some religion on shellfish aquaculture. This is one

of the least intrusive forms of aquaculture that can take place on the coast.

It's broadly accepted by first nations up and down the coast. Further, this was

a process that the previous government actually started in 1991. They were the

ones that issued the first licence in 1996.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. The member has a further

supplemental.

N. Simons: The minister should not have a quarrel with me.

This is about the new relationship, which seems to be failing when at least

three first nations have stated unequivocally that the consultation process was

inadequate. That is insulting to the first nations of British Columbia.

Will the minister do the right thing and at least suspend those

licences until proper and meaningful consultation has taken place?

[1425]

Hon. P. Bell: It's a good thing the member only gets two

supplementals. I'm concerned for his heart, moving on to a third one there.

Clearly, there has been in-depth consultation that has gone on.

This process for these sites actually started in 2001. Communities engaged

through that period of time. These sites were picked as pilot sites only, to

expand on the view of whether or not there is a long-term potential for geoduck

farming in British Columbia. We are being very cautious and very careful through

this entire process, and the sites are only moving forward after extensive

biological baseline work and consultation.

G. Robertson: I fail to see how the Minister of Agriculture

thinks 935 acres of geoduck aquaculture is a cautious step.

Not only did the minister fail to consult first nations, but he

failed to follow his own rules around science. Earlier this week the Committee

on Sustainable Aquaculture heard from the minister's own staff and the

Department of Fisheries and Oceans that there's no independent science to show

this type of farming has minimal impact on the environment. There is none. Yet

the minister says that science will guide this government's decisions.

Can he explain why he is pushing ahead with these tenures, against

the will of first nations, when he has no independent science whatsoever to back

up his position?

Hon. P. Bell: I guess it must be Thursday afternoon, and

the opposition is getting desperate for questions.

This process started in 1991. That's 15 or 16 years ago now. There

was a licence issued actually in 1996 under the previous government. In 2001 the

Department of Fisheries and Oceans and the Ministry of Agriculture and Lands

went through intensive baseline biological work and detailed consultation up and

down the coast to identify ten potential sites for an expansion of the pilot

project.

This is one additional site. They can't even get right that

there's only one site been approved, not three.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

G. Robertson: Just to correct the minister, there is one

site issued, and two more have been approved by this government. I think one

plus two is three.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

G. Robertson: Speaking of minimal impact, to put these

farms in place, the clam beds must first be purge harvested, strip-mined of

their wild populations. That sounds like very significant impact to me.

The State of Washington knows there's uncertainty. They understand

there is significant environmental risk. The Washington legislators are

currently pursuing a moratorium until the independent science is done.

Again, to the minister: why has he abandoned the first nations,

abandoned independent science, abandoned the new relationship and abandoned the

precautionary principle — all to force these farms on coastal communities?

[ Page 5479 ]

Hon. P. Bell: The member's math actually reminds me of a

previous NDP Finance Minister. Three kinds of people — right, Member?

You know, I have to tell you, Mr. Speaker. I don't know how

complicated this is. There's been one additional licence issued and only one

additional licence issued. The other two are going through detailed reviews. It

is very presumptuous to say whether those other two licences will ever be

issued. They're issued under a statutory decision-maker process. It's done

independently.

If that member wants to question the integrity of professionals

within the ministry who do their work dedicated day in and day out, why doesn't

he just say that?

B.C. HYDRO APPEAL OF DECISION

ON ALCAN POWER SALES

R. Austin: In December the B.C. Utilities Commission

rejected a sweetheart deal with Alcan that was negotiated last year in the

Premier's office. The commission, in its ruling, declared the agreement to not

be in the public interest.

[1430]

Earlier this week we learned that the Premier has directed

government not to appeal the decision by the BCUC. Will the Minister of Economic

Development — the minister responsible for the Industrial Development Act and

the person who inked that deal — now direct B.C. Hydro to withdraw its appeal of

that decision?

Hon. C. Hansen: Earlier, before we got the detailed ruling,

the province of British Columbia and B.C. Hydro filed notice of intention to

appeal, at least as a placeholder. The province has now decided that it will not

proceed with that appeal. B.C. Hydro has the ability — they report through the

Ministry of Energy — and they will make their own decisions in that regard.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

R. Austin: Is it really a matter of the government not

wanting to direct B.C. Hydro or not being able to? I have a copy of the

long-term energy purchase agreement between Alcan and B.C. Hydro. In that

agreement it states that should B.C. Hydro fail to support the sweetheart Alcan

deal at the Utilities Commission, Hydro would be liable for a $5 million fine,

payable to Alcan.

Is that this government's

interpretation of standing up for

taxpayers — by negotiating a deal that binds B.C. Hydro to support an agreement

that they did not negotiate, forcing Hydro to defend that deal at the commission

and then, when it fails there, to further force Hydro to appeal the ruling? Is

that standing up for the people of British Columbia?

Hon. C. Hansen: I find this line of questioning rather

surprising coming from the opposition. Actually, if you go back to 1996, it was

the government of the day in 1996 that negotiated a deal with Alcan that allowed

Alcan not only to sell power at record volumes but to sell it to the United

States. That was a deal that was actually inked and signed by Premier Glen Clark

at the time.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Minister, just wait until we have some quiet.

Continue.

Hon. C. Hansen: The ramifications of that 1996 agreement

have actually been quite huge and extremely complex for the province to try to

deal with, and to try to get through and beyond the ramifications that could

have happened under that particular agreement. I find it surprising that this

opposition is now standing up and cheering on the B.C. Utilities Commission,

when they were the party that actually gutted the B.C. Utilities Commission.

They were the party that said that B.C. Hydro would not be subject to any

reviews of their regulatory…. We're the party that actually said that as

government, we're re-establishing the B.C. Utilities Commission and

re-regulating B.C. Hydro.

DENI HOUSE

C. Wyse: Since the seniors delegation from Williams Lake

came to Victoria to present the community's case for keeping open Deni House, a

seniors care facility, the minister has received correspondence from the Seniors

Advisory Council, the Cariboo regional hospital district and the city of

Williams Lake. The correspondence challenges the information used by Interior

Health Authority to justify the permanent closure of Deni House. It is this

substantiated information that has undermined the community's confidence in

Interior Health Authority's ability to properly plan for seniors care in the

Williams Lake area.

My question: will the minister commit to keeping Deni House open

until he has reviewed this information and he has personally visited Williams

Lake to view and meet with community representatives?

[1435]

Hon. G. Abbott: I have complete confidence in Interior

Health. I think they do a great job on behalf of the thousands of people they

serve and the many communities they serve in the interior of British Columbia.

In fairness to Interior Health, they have made major investments in the

community of Williams Lake. Never, qualitatively and quantitatively, have the

frail elderly been so well served in the community of Williams Lake.

With the investments that have been made in Williams Lake and with

the project that is currently being completed, Williams Lake will incrementally

have 23 more units than they had when we took office in 2001. Further, those

will not be multibed wards, as they were under the NDP. They won't be narrow

hallways,

[ Page 5480 ]

wheelchair-inaccessible. These will be wonderful units, and people deserve

those wonderful units.

HIGHWAY MAINTENANCE

IN REVELSTOKE AREA

N. Macdonald: Mr. Tom Siddon, a former minister in Mr.

Mulroney's Conservative government, phoned me yesterday. He and his wife were in

a head-on collision just outside of Revelstoke. Luckily, there were no serious

injuries, but he's absolutely outraged with the road maintenance in the area,

with no sanding, no plowing. He was clear that it was not the weather at the

time. It was a road that has just not been maintained properly.

I have a folder full of letters that have been copied through to

the minister saying the same thing — incredibly poor maintenance, particularly

around Revelstoke, on Highways 1 and 23. I want this fixed. The minister knows

it. It has been a problem all winter. What is the minister going to do about it?

Hon. K. Falcon: I thank the member for the question. I'm

sorry to hear that Mr. Siddon was involved in an accident, and I'm pleased to

hear that he wasn't personally injured, it would appear.

I think it's important to point out that we've seen some of the

worst snow accumulations we've seen in 20 years in British Columbia. I think we

have to be fair-minded here to the workers, many of them — most of them, frankly

— BCGEU workers who do a very good job, day in and day out, under

extraordinarily tough conditions, working very hard to keep our highways clean.

I am not going to allow people, under very challenging

circumstances, to just openly attack and try and pretend that they're miracle

workers. They have done extraordinarily good work under difficult circumstances,

particularly in the Revelstoke area.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

N. Macdonald: What Mr. Siddon said to me was: "Very

clearly, it is not the fault of the people behind the plow." That is not the

problem. The problem is with the contractor that does not put enough trucks on

the road, and that has consistently happened.

A December 14 letter to the minister from the Columbia-Shuswap

regional district told the minister that his contractors were "not responding in

a timely way. The roads were difficult to drive on — dangerous or impassable."

That was December 14.

On January 29 the mayor of Revelstoke and 25 truck drivers met

with his ministry staff and maintenance contractor staff to discuss consistently

poor highway maintenance. The chamber of commerce executive that is visiting

here plowed through snow on Highway 23. That cannot be the acceptable standard

for roads in this province.

The minister has a problem. It is with that contractor. When is he

going to fix it?

Hon. K. Falcon: Actually, there is one extraordinary

difference. You know, these workers have actually been contracted maintenance

workers on our highway system for over 15 years now, including ten years under

that opposition when they were an NDP government in the dismal decade.

