1996 Legislative Session: 1st Session, 36th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 14, 1996

Afternoon

Volume 2, Number 22,

Part 1

[ Page 1991 ]

The House met at 2:05 p.m.

Prayers.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: We have present in the gallery the Minister of Justice and Attorney General from Saskatchewan, Mr. John Nilson, with his wife, Linda. Would the House please make them welcome.

G. Campbell: I'd like the House to make welcome today Peter and Frances Sweeney. Peter Sweeney is the chief building inspector for the city of Vancouver and worked diligently there to make sure that we maintained safe and secure accommodation for people throughout the city of Vancouver. I was always glad to work with Peter as a chief building inspector. I'm also glad to say that Peter and Frances are the mother and father of Neil Sweeney, who is one of our chief NDP inspectors here in Victoria in our research department. I hope we will make them all welcome.

J. Weisgerber: Mr. Speaker, it's my pleasure to introduce one of your constituents from Gabriola Island. Bill Vanderland is a keen proponent of ethanol production. He is an intervener on behalf of the Peace River regional district with the Utilities Commission hearings into gasoline pricing and is visiting members around the Legislature today. Would you all please make him welcome.

P. Reitsma: In the gallery today are two important people in my life. The first one is Jas Gandhi, my very capable LA. Secondly, if there is such a thing as a symphony of life, surely the next person is the principal conductor: my better half, Pamela Leeuw. Would the House make them welcome, please.

R. Masi: I'd like to introduce my son Gordon Masi and his friend Jay Dosdell, who cycled over from Delta to see the House in action. Would you please make them welcome.

Hon. D. Streifel: It's always a pleasure to rise in the House and introduce those folks that support me and are important to me, and introduce those folks that support or are important to the folks who support and are important to me. I'd like to introduce to the House my administrative assistant, Vanessa Coombes, and her very dear friend from Winnipeg, Manitoba -- mosquito capital of the world -- Jan Wiebe.

M. Coell: In the House today is Valerie Braunschweig, who is the president of the Esquimalt-Metchosin Liberal Association. Would the House please make her welcome.

Hon. J. Cashore: Hon. Speaker, visiting in the House today is a very special guest. Her name is Soo-Kyung Youn, and she's a guest of the United Church of Canada, visiting here from Seoul, Korea. She's a former assistant to an elected government member in Korea and is accompanied by Gaye Sharpe, a former assistant in my office who does outreach and global concerns work with the United Church of Canada. Would the House please make them both welcome.

W. Hartley: There are four special guests in the gallery today: my spouse, Alice, and our daughter Wallis, and two very good friends who are with them, Sharandeep Shallu Kaur and Vishalldeep Victor Singh. Shallu and Victor are the children of two constituents, Karamdeep Kaur and J.D. Deepak, who were very influential and helpful in my election campaign. Please make them welcome.

C. Clark: In the gallery today is my friend Sean Newberry, who has been a longtime and tireless worker on behalf of the Liberal Party in British Columbia, and I'd ask the House to make him welcome.

H. Lali: Visiting us in the galleries are the parents of my new roommate, Mr. and Mrs. Modha, and their other son, Ronaq. Would the House please make them welcome, all the way from Winnipeg.

G. Farrell-Collins: Hon. Chair, I would ask the House to make welcome in the gallery another tireless worker for the Liberal Party, but not so longtime. She defended the Liberal Party in the grade 6 debate during the election. I'd like the House to welcome Kara Hendriksen and her aunt, Jacqueline Beltgens.

F. Randall: In the gallery today we have Dr. Paul Viken and Jorgen Dahle. Dr. Viken has been a chiropractor in the lower mainland for 40 years, and Jorgen Dahle is a former professor of history at UBC. Dr. Viken is the president and Jorgen Dahle is a longtime board member of Normana Rest Home, a facility in Burnaby-Edmonds the Norwegian people are very proud of. They are looking forward to a new 100-bed facility on the existing site. Would the House please make them welcome.

The Speaker: I'm glad to see the proud tradition of pushing the envelope continues.

Oral Questions

DEATHS OF CHILDREN IN CARE OR

KNOWN TO SOCIAL SERVICES MINISTRY

G. Campbell: On July 22 the opposition asked the Minister of Social Services to release the report prepared on the deaths of 19 children who were identified by Judge Gove in the course of his commission report. The minister said that the report wasn't ready. Today we learn that an additional 11 children died of unnatural causes while in the care and under the protection of the ministry. Can the minister tell the House how the deaths of 11 children can go unnoticed for so long and why, when he knew those facts, he didn't inform the House of them at the time?

Hon. D. Streifel: The Leader of the Opposition is wrong again in his chronology and in the facts surrounding this case. The Gove report references at least 19 deaths. When the ministry conducted its own review, it found 30 that fit the same criteria that Gove had determined. That report is now over at the board, where it should be, for examination.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Excuse me, members. Order, please. This is a very serious issue, and I think we ought to treat it with sufficient gravity.

G. Campbell: The problem with the minister's answer is that once again it was not an answer. I asked why, when the

[ Page 1992 ]

minister knew that there were 30 deaths, not 19, he did not inform the House. Let's be clear, hon. Speaker. This minister first identified 14. Then, because of our prodding and our