There is one very….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. K. Falcon: There is one very important difference,

however, between when they had responsibility over those maintenance contractors

and when we do. The difference is that we actually put into place standards that

we hold them accountable to.

Not surprisingly, under an NDP…

[1440]

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. K. Falcon: …government, there were no standards. There

were no measurements. There was no auditing. All of that is in place under this

government and this Premier.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

PERFORMANCE BONUS FOR

HIGHWAY MAINTENANCE CONTRACTOR

D. Chudnovsky: It appears that the people who drive on

those roads, who live in those communities, who visit those communities and who

have to deal with the situation on those roads don't believe that the standards

have been adhered to this year.

My question to the minister is: can the minister tell the House

whether the road maintenance company referred to by the member for Columbia

River–Revelstoke — that's HMC — will be receiving a performance bonus this year?

Hon. K. Falcon: Let me preface my answer by actually

congratulating….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. K. Falcon: No, Mr. Speaker, this is a very important

preface. I want to congratulate that member, because that member actually left

urban East Vancouver and drove the Coquihalla Highway to find out what the rest

of the province already knows — that winters can be pretty tough in British

Columbia.

There's actually the occasional pothole in northern British

Columbia. With respect to that contractor, as

[ Page 5481 ]

I've said, we have 117 staff that do nothing but audit the performance of our

maintenance contractors right across the province. All of them are held to

standards that were never, by the way, applied or in place under an NDP

government but that we do have in place now.

That contractor, to the best of my knowledge, will be receiving

its performance bonus at the end of the season. I believe they've done great

work under very, very challenging circumstances.

FUNDING FOR RURAL

HIGHWAY IMPROVEMENTS

H. Lali: It's becoming abundantly clear that the minister

has not travelled the Coquihalla Highway recently, because they're beginning to

call it the pothole highway.

Tuesday's budget was a big disappointment for my constituents,

especially those living in the Lillooet area. There's been nothing in the 2007

budget for rural British Columbia. The B.C. Liberals have yet again abandoned

residents living north and east of Hope when it comes to transportation needs

for the people.

My question is to the minister of potholes. Why does this

Liberal…?

Mr. Speaker: Member.

H. Lali: That would be the Minister of Transportation, hon.

Speaker. Why does this Liberal government continue to ignore the plight of

Lillooet-area residents by not putting funding into fixing Pioneer Road 40 and

also in finding a long-term solution to arresting the big slide on Highway 12

near Lillooet?

Hon. K. Falcon: The member opposite knows well, being a

former Minister of Transportation, that we have lots of asks across the

province, and one of the things we have to do is prioritize a lot of the asks.

We can't do everything, obviously, so we try to make sure we prioritize in terms

of the best returns in terms of safety. Public safety is always our number-one

issue.

The member refers to Highway 12. The member knows well that that's

been a challenge for many, many decades for all governments. It's not an easy

challenge. We've invested millions of dollars to try and secure that as best we

can. We've looked at options, including options to try and bypass that

particular area.

I don't want to pretend that this is not a huge engineering

challenge, and it's also a very huge expense for a highway that sees about 1,500

cars a day. It's a very low-volume highway. I have to make decisions based on

priority, as the member well knows.

Mr. Speaker: The member has supplemental.

H. Lali: Again, it's becoming abundantly clear that it's

not a priority for this Liberal government in terms of transportation in rural

British Columbia. I'd like to again ask you, hon. Speaker: why it is that these

Liberals keep trying to take credit for work that the previous NDP government

had done? He's talking about millions for work.

[1445]

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. Members.

H. Lali: It was this MLA, when he sat in that minister's

seat as the Minister of Transportation and Highways, that those millions he's

talking about…. That was the time that work was done under an NDP government in

the 1990s.

Now, while the B.C. Liberals have no problem….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. Continue.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

H. Lali: While the B.C. Liberals actually have no problem

pumping billions of dollars into transportation projects in the lower mainland

and the Sea to Sky Highway….

Interjections.

H. Lali: Again, by their applause they're making it clear

that the bucks stop when they get to Hope and they get to Lillooet in the

mountains. Meanwhile, my constituents keep waiting and waiting and waiting for

action from the B.C. Liberals. They have been waiting for six long years.

Again, my question is to the minister of highways. When will the

B.C. Liberals stop discriminating against rural British Columbia? When will this

Liberal government stop punishing constituencies that have voted NDP in the last

election and start funding highways work such as the Pioneer Road 40, the big

slide near Lillooet and the projects all across rural British Columbia?

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Member. Members.

Hon. K. Falcon: I would have thought that for his own sake,

the member wouldn't have gone there. If the member actually takes a look at our

budget over the last three years and the three years going forward, that member

will know almost two-thirds of all spending is outside the lower mainland of

British Columbia.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. K. Falcon: Whether it's the Kicking Horse Canyon,

whether it's the new five-lane William Bennett

[ Page 5482 ]

bridge or whether it's four-laning Highway 97, we are making improvements in

every part of this province, and we're proud of our record.

MOVE OF WILD DUCK INN FOR

PITT RIVER BRIDGE CONSTRUCTION

M. Farnworth: This past week the government proclaimed

Heritage Week in the province of British Columbia. My question is for the

Minister of Transportation. The current Pitt River Bridge that's being built has

required some land to complete the project. I know the minister has signed an

agreement. He has dealt with the issue, and I don't have an issue with that. But

on that particular piece of land is a very historic building in Port Coquitlam

called the Wild Duck Inn. The residents that were there have been moved and

relocated. That, again, is not where my question is going.

The owner of that building, which has just sold to the province of

British Columbia, has an adjacent piece of land. The building of concern has a

heritage designation. The city of Port Coquitlam, the local heritage community

and the owner of that building would like the ability to move that building from

its current site to his own site, not asking the province for money but, rather,

asking for the province's assistance in seeing if this can in fact take place.

My question to the minister is this. Will he work with that former

owner and the Heritage Society in Port Coquitlam to see if that building can in

fact be moved so that we can live up to the spirit of what we said in this House

regarding Heritage Week in British Columbia, which we declared this past week?

Hon. K. Falcon: I thank the Opposition House Leader for the

question. We certainly try to work very hard, as you know, especially in

situations like that, where we're going to have to use land that's currently

occupied by a building. I must be honest with the member and tell him that when

I heard it was a heritage site, I was a little surprised. I never thought of the

Wild Duck Inn as a heritage site, to be honest with you. But that's neither here

nor there. Apparently it is.

[1450]

I will say this to the member opposite. I'll look into that for

the member. My understanding is that there is a bit of a challenge in trying to

move it, because it is an old building. It may not even be practical, but I know

that staff is trying to work with the owner and also work with some of the

residents that live up above to make sure this is done in a way that minimizes

the impact as much as humanly possible. So I'll look into that for you.

GOVERNMENT TARGETS FOR

CLIMATE CHANGE INITIATIVES

S. Simpson: We saw in the budget that something less than

about 1/10 of 1 percent of budget spending is going to throne speech promises

for this year on climate change. This was confirmed. Essentially this is a

confirmation of what the Finance Minister has been saying about not being

prepared to fund a plan that has been cobbled together and lacks a lot of

substance at this point in time.

We also know that this isn't just a question of a vacancy of

substance in relation to the throne speech. We can also look at the service plan

of the Minister of Environment. In that service plan, I would note that there

are a series of core objectives of the ministry. One of those core objectives

has no key strategies and no performance measures at all — only one — and that

key objective would be climate change, where there is nothing but four

paragraphs of rhetoric.

The question I have is this. In the throne speech there was one

target established, and that's the target for 2020. I would like to know: will

the Minister of Environment release all the supporting documents, briefing notes

and analysis that resulted in that target being established, so that the people

of British Columbia can have some confidence that that number was established

based on some kind of depth of analysis?

Hon. B. Penner: Well, if anything's been cobbled

together, it's been this remarkably weak question period performance by the sad

NDP opposition.

Just a couple days ago….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. Members. Continue.

Hon. B. Penner: We already know what one of the world's

leading climatologists has had to say about our targets as laid out in the

throne speech for dealing with climate change. Prof. Andrew Weaver from the

University of Victoria, a Canada research chair in climatology and atmospheric

research, has indicated that it's an ideal plan. It's the plan he would have

chosen if he had been consulted. He said later on CKNW this week, which,

frankly, speaks very well to the work done by our staff in the Ministry of

Environment and across government….

I've heard the NDP's typical refrain — spend money before you have

a detailed plan — which reminds me a little bit of an idea of shooting before

you take the time to aim. That does tend to be the NDP's view of things.

This week on CKNW, here's what Professor Weaver had to say in

addition: "It's not just about spending a whole bunch of money. It's not about

taking a bunch of sticks and hitting people over the head with it. It's about

showing leadership." Mr. Speaker, that's what we're doing.

[End of question period.]

Orders of the Day

Hon. M. de Jong: Mr. Speaker, I call Motion 40 standing on the

order paper in my name.

[ Page 5483 ]

Motions on Notice

LEGISLATIVE SITTING HOURS

Hon. M. de Jong: The motion that I spoke of when I tabled

it last week….

[That the Standing Orders of the Legislative Assembly of British

Columbia be amended as follows for the duration of the Third Session of the

Thirty-eighth Parliament, commencing February 14, 2007:

1. That Standing Order 2 (1) is deleted and following

substituted:

Sittings

Daily sittings.

(1) The time for the ordinary meeting of the House

shall, unless otherwise ordered, be as follows:

Monday: Two distinct sittings:

10 a.m. to 12 noon

1:30 p.m. to 6:30 p.m.

Tuesday: Two distinct sittings:

10 a.m. to 12 noon

1:30 p.m. to 6:30 p.m.

Wednesday:

1:30 p.m. to 6:30 p.m.

Thursday: Two distinct sittings:

10 a.m. to 12 noon

1:30 p.m. to 6:30 p.m.

2. That Standing Order 3 be deleted and following substituted:

Hour of interruption.

3. If at the hour of 6:30 p.m. on any Monday, Tuesday,

Wednesday and Thursday, the business of the day is not concluded and no other

hour has been agreed on for the next sitting, the Speaker shall leave the Chair:

On Monday

until 10 a.m. Tuesday

On Tuesday

until 1:30 p.m. on Wednesday

On Wednesday

until 10 a.m. on Thursday

On Thursday

until 10 a.m. on Monday

subject to the provisions of Standing Order

2 (2) (b)]

I'll try to go through this in the classical "what, why

and how" process. What does it do? What is it? It's a sessional order.

[1455]

I'm going to take a moment to emphasize that fact, because I have

heard some grumblings about the fact that, oh, here's the government trying to

unilaterally amend the standing orders. That is not the case.

We have made procedural changes to the manner in which this House

operates — a great many since 2001 — and I think, by and large, those have been

favourably received and have functioned reasonably well. Some of those changes

relate to the calendar that we have, where there is greater certainty around the

time which the House will sit and not sit. There are changes that we've made as

recently as a couple of years ago relating to question period and the fact that

that has been extended.

Those have been changes that in some cases first appeared as

sessional orders and then evolved into actual amendments to the standing orders

themselves. In some cases they were actual changes to the standing orders.

What's being proposed here with Motion 40 is a sessional order — and I hope

members will hear this and will accept it — because this is an idea. It's an

idea that the government — the government caucus, to be fair — has about how

this place might function better, how the work here might get done better and

how a number of different interests might be served.

If it is accepted, if it is passed, it will be the order of

business for the length of the spring session, and at that point we'll assess.

We'll be interested to know what members thought about the change that was

captured by the sessional order, and we'll make a decision about whether or not

it worked well. If it did, we'll consider doing it again. If it didn't work so

well or if people had the idea that it didn't work as they thought it would,

then we'll make a decision on that basis. I wanted to emphasize that to members.

This is not a proposal to permanently amend the standing orders

that govern the workings of this House. It is a sessional order, obviously, that

deals with the sitting hours of the House.

I want to say this, and I'll say it as clearly, I hope, as I can.

This is not an attempt to trick anyone. This is not an attempt to make anyone's

life more difficult. In fact, it is an attempt to create a

schedule that works

better for members. That, I suppose, means that various members will have

different ideas. In our caucus they sure did, insofar as looking at whether or

not there should be night sittings. There was clearly an opinion about that.

But when I come in a moment to one of the guiding principles that

we tried to apply in crafting the motion for consideration by this House and

crafting the alternative that is being presented here today…. There was

certainly no shortage of ideas, and I suspect no shortage of ideas on the part

of the opposition benches, about how that might be done.

We have hours of operation that have governed this House. They've

changed. I won't take the credit for this. Some folks in my office helped me. We

did some research, looked back on some of the past practices. There has been a

variety of sitting hours for the House.

I have not been here the longest, but I have been here longer than

most, and I remember when the House sat on Fridays. The Opposition House Leader

remembers that. That sort of evolved. It was private members' day then, and we

did some work for an hour or two into the afternoon, and that changed.

What interested me is that as best as I could tell, based on the

research and going back, it wasn't until actually '01 — this administration —

that night sittings were formally contemplated by the standing orders. That

surprised me, because I'd been here through the better part of the '90s, and it

really was the norm.

[1500]

Now, there were no specific guidelines. As you moved through the

session, the House would start to sit till six and then 6:30 and seven, and as

you moved a little bit further along, eight or nine. Eventually you'd get to the

point where it was fairly normal to be sitting till ten or 11 o'clock. And as

you got to the very end of the session, it tended to sit a lot later than that.

[ Page 5484 ]

It wasn't actually until 2001 — and I think it was a sessional

order at that time that eventually evolved into an actual standing order — that

there was formal recognition of night sittings until nine o'clock. Before that

the latest the standing orders contemplated was Wednesday at seven o'clock. So

there's been a history of change and how this might work. This, I suppose,

follows in the footsteps of that.

So why look at this now? I hinted at this last week when I gave

notice or tabled the motion here. It's not really that complicated. The

government actually has set some leadership objectives around the notion of

healthy lifestyle, healthy living, and believes that this place should try to

lead by example. The people who work here, not just the members because we tend

to be — some of us, perhaps myself — a bit of a self-centred lot…. We think of

ourselves. But it takes a whole lot more than us to make this place tick. We

have staffs. We have the support staff in the building that are a key and

integral part of making this chamber and this institution function.

It struck the government that having people — many people who come

in at, some of them, 7:30, eight o'clock in the morning — here until nine or ten

o'clock at night probably wasn't the best or healthiest way to conduct business,

never mind the fact that members and the other people that I've mentioned who

work here have families. Most members have families elsewhere in the province.

Some have them in closer proximity to the precincts. Certainly, the people who

work here and the support staff do. There is an argument in favour of the notion

that they should be spending some time with those families in the way that we

expect most employees and workers do.

Those were influential in the government and the government caucus

coming to the conclusion that having the House sit, in this day and age, into

the night was not the best way and not the healthiest way to conduct business.

There are members here now who are actually leading by example, who want to go

and get some exercise. They want to go for a walk. They might want to go for a

run. They might want to go to the gym. They might curl. Whatever they do, they

may want to participate in some of those kinds of activities as well. When this

place sits, their priority is to be here — for both sides. That link with this

chamber is real for both sides.

That was determinative in coming to the conclusion that it was

time to examine, we thought, whether or not an alternative

schedule could be set

that did not involve sitting late into the evening. I will say this for the

information of members. I want to emphasize at the outset that this was not a

decision and this motion is not a function of some sort of fiscal analysis. But

I did ask the question.

I did ask to what extent night sittings add to the cost of

operating in this chamber and was told that it works out to about $12,500 a

night sitting, cumulative over a spring session — just about $250,000. I want to

say to all members that was not what drove the decision to bring this motion

forward, but it may be information members find useful to have in terms of the

costs associated with night sittings.

There was probably a time when it made sense. There was a time

when people would be elected here, come here in the winter or spring, and they

would stay here. They wouldn't travel around as much. There was a certain

stereotype perhaps, or tended to be almost, years ago: far more men and very few

women. The makeup of this chamber happily has changed. The age of the members

has changed and their family obligations. Our notion of what constitutes a

healthy lifestyle, I hope, has changed.

All of that has been instructive and influenced the government and

the government caucus in terms of bringing this motion forward.

[1505]

So if the decision was let's look at the night sittings and there

being, on the part of the government caucus, a lack of enthusiasm for continuing

them or at least trying to find an alternative to that, what was another guiding

principle? Well, the key one was that there could be no reduction, in our minds,

in the amount of time available for debate. Whatever change was made, the time

that would otherwise be available through those night sittings would have to be

made up otherwise.

I will share with members the calculation that I did to calculate

what that time represented. There are nine weeks in the spring session. Night

sittings don't start right away. They start after the throne and budget speeches

have taken place. In a typical week, night sittings would occur on the Monday

and the Wednesday. The House, over the past number of years, has tended to

adjourn at six o'clock and resume sitting at 6:45. So about 2¼ hours twice a

week — four and a half hours. So by my calculation, that meant that over the

life of the spring session, the elimination of night sittings would reduce the

debate time by 40½ hours.

[S. Hawkins in the chair.]

The challenge, then, was to come up with a

schedule that would

make up for that time. And, as I said, a whole range of options. I hope members,

particularly members opposite, will hear — I'm not sure they'll accept, but I

hope they'll hear — that those options included nothing more complicated than

simply starting at nine o'clock in the morning.

Now, most people would say: "Well, there's nothing unreasonable

about that." But some of us have been in opposition. We actually understand that

there are demands placed on opposition MLAs that extend to their constituencies

in the time this place sits, preparing for question period.

I can tell you this. If we went to the public tomorrow and said,

"The standing orders for this House have been adjusted so members will now sit

at 9 a.m.," I don't think very many people would be offended. I think most of

them think we do sit at 9 a.m.

But we said no. Based on other conversations I've had, that's

probably going to cause a little more anxiety on the other side of the chamber.

We don't want this to be that kind of an exercise.

[ Page 5485 ]

Ultimately, after some toing and froing, adjusting this, adjusting

that, we thought the simplest and the least disruptive way to make up that time

was to start half an hour earlier after lunch at 1:30 and sit half an hour later

— 1:30 to 6:30. By doing so, we gain four hours a week. If we'd started at the

outset, we'd have had 12 weeks. That would have been gaining 48 hours. It

actually would have given us more time to debate during the spring session.

Now we're two weeks into it. I'm not sure if this motion is going

to pass or when it's going to pass, but with ten weeks to go, that would leave

40 hours. So we'd be a half-hour shy based on the fact that we'd only have ten

weeks under the new schedule. I'm going to suggest to members that that, in my

view, should not be fatal to the willingness of the House to entertain this kind

of a change.

[1510]

We think that it is worth trying. We think it is worth taking one

session in which the overall time for debate won't be impacted or will be by 30

minutes only and, at the end of that, listening to members, hearing what they

say — how did it work, and how did it impact on them and their ability to do the

work? — and then making a decision.

I guess, as I wrap up, my contribution at this stage is to

emphasize the notion that we're hopeful that we can work with members. We've

made, as I said at the outset, a variety of changes, most of which I think have

worked very, very well. I gather from some of the commentary I've heard in the

short time that I've been on my feet that there will be allegations of nefarious

attempts to somehow prevent or pervert the opposition's ability to do its work.

That is not the intention at all. Not at all.

I hope that members will examine this and accept that it is a

reasonable attempt to make an adjustment, to make a change — a change around

night sittings that actually was formalized in the standing orders five years

ago — but to do so in a way that is reasonable, responsible, well considered and

— at the end of an initial experiment, if you will — will be worthy of review by

all of the members of the chamber so that we can decide whether it is worth

pursuing.

Those are my introductory comments.

M. Farnworth: It's my pleasure to rise and respond to the

motion and the comments of my colleague across the way. I want to address a

number of the points that he made because I think it's important. This is about

change, and I take him at his word that he's not…. This isn't about doing

something nefarious. But the fact is that this change does have some important

consequences in how the opposition does its job.

It also, I think, has some important consequences in terms of how

we make changes in this chamber, which is all of our chamber. It's not just the

government's chamber. It's not just the opposition's chamber. It's the chamber

for all members in this House. What's important is that we make changes on the

rules in this place by consensus.

My colleague across the way talked about previous parliaments —

the sitting hours and how they've changed over the years. They have, in fact,

changed. We did used to sit on Fridays. That change took place, but on the

Fridays we started at the same time we start each day now, whether it's at ten

o'clock or two o'clock in the afternoon. We would go to night sittings as we

would start our way through the session. We would proceed, and we would start

night sittings at seven, and we would go at nine.

He is correct. They were not formalized. But the decision and the

timing of night sittings always took place in consultation between the

government and the opposition, and there was a recognition by both government

and opposition that, in fact, we would be going to night sittings. Members knew

that night sittings were coming, and they would plan accordingly. Members are

down here for the week.

We would proceed with night sittings, and night sittings would be,

once we were all into them, Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday — four

nights a week — from whence they started to when the session ended. The session

would start in the spring, and it would go, quite often, until well into summer,

sometimes into August. We didn't have the breaks that we have now. We didn't

have the shortened week which we have now.

I would agree that that was onerous in terms of members' ability

to lead a healthy lifestyle, but that was the calendar at that time. Those were

the rules that were in place at that time. The changes that took place, and when

night sittings would come into effect, were done because both government and

opposition would consult and say, "Okay, we're ready to do this now," and then

it would be done on that basis.

[1515]

The government changed in 2001, and a new set of rules were

brought in place. A number of these changes were discussed prior to 2001 with a

look to implement them. It didn't take place, but that discussion had been

underway. The creation of a new calendar, I think, has been received in a

positive way by members — both government and opposition.

On the issue. As the government says, it's about a healthy

lifestyle. Well, that is a significant improvement. I mean, we had night

sittings Monday and Wednesday — no longer four times a week but now twice a week

— scheduled, no longer the Friday sitting and with weeks in between so that,

depending on the year and the calendar and when Easter falls, you would be

sitting for three weeks, a week off back in your constituency, sit for another

three weeks and a week or two weeks off over Easter.

That's a lot of break time. That's a lot of time that most people

— most working people and most business people — don't get to plan a

schedule

like that. We have that luxury. We're busy during those times, no doubt about

it, but those breaks occur. The calendar that we have in place now is a lot more

civilized than what used to be in place.

The other thing that occurred was a formalized fall sitting in

terms of how things would operate. There

[ Page 5486 ]

would be a fall sitting. The government and the opposition disagree on the

nature of that fall sitting, but clearly, the provision is there for a fall

sitting, which again allows a considerable amount of time, in a very orderly

fashion, for government work and business to be done.

I make those points because I believe it's important that we

understand what we used to do and what we do now.

Now, the issue at hand from the government perspective is a

healthy lifestyle. Okay, fine, but the reality is that adjourning at 6:30 is….

The Government House Leader may not want to go, and he may well be able to say

that he will not attend or go, but I guarantee it that that time he now talks

will be freed up to pursue a healthy lifestyle will, without a doubt, be filled

with meetings that are scheduled by his staff, by the Premier's office, by the

Leader of the Opposition's staff and by our own staff.

If anybody thinks that adjourning at 6:30 is going to somehow free

up hours for them to go and lead a healthy lifestyle, they are dreaming because

the schedulers who control our lives will see it as a block of free time, and

they will fill it up.

They will fill it up with what they perceive to be important

business. Guess what it is? Maybe it is important business, or maybe it's

busywork. I don't know. But I know one thing: it will not be as important as the

business we do in this chamber, which is the people's business, and that's what

we are here for. I think we need to bear that in mind.

The other thing that I think we need to recognize…. My colleague

the Government House Leader has said: "Okay, the time — we're not losing time.

The time will still be the same." In fact, according to his calculations, under

the way it's done now, we would get an additional 30 minutes. Well, we need to

look at that, and we need to examine that.

If, at the beginning of the session, that's in place — okay. There

may be some additional time. But here's the challenge of the work we do, and how

it's done. We come in, and we do throne speech and budget speech all at the

beginning. The real work in terms of scrutiny of government actions, government

estimates and government legislation takes place after the throne speech and the

budget debate days are finished and dealt with.

[1520]

By removing the time from finishing those night sittings and

front-end loading that time at the beginning of the session, in essence you are

shortchanging the ability of the opposition to scrutinize government estimates

and government legislation.

Now, that might not be so bad if I felt, and if we as an

opposition felt, that there would be a fall session. But the fact is that there

is no guarantee there will be a fall session. We didn't have one last year —

well, apart from an initial day stretched to four days.

J. Horgan: Truncated.

M. Farnworth: Truncated, as my….

J. Horgan: Moth-eaten.

M. Farnworth: Truncated or moth-eaten — unlike your suit,

hon. Member.

A truncated session. So what happens is that the time that we do

know we have as an opposition is important. I mean, if there was a guarantee

that there was a fall session, hey, maybe things would be different. But there

isn't.

The time that's available to the opposition is extremely

important, particularly when we see what, in the case of the throne speech,

appears to be — if the government follows through on all the issues that it has

raised in the throne speech — a very busy legislative calendar with potentially

a great deal of legislation that needs the scrutiny and needs the debate. It's

important that we have the ability to do that. The same applies to the estimates

process.

While there may not be a net loss of time and depending on when

things come into place…. The fact is that by front-end loading that time, you're

actually taking away time from what we would argue is the most important part of

the session.

The other issue that I think is important to note is that with the

calendar changes and the fact that we have not been sitting in the fall, we

already have the shortest, or one of the shortest, sitting Legislatures in the

country. I mean, in 1998, I think it was, we sat for more than 190 days. This

past year I think it was 47 sitting days we had. Anyway, it's significantly

shorter than what it used to be. Again, if we had a fall session, I might be

more receptive.

In terms of options…. I know the Government House Leader and I

talked about this particular issue. I know that some of the original proposals….

This motion that he's tabled before us is different from what some of the

government's initial proposals were. But they also, I think, miss what could

have been a very doable option that would have been able to achieve the

government's goal.

If they want to eliminate night sittings, they could have said,

"Okay, how much time do we eliminate by night sittings?" and then said in the

number of hours what that is in days or weeks, and attach that to the end of the

session. Saying that we will extend the session by this many days to make up for

the time would have been something the opposition would have been open to.

Now, in the same way that there are downsides for the opposition

in what the government is proposing now in terms of our ability to scrutinize

legislation and estimates, to be fair — and I want to be fair in this — that

would have had a downside for the government in the sense that it would have

meant more sitting days, which would have meant more question periods, which

would have meant ministers having to be more accountable.

I know that governments don't like the idea of unnecessary

question periods if they don't have to have them. But that was another way in

which we could have dealt with the issue.

[1525]

The other point the Government House Leader raises is that we've

just moved things back a half an

[ Page 5487 ]

hour. If we changed it to nine o'clock, the public would be happy. The public

would be fine if we started at nine o'clock, and fully expect us…. You know,

they start at nine. Hey, why don't we start at nine? The fact is, we do start

well before nine — not in here but certainly in the work around this building.

That applies not just to opposition but also to government.

One of the nice things about night sittings — and I'd just like to

point it out at this particular point — is that night sittings allow something

that starting at nine doesn't allow for. It allows for those men and women, and

kids in some cases, across this province who do like to follow what's going on

in the Legislature, in the legislative chamber, to watch it on the parliamentary

channel.

Now, I know it doesn't have the world's largest ratings — not like

Canadian Idol or some other shows that are on TV, but it does get a

consistent…. There is a loyal following, and people do channel-surf, and they do

watch what's going on. Having it on between seven and nine, it's amazing how

many people do see even just a small part of what we do. They see the work that

takes place in here, and I believe that that's important.

But I digress, and I'd like to come back to what I think is the

key point around that and one of our key concerns. It relates to the House

Leader's comments around starting at nine and just moving things a half an hour.

That half an hour does have a big impact on the opposition's ability to do its

job, and I will also argue that it will have an unintended consequence, too, on

the government side.

Those consequences are this: everything backs up a half an hour.

It impacts, in terms of in the morning around question period and in terms of

the work that's taking place. This is the key function of opposition in holding

government to account — that you now have to move and start a half an hour

early.

Both government and opposition have their caucus meetings directly

before two o'clock, when the House starts. Opposition caucus starts at one and

goes till two. Now you will see that government and opposition caucuses will be

starting at 12:30 and going to 1:30. You're going to find that this place is a

lot more pressure on members, particularly when you have visiting delegations

and constituents who are here. Many of us, when we're here, have lunch with

constituents — people who come down to see us here. You're going to find that

that significantly impacts on members' ability to deal with constituents on that

informal basis. That's important.

The second point is that it squeezes the time that opposition has

available for it to do the work that it needs to do in the morning around

preparations for the afternoon session.

Those points that I have made…. The opposition has an important

role to do in this place and that this impinges on that. When we have made

changes in this chamber, it has been on the basis of consensus as opposed to the

imposition of majority. We already have a very civilized calendar that is a

significant improvement over the way we used to do things. We can have a healthy

lifestyle and still work Mondays and Wednesdays between seven and nine.

I think it would be far more unhealthy if we start doing away with

night sittings and those times get filled with meetings.

[1530]

Our work is here. Our job is to do the people's business. The

calendar works well the way it is now. We do not need to change it, and we

certainly should not change it by imposition as opposed to consensus.

This side of the House will not be supporting this motion, and I

now take my seat.

A. Dix: I rise to speak in opposition to the motion

presented by the Government House Leader. As the member for Port Coquitlam–Burke

Mountain — the Opposition House Leader — has said, in terms of the fundamental

rules of parliament, one of the ways that they work is when we operate and work

by consensus.

When fundamental rules about House schedules are changed by

legislative dictate, by the use of the majority in the Legislature, I would

suggest — at least from my experience and understanding with the traditions of

the Legislature — that to impose significant changes to our

schedule over the

objections of the opposition and over the objections of a significant minority

in the Legislature is contrary to parliamentary traditions.

It has not occurred this way. In fact, members will recall that

when significant changes were made in the past — the change that allowed us to

go into Committee of Supply in two places, in the Douglas Fir Room and here —

those changes were recommended and brought in jointly by both the government and

the opposition.

The Government House Leader refers to the situation that occurred

prior to 2001. The reality of the situation prior to 2001 was that much of the

House agenda, much of the House time and much of the timing of sessions was

dictated by the opposition under the rules that existed. I would suggest to you

that if the government at that time had acted — when the Government House Leader

was on the opposition side — in imposing rules, in limiting debate and imposing

systematic rules of closure around sessions, that opposition would have gone not

just a little bit wild. They would have gone berserk.

The rules, the respect of the opposition that they expected when

they were on this side of the House, don't apply any longer. If they want to

change the hours of the Legislative Assembly that apply to every member, they do

it. They drive it over us, and when they don't agree with our suggestions, they

impose their agenda. That's their approach to these issues.

We've gone from a time when the opposition had a very important

role in setting the

schedule and in many ways defined the length of those

sessions and was allowed unlimited debate on estimates and virtually unlimited

debate on legislation, a time when closure was almost never used, to a time when

the government is imposing restrictions on the Legislature — even in a

Legislature which has the least number of sitting days in western Canada, where

sitting days were restricted in the spring to allow for a fall sitting to deal

with legislation, and the fall sitting was cancelled.

[ Page 5488 ]

We don't agree with the proposal by the Government House Leader.

The Government House Leader said, in preparing this sessional motion, that it

was a wash and that they were not taking away hours of debate. I know that the

Government House Leader wouldn't do this intentionally, but this simply is not

the case. It is not the case.

This sessional order was introduced and prepared for debate on

Tuesday. It's been brought for debate on Thursday. If it is brought in, we will

have in this session a reduction in the number of hours for debate and a much

more significant reduction in the number of hours for estimates debate. That is

because the Government House Leader's calculations are based on this being

brought in at the beginning of the session.

In fact, we lose five hours of debate with this motion on a

restricted schedule. If this motion comes into place on Monday, we do indeed.

The Government House Leader and I, I'm sure…. I'll be happy to share those

calculations with the Government House Leader. In fact, we do. His figures are

based on these rules being brought in place at the start of the session, which

started last week. That's certainly what he said last Thursday.

[1535]

I say with great respect that we'll be happy to talk about it with

the Government House Leader. This means fewer hours than the current model —

five fewer hours and a further four fewer hours for estimates and legislative

debate. Those hours are essentially transferred to the debate at the beginning

of the session with respect to the throne speech and the budget debate.

In my view, this is an imposition on an already reduced House

calendar by the majority in the Legislature — contrary to the tradition of the

Legislature — over the opposition that reduces our opportunity to hold the

government accountable. We don't even know at this point because often the

government promises legislation in the throne speech that it then fails to

deliver.

All members will recall the throne speech last session promising

important amendments with respect to criminal-record checks regarding children,

which were promised, which were said to be important, which were in the throne

speech. Legislation was promised. None was brought forward in the spring, none

was brought forward in the fall, and it's not even mentioned in this year's

throne speech.

We're never sure whether the heavy legislative agenda calendar is

to be expected or not from the government side, but the fact of the matter is

that with no commitment to a fall sitting and with what appears to be a heavier

legislative calendar, there will be greatly reduced opportunities to take

part

in estimates debate.

This proposal, imposed by the majority of the Legislature against

the traditions of parliament, will further reduce the opportunity of opposition

members and even government members to hold the government accountable during

estimates debate. Now, it's not for me to judge the motives of the government in

doing that. I respect what the Government House Leader says about his motives,

but that is the consequence of what they are doing. The consequence of what they

are doing is to deny the opposition those opportunities and the people those

opportunities to see questions responded to.

What it will lead to, especially if the Government House Leader

continues not to give any commitments with regard to a fall sitting, is closure

and a lack of scrutiny on significant legislation and less scrutiny on

estimates. I don't think that the people who send us here think it's

unreasonable that we give full scrutiny to estimates and legislation. I don't

think that the people who send us here think that fewer hours for estimates and

legislative debate on very important issues to members on all sides of the House

is the way we should go. I don't think that's a reasonable approach.

If the government's intent is in fact to eliminate night sittings

and talk to the opposition and come to an agreement, they should do that. That's

not what they're doing. They're coming in here, they're imposing their agenda,

they're using their majority in this Legislature, and they're saying: "This is

the way it's going to be."

The sessional order — maybe. But the sessional order, I suspect,

will beget more sessional orders, and non-consultation will beget more

non-consultation and this imposition of an effort that denies the people of

British Columbia reasonable access to and reasonable accountability of their

government.

I don't think that it's overly painful or that it should be overly

painful for government ministers to respond to questions in estimates. I don't

think it should be overly painful for government ministers to in fact respect

the existing calendar and to sit down and deal with members of the opposition on

these issues.

We have a budget process where very significant questions need to

be asked. In fact, as the Minister of Health knows, we don't even know what the

budget will be in some health regions, and we won't know — that won't be

finalized — until after the beginning of the fiscal year.

I think it's unreasonable for government ministers and government

members to stand up and say that they want to impose a proposal that denies and

reduces the number of hours we have for estimates. I think the people of British

Columbia should reasonably be able to ask questions, and I think that the

Minister of Health should reasonably have an excellent opportunity to answer all

of those questions, as I'm sure he will attempt to do.

I don't think, therefore, that those of us who believe that this

is our House — all of our House — can accept the government acting in as

capricious a way as they are acting here.

The further thing I would say about the effort to end night

sittings…. The member from Port Coquitlam addressed this. I think that it's not

unreasonable, from time to time, for working people to have the right to see

their Legislatures perform their duties and see estimates debate in the

Legislature.

I agree that everyone will say…. There's always much smiling about

the ratings of legislative TV, but as members will know…. I don't know if this

is true of members of the government side. It always amazes me

[ Page 5489 ]

how many people do watch and do comment and do respond, both positively and

negatively, to what we do in here.

[1540]

Sometimes they're grazing; sometimes they're not. But I think it

is a reasonable thing, from time to time, for us to sit in hours when working

people can see us perform our duties. I don't think that having a couple of

night sittings a week, when maybe people who are concerned about the health care

system or who work in the health care system can see the Minister of Health

respond to questions in estimates, is an unreasonable thing.

Given the shortness of the session, given the fact that the

government rules, in fact, have created shorter sessions in British Columbia….

The government's decision not to have fall sittings has created shorter sessions

in British Columbia — sessions and timetables which, while very good in

maintaining the regularity of lives, depend on the use of closure at the end of

sessions if adequate time for debate is not provided.

I think we are entering into a very unfortunate time, a time when

the rights of parliament are being narrowed and minimized and the opportunities

for the opposition to hold the government accountable narrowed and minimized.

I want to remind people that this has been a pattern of behaviour.

This is a pattern of behaviour. We've had a situation in British Columbia where

over the last year we've had an acting Auditor General imposed by a majority

against the spirit of the Auditor General Act. For the Auditor General Act, for

independent officers of the Legislature, for our parliamentary system to work

there has to be a modicum of respect for the rules of parliament.

When we pass a law that says independent officers of the

Legislature must be recommended by unanimous vote of a committee and the

Legislature and then the government decides to use a loophole they've created to

run right through that, that's not good for parliament. When we should be

deciding these important questions about our lives which affect us all, in

consultation and with agreement of all sides, instead the government imposes

rules that reduce our opportunity to debate and hold it accountable.

The government should not be imposing motions which change the

rules, which make them less accountable. That hurts their credibility in the

long run, and it hurts this institution.

That's why we on this side will be opposing this effort to

restrict debate. That's why we on this side of the House believe it's a bad

idea. That's why we on this side of the House believe that if the government

reasonably wants to deal with people's lifestyles, then it should actually put

something forward that would help us to do that — even if it costs them a week

or two more of question periods, even if they have to submit themselves to that

for a week or two more.

These principles have guided legislatures for a very long time —

these principles of respect for the institution and respect for the minority in

parliament, no matter what the size of that minority, and these rules of respect

which this government has consistently not shown over time but has committed

itself to changing as recently as the throne speech in 2005.

We all know that in spite of the fact that in 2001 hundreds of

thousands of people voted for the New Democratic Party, they were denied party

status in this Legislature by the decision of the Government House Leader. I

think, at that time, and strangely enough….

Interjection.

A. Dix: The Government House Leader laughs. I know it's

hilarious, but I think actually — and I say this genuinely to them — those

decisions hurt the government's side and hurt the respect that the government's

side had. I think when the government side acts to impose an Auditor General, it

hurts respect for the government's side.

I think that when the government side acts to impose new rules

that reduce the access of the opposition, reduce the hours of scrutiny of

estimates, it hurts the government's side too because it is important in a

democratic society for the majority to respect the minority. That is the

greatness, I'd argue, of our system.

[1545]

When those ideas are thrown away, it is important. It is important

when they're thrown away in small ways — when those rights are reduced in small

ways — and in big ways. It's our responsibility as members of the Legislature —

not just members of the executive council but all members of the Legislature.

It's important when we make decisions about that to remember that

all of us in our lifetimes have seen alternates in Legislatures. All of us have

been in opposition, and sometimes our side wins, and sometimes our side loses.

We should not impose rules when we win that would be unacceptable when we lose.

These institutions are here. They are bigger than us. We must respect them. We

must continue to do that.

That's why I ask members on the government side to withdraw this

motion. That's why I ask the Government House Leader to sit down with the

Opposition House Leader and for us as members of the Legislature, if we're going

to change our schedule, not to do it by the imposition of the majority reducing

the rights of the minority but rather by sitting down in consultation and making

those decisions. That was the spirit of what was presented to us after the 2005

election.

I think we have tried on this side of the House to engage in that.

Sometimes we don't succeed as well as we should. I think that the government in

recent times has failed to respect some of the commitments they've made,

particularly around some of these issues around the Auditor General. I think

that's a dangerous direction, particularly around denying the opportunity of the

MLAs in British Columbia to have a fall sitting, which was contemplated when the

rules were changed, and in reducing the number of sitting days by the decision

of the Government House Leader. I think all these things are unhealthy for

democracy in British Columbia.

[ Page 5490 ]

I ask the Government House Leader, I ask members of this House,

and I ask the members on the government side not in cabinet. I know that as

frustrated as opposition MLAs are about being heard, sometimes not being heard

is also felt on the part of government MLAs not in cabinet. I ask them to

consider that we are part of a parliamentary tradition that started before we

were here and that will continue after we are here.

We have a duty to be good custodians of that tradition, and the

imposition of these kinds of rules by majority in this Legislature is

inconsistent with that tradition. I ask members of the House to reject this

motion by the Government House Leader.

Hon. G. Abbott: Thank you for the opportunity to briefly

provide my submission with respect to Motion 40.

I do want to thank the Opposition House Leader and the opposition

Health critic for their comments. I think they displayed plenty of passion and

plenty of interest in this important subject. However, I would submit that much

of the arguments they made in support of their submission that we should not

proceed with Motion 40 are extraneous to the issue at hand.

We have heard some lofty rhetoric — certainly a lot of that lofty

rhetoric cloaked in noble sentiments about legislatures and parliaments and all

of that. That's great. But I was reminded, really, of one of my kids at a

birthday party frantically trying to persuade me that he didn't want to have

another piece of birthday cake. I think that's what this is about.

The opposition members, I think, welcome this motion. They will

never admit that they welcome this motion. They know as well as we do that this

is a step in the right direction in terms of having a legislative life that is

more consistent with healthy lives for the people who are fortunate enough to be

members of the Legislature and the staff who serve us in this building. So I

salute the arguments that have been made, but I'm finding them unconvincing at

this point.

Motion 40 is about a sessional order, as the Government House

Leader noted. It is not a change to the standing orders. This is a sessional

order. This is an opportunity for us to test-drive a change in the hours this

House will sit, to see whether it better fits in terms of our legislative lives

and whether it better fits in terms of our personal lives.

I believe that it will. I am entirely confident that it will, and

I think it is entirely consistent with the many steps that our government has

undertaken in terms of expanding — doubling, in fact — the length of question

period and many other changes that have been made, which I think have made this

House a better place.

[1550]

I think the members opposite know in their hearts that this change

will make this place a better place as well. I know I've talked to many of the

members across the floor about this in the past, and I know that they do feel

that way.

This deals with sitting hours. As the Government House Leader

pointed out, if this sessional order were to proceed today or on Monday, the

loss would be, at this point, one half-hour over the course of the session. If

it had been passed earlier on, it would have involved actually the addition of a

few hours to the sitting hours in this chamber.

It's not an issue, clearly, around the number of sitting hours.

This motion is about a modest, and I would underline modest, change to the

sitting hours of this Legislature.

We have to ask ourselves: is it a good idea, generally speaking,

to do away with those evening sittings? As all members know, we break for dinner

normally about five minutes to six and sometimes ten minutes to six. We rush

down to the dining room, and we quickly try to eat a dinner. Often we're

stuffing it in ourselves and trying to get back here for 6:45 so that we can sit

through until nine o'clock in the evening.

Why change that? Why would we want to do that? Well, I think there

are lots of great reasons why we would want to do that. My experience in this

chamber goes back to 1996 — not as long as the Government House Leader, not as

long as the Opposition House Leader, but back a considerable distance. I can

tell you that this is a change that I welcome, that my family would welcome,

that the staff who serve us in this building would welcome. I don't know why I

keep coming up with the old Participaction motto of "A step in the right

direction," but it clearly is a step in the right direction.

Perhaps the Participaction motto is not entirely out of line given

that I think this change really will allow us to lead healthier lifestyles than

we currently do. I have seen lots of people who have sat in this chamber since

1996 go through the long sessions. By the end of it, we're dragged out, our

health is diminished. The time that we should be getting out and going for a

walk, going to the gym, getting some recreation, some exercise and leading

healthier lifestyles is really diminished by those evening sittings.

I think that one of the points that the Government House Leader

made is really central here. The character of this chamber has changed greatly,

even in the 11 years that I've been here. It certainly has changed dramatically

from 20 years ago and 30 years ago. If we want women, and particularly women

with adolescent or young children, to have an opportunity to serve in this

chamber and then not have them have an opportunity to see their kids in the

evening…. It makes this an unfriendly environment in terms of welcoming people

who have young families and who want to have some family life with those

families.

It does give us an opportunity to have a life, and the members

opposite are right when they say: "Of course, work goes on in and around this

chamber when it's not sitting." We all have meetings, both when the House is

sitting, before the House is sitting and sometimes after the House is sitting.

But this change would provide us with an opportunity to in some instances catch

up on constituency issues, in other cases to actually have an opportunity to see

young families in the evenings.

It would, I think, just as importantly offer up an opportunity for

the people who serve us so well in this

[ Page 5491 ]

building to have more family time through the months of February through June

as well. I think that's key.

[1555]

There will be no reduction in terms of the House debate. That

point has been made, and it does provide us with an opportunity to make this

House a friendlier, more welcoming place for a lot of people who might be

considering at some point serving in this assembly.

The opposition has raised several concerns during their two

presentations here, and I want to talk about that a little bit. The opposition

said that this was not developed by consensus, and they complained about the

absence of consultation.

I think that really what they're talking about is that they want

to have unanimity around this point. In fact, I understand that the Government

House Leader has consulted, and people shouldn't mistake consultation for

everyone agreeing.

I think the arguments here are very sound for this change, and I

don't believe in any way that it affects the ability of the opposition to do

their work. They will have just as many hours to do their work as they would

under the earlier rules, and they will have much more of a life beyond this

chamber as well, which I think is a very good thing.

The Opposition House Leader noted that the current calendar is a

lot more civilized than the old days. Well, that's true. It is a lot more

civilized than the old days, and this change will make it even more civilized

than the old days. That is a key thing that we all need to understand. It will

be a more civilized place than where we were.

The other arguments that were made, which I think I understood….

The Opposition House Leader said if we adjourn at 6:30 that will lead to our

calendars being filled up for the evening by other meetings. Well, I think at

least I still have some modest control over my schedule. Certainly, if there are

things that I want to do other than have meetings, I still have the opportunity

to do that.

But when this House sits, I typically do not have a choice of

whether I see my family, or get physical exercise, or undertake some activity

outside of this chamber. I'm not buying that we are somehow better off sitting

because others control our schedules and therefore will fill it all up on us

anyway.

[H. Bloy in the chair.]

The other point the Opposition House Leader made, and I think the

Health critic made this as well, was that this change would have some impact on

estimates and bills — how they would consider or the time that they would be

able to spend on estimates or bills as the session rolled on. Front-loading, I

believe, he referred to as the concern.

Well, it is the opposition that decides how much time is going to

be spent on a particular ministry's estimates or a particular bill that is

advanced from the government benches. It's not the government that decides that.

If the opposition decides they want to spend three-quarters of their time — as I

hope they will — on Ministry of Health estimates, I'd welcome that.

That's a decision that the opposition will make. If they think

debating Health is more important than debating some other area of public

policy, that's a decision they make. Health estimates go on as long as they wish

them to go on.

Similarly, how long they want to debate a bill within the context

of the overall hours is their decision as well. I don't understand that

argument, and I don't accept that argument.

[1600]

I think the last point I heard from the opposition benches was

that if this House adjourned at 6:30, it would somehow rob the province of the

opportunity to witness us in action in this chamber in the evening. Well, I

guess what I would point out is that our proceedings are rebroadcast every

evening on television — I'm sure to a vast audience among those who are keen to

watch it.

[S. Hammell in the chair.]

The rebroadcast, I believe, begins at seven o'clock. You can

rewatch, relive, those impassioned moments of question period. After that you

can watch as the other proceedings continue well on into the evening and perhaps

even after midnight, for those who really want to live it up in this province.

So I don't accept that the legislative channel is going to be necessarily a

change that's to the detriment. In fact, people will be able to watch the

proceedings of this House as they will be able to tonight.

In closing, the change that would be produced by Motion 40 will

still leave us with 24 hours in the day. We still will have some choice about

how we spend those 24 hours of our days. Individual members will make decisions

about how they would spend those evening hours that would otherwise be part of

the ongoing work of the assembly in the evening, but staff who otherwise would

not have a choice in that matter will have an opportunity to see their families.

They will have an opportunity to make decisions about personal time, whether in

physical activity or other activities, and I believe this House will be a better

place for it.

I believe this Legislature — the members of the Legislature and

the people who work in and around this assembly — will be better off for Motion

L. Krog: I must say, I am somewhat surprised to hear the

Minister of Health today describe the speech given by the member for

Vancouver-Kingsway, which I thought was one of the finest addresses I've heard

in this House in my time, somehow as rhetoric — lofty rhetoric, I believe he

described it as being — and impugning, frankly, the motives of the members on

this side of the House with respect to this party's position and this

opposition's position on this particular motion.

I want to begin by disagreeing somewhat with the member for Port

Coquitlam–Burke Mountain, my hon. House Leader. He said that this is not just

the govern-

[ Page 5492 ]

ment's place, and it's not just the opposition's place; it's our place. I

would respectfully disagree and argue that it is the citizens' place.

This place belongs to the people of British Columbia. They give us

great honour and great privilege by sending us here to represent them, and I am

conscious every time I stand in this House of that great honour and privilege.

It is worthwhile considering here today, as we debate this motion,

the history of this place. When W.A.C. Bennett was Premier, there was no

Hansard. There was no question period. He called the House early, after new

year, drove it till it was done, and everybody went home. That was it. There was

no allowance to run constituency offices, unless of course you were extremely

wealthy and this was just a place to play.

All of those reforms occurred after 1972, when Dave Barrett became

Premier. We got a Hansard — probably one of the last parliaments in the British

Commonwealth to get a Hansard. Members' incomes were substantially increased.

They were given constituency allowances, because the message being sent at that

time by that government was that what took place in this chamber was important.

This is the people's chamber. This is the citizens' forum. This is the place

where people who have elected government also get to elect an opposition to hold

that government to account constantly.

[1605]

The very fact that we have a parliament is based on the concept

that instead of warring with each other over how to direct the societies in

which we live, we would get together to talk.

I'm sure the members opposite know that the term "parliament"

comes from the French parler — to speak, to talk. As much as I got

elected to do a number of things as the representative of my constituency — I

got elected to deal with their problems at home; I got elected to attend the

general meetings of organizations in my constituency; I got elected to deal with

local problems; I got elected to be their representative — most importantly, I

got elected to talk, to speak on their behalf in this place about issues of

concern to them.

One of the great reforms that the NDP brought in, in addition to

Hansard and to question period, was the information and privacy act. It was this

party that gave this place and the members in it the opportunity to obtain

access to government documents that were never available before in order for

them to do their job on behalf of the people who elect them — to scrutinize the

government.

It was an opportunity, frankly, that we gave to members opposite,

like the Minister of Health when he was elected — an opportunity, if you will,

that we gave to the Government House Leader.

I gave credit, and I have given credit in this House, to the

reform that was brought in when this government was elected in 2001 when it went

to a fixed sitting schedule. I must say, on a personal basis, that I was never

pleased, if you will, or supportive of the concept of calling a Legislature in

the spring and having it drive itself until the opposition got tired and went

home.

If you want to talk about an unhealthy lifestyle, which the

Minister of Health referred to earlier today, that was unhealthy. Everyone

acknowledged it was unhealthy, and particularly, it was unhealthy for the

members of the opposition.

This government brought in the reform of a fixed sitting

schedule

by agreement with the members of the opposition, because this is a civilized

place. We don't make war on each other. We come here, and we talk. We come here

to address the issues of concern to our constituents.

Part of that arrangement — the deal, if you will — was a fall

sitting. In agreeing to a fixed sitting

schedule — in other words, agreeing to

give up that right to speak until the opposition got tired and went home — the

deal was that you'd have a spring sitting and a fall sitting, and the people

would get their opportunity.

The fact is that it is clear now that this government has no

intention of honouring the deal they made six years ago. Today, before this

House, is a motion, which you can colour and change and describe any way you

want, but the net effect of it is this government imposing on the opposition,

over the opposition's objections, rules about how we get to conduct the people's

business in this House as it is our sworn opportunity and obligation to do — and

that is to oppose government. That's what an opposition does. It opposes the

government. It's a long, honourable tradition established through hundreds of

years of the development of parliamentary democracy.

When I hear the Minister of Health describe what's been said on

this side of the House as somehow lofty rhetoric, comparing it to some charming

story about a kid's birthday cake, I suspect that what we're really talking

about is a complete disrespect of the traditions of this institution. It's the

kind of arrogance governments that have been in power too long develop, when

they think they can just run this place like their private playground and forget

the objections of the people on this side of the House, who happen to represent

hundreds of thousands of British Columbians who don't agree with what goes on,

on that side of the House.

[1610]

If I believed for one moment that this was about healthy

lifestyles, I might actually have accepted the words spoken by the members

opposite. But if you want to have a really healthy lifestyle, if that's the goal

of coming to this place, then why don't we have a fall sitting? Why don't we on

this side of the House trust the government to guarantee that there would be a

fall sitting every year, in which this opposition could do its job and hold this

government to account — hold them to account during question period and

criticize the legislation that comes before this place? If they were really

sincere about a healthy lifestyle, that's what we'd be doing.

If they were sincere about a healthy lifestyle, the House Leader

would have brought in a motion on their side that said this place would shut

down at five o'clock so that, notwithstanding what I regard as a bit of sexism

on the part of the Minister of Health and his

[ Page 5493 ]

remarks, not only mothers but fathers could go home early and see their

children at five o'clock.

This isn't about healthy lifestyle, and the importance of this

debate for me is not about whether we're even here another half-hour later in

the evening and start a half-hour earlier in the afternoon. It is about respect

for this institution and its traditions. It is about respect for the opposition

and the role that we play in this place. It's unprecedented to impose a change

in rules over the objections of the opposition. Some day the members on the

government side of the House will be sitting over on our side of the House.

I see that the minister shakes his head in amazement, but I would

remind the hon. minister that hubris, that great pride, always goeth before the

fall. The history of British Columbia is that people who sit on one side at some

point end up on the other side. That is the inevitable sway of history. But I

suspect that the reaction I've just seen also reflects again the arrogance, the

overweening arrogance, of this government that thinks that it can impose its

will on this place over the objections of the opposition.

They've got the numbers. This vote will probably go in their

favour, not surprisingly, unless there's some miracle that occurs in this place

today. But if this, as I say, were about healthy living, I would suggest to the

members opposite that you don't go into public life to get healthy. You've

chosen the wrong occupation.

You go into public life to do something good for the public. You

go into public life to make this province a better place to live. You don't go

into public life in order to get out of here so that you can catch a helijet to

Vancouver in the evening. You go into public life to do the people's business.

That's what you go into public life for.

If I wanted to get healthy, I'd go back to practising law, and

that's not very healthy either. I came here to do something for my constituents.

I would like to believe that the members opposite came here to do something for

their constituents. It's done best, whatever we do in this place, when there is

an opposition who has an opportunity to criticize the government, whether it be

through question period or to speak to motions or to attack legislation or to

question ministers about their estimates.

At the end of the day, I don't think that this is anything other

than a high-handed decision to restrict debate, a way of enabling this

government to escape public scrutiny, in the same way that this government

changed the nature of the British Columbia Ferry Corporation so that it's no

longer subject to information-and-privacy laws, so that the public of this

province — thousands and thousands of whom rely on B.C. Ferries for

transportation every day — now have no opportunity to inquire into what goes on

inside that corporation.

It is just one more reflection of an attitude about the people

that the people will in time come to understand and appreciate, and they will

punish the other side. They will do the right thing. They will toss them out of

office. You can keep chipping away and chipping away and thinking that it has no

great consequence. But when this government, as it's doing here today, says: "We

get to impose on the whole of this chamber, on all of its members, the rules by

which you play the game in this place…."

[1615]

When you do that, you have stated unequivocally that you have no

respect for the traditions of this parliament, for parliamentary tradition, for

the people who elected you to this office. That is what disappoints me most. At

the end of the day, this is about respect for British Columbia citizens. By

doing this without the consent and agreement of the opposition, this government

has said, once again: "We're here. We've got the power. We don't care. We don't

care about what the people think, and we're going to do whatever we wish."

I say it is absolutely shameful. I look forward to the day when

this opposition is on that side of the House, and we can bring in the kind of

legislative agenda and sessional rules that are appropriate and that protect the

rights of the people of British Columbia to criticize their government, to hold

it to account and to do what they fought for hundreds of years to achieve, which

is the rights to parliamentary democracy and to keep a government honest,

regardless of how arrogant it may be.

J. Horgan: The Government House Leader will forgive me for

not thanking him for being so concerned about my health or the family values

that I may or may not subscribe to.

To the Minister of Health: lofty rhetoric certainly trumps hollow

rhetoric every time. In the throne speech we heard that this was a time for

partnership, not partisanship. What we see here today is more partisanship, no

partnership.

Historically, when the orders of this place change, it has been

done by consensus and cooperation. Every single thing that that side of the

House does is by edict, by dictate, and it's by a tyrannical regime led by a

Premier who doesn't have the gall to come into this place and defend his budget

two days after it's been tabled. It's outrageous — absolutely outrageous.

Now, I happen to be one of the members living in the Greater

Victoria area that could benefit from these changes. I would be able to go home

and spend some time with my kids. I would be able to go home and spend some time

with my spouse, eat a dinner at home rather than eating it in what is a very

good restaurant here at the legislative precincts. But that's not the point. The

point is that the member for Shuswap isn't going to be going home on a Monday

night. He's not going to be going home on a Wednesday night.

Deputy Speaker: Member, take your seat, please.

Point of Order

Hon. G. Abbott: I think that the member should be advised

that the presence or the lack of presence of any member of this House is not

something that other members of the House note appropriately in the context of

these debates.

[ Page 5494 ]

J. Horgan: If I made reference to someone who wasn't here

earlier today, then I certainly withdraw that remark. If that's satisfactory for

the Minister of Health, I'll proceed.

Hon. G. Abbott: Yes.

Debate Continued

J. Horgan: I just would repeat that lofty rhetoric always

trumps hollow rhetoric. You might not have caught that remark at the doorway

earlier on.

My point is that I could benefit from this change.

Interjection.

J. Horgan: Well, he missed it earlier on, so I wanted to

give it back to him.

Interjection.

Deputy Speaker: Just a second.

Interjection.

J. Horgan: Oh, did I? Gosh, it must have slipped by me.

Sorry about that, Members.

Interjection.

J. Horgan: The Minister of Economic Development is

reminding me that I've only been here for a year and a half, and I apologize for

that.

Getting back to the substance of my comments, as I know that the

Minister of Health will be very concerned to hear what I have to say now that

he's firmly in his place to listen to my comments. The challenge that we have as

legislators is that we come here from different places. I'm certain that the

member for East Kootenay is not going to go home on a Monday night or a

Wednesday night as a result of the order changes that are being proposed by the

Government House Leader, without any consultation with this side of the House.

[S. Hawkins in the chair.]

I'm certain that the member for Bulkley Valley–Stikine isn't going

to be going home on a Monday night or a Wednesday night as a result of the

changes taking place here today. What I do think is that there may be many

members of cabinet who live in and around the Greater Vancouver regional

district that might take advantage of an earlier departure time from here to

catch a flight home. That's all well and good, and I don't blame them for that.

But the question that's before us is changing the rules for all members of this

House — rural members, urban members, men, women, people with families, people

without families.

[1620]

The substance of the debate before us today is to change the way

we do business. Historically, that's been done by consensus and partnership.

Since this government came to power, it's been done by directive.

In 2001 there were 77 members on that side of the House and two

members on this side of the House. They introduced a fixed calendar and said:

"Oh, what good boys and girls are we." In fact, I would have to give them

congratulations for doing that at the time, assuming that we were going to have

a session in the spring and a session in the fall.

The Government House Leader spoke with our House leader about

amending the sessional orders with respect to hours of sitting, and we were

quite prepared as a caucus to entertain that discussion until such time as the

Government House Leader said: "Oh by the way, we're not coming back in the

fall." That was after we had agreed to shorten debate on certain pieces of

legislation, shorten debate on certain budget estimates, assuming that that

legislation would be coming back in the fall where a fulsome discussion could

take place. Didn't happen.

Question, hon. Speaker: why should we trust them now? Because

they're concerned about my good health? I rather doubt it. In fact, I'm

absolutely confident there's not a soul on that side of the House that gives a

whit about my condition — not today, not tomorrow, not in the future.

I know that some of my colleagues on this side of the House care.

The only fruit and vegetable that the minister for ActNow wants is to chuck a

tomato at me. I'm confident of that. There he goes.

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Order, members.

J. Horgan: Healthy living. I'm so delighted to hear that

the government is still on message. We need to lead by example. We need to go

for a jog every now and again. We need to close down the clubhouse here. Club

B.C. Liberal on that side. Let's go for a jog, and maybe a cocktail later on.

What say you to that, hon. Speaker? Unacceptable.

People in my constituency work hard — very, very hard — from early

in the morning to late at night. Some of them are shift workers. They don't have

the luxury of saying: "I don't think, employer, that I'm going to come in today.

I want to lead a healthier lifestyle. I want to follow the example of the

Minister of Health. I want to go for a jog. I want to take some downtime to

spend some time with my family." They don't have that luxury. We do.

This is a great job. It's an honour to be in here representing the

people of Malahat–Juan de Fuca. But they want me here representing them, not

knocking off at 6:30 because it's convenient for those who want to fly somewhere

else. It's not going to help the member for Columbia River–Revelstoke. It's not

going to help the member for Cariboo South.

H. Lali: Or Yale-Lillooet.

J. Horgan: It's not going to help my good friend right

beside me here from Yale-Lillooet. Why are we

[ Page 5495 ]

going to change the orders? If we're here, let's do some work. If we're here,

let's sit in this Legislature. If we're here, let's deal with the business of

the day.

We have many things that we want to talk about on this side of the

House. Look at the order paper. There are numerous pieces of legislation,

motions that are important to us. The government's side, the backbenchers, have

good ideas they can't get in the cabinet room. They can't get approval from

their caucus to be government legislation or government motions, but they've got

them on the order paper, and they have every right as equal representatives in

this place to bring that forward.

Why not sit until nine o'clock on a Monday night? We're in town

anyway. Why not use that time? Why not take a break at six to have a healthy

meal? Why does that side of the House want us to work through dinner to 6:30 —

1:30 to 6:30, a five-hour run in this place. If we're all sitting here for five

hours in a row, how are we doing our best work? How are we doing the people's

business?

The Minister of Health said: "No, no, we can sit here. We'll do

five hours." I defy him to sit in here every day from Monday to Thursday, five

hours at a time, with his honking big binders telling us truisms from Shuswap. I

defy him to do that.

Having a night sitting gives the opposition time to reflect on the

day's events, go into Committee A and debate the estimates of various

ministries. It gives the minister and his staff time to get a meal, to sit down

and debate fully, for two or three hours into the evening, issues of importance

to the people of British Columbia.

These are pretty simple things, hon. Speaker. Talk to someone in

your constituency. I know that the people in Kelowna expect you to be here doing

their business, and you do that very capably. Why is it that the government now

wants to just change that? Because they're concerned about my health, and the

time that I spend with my family. What a crock. What a crock.

Deputy Speaker: Member, please use language that is with

the decorum of this chamber.

J. Horgan: Well, if I can't say "crock," hon. Speaker, then

I had better go through Hansard and….

Deputy Speaker: Member, that is not appropriate language

for this chamber.

J. Horgan: Crock is not appropriate language. Well, I

certainly withdraw crock if it has offended you, hon. Speaker, or anyone else in

this place.

H. Lali: Fiction.

J. Horgan: Fiction?

H. Lali: Fiction. You're allowed to use "fiction."

[1625]

J. Horgan: I would be surprised if the motives of the

Government House Leader were my health and the status of my family. I would be

very, very surprised.

So what is the motive of changing the orders of this place? I

would suggest that the motives are to shorten debate. I would suggest that the

motives are to continue the acrimony…. Although partisanship should be set aside

for partnership, as in the throne speech, it's not in the actions and deeds of a

single person on that side of the House. I would suggest that the reason they

want to change the orders is that they want to spend less time looking at us.

They had a bit of a good run from 2001 to 2005 — 77-2, Nebraska

versus Ball State. That's what was going on then, and Ball State almost kicked

them in the backside — 77-2. And we gave as good as we got. Well, it's 46-33

now, and nobody wants anything to do with it.

Let's not have a fall session. Let's not talk into the evening.

Let's not do the people's business in this place. Let's just have press

conferences. Let's announce lofty goals and great achievements that we're

looking forward to in the future and then call it a day. I think I might go out

for a jog. I'll meet you over at the Grand Pacific, and we'll chat about the

business of the people.

Absolute nonsense. That's why we're here. That's why people sent

us here: to debate, to engage. We're using time today that we could have been

using discussing the budget, discussing the throne speech, talking about you

people on that side of the House, those people on that side of the House wanting

to change the rules. Again: "We're just tweaking them a little bit. We're just

going to tweak them a little bit. We had nothing to talk about in the fall, and

we don't want to talk about much in the spring either."

Reprehensible behaviour, in my mind, and certainly in the minds of

my constituents. They elected me. They sent me here to do the people's business.

I've offered numerous times to assist people on that side of the House, whether

they be backbenchers or ministers. The Minister of Community Services and I have

a very good relationship. We work cooperatively together for issues in my

community, and I'm happy to do that. Why can't we extend that cooperation to the

rules of this place? Because the Government House Leader said: "No, I don't want

to talk to the Opposition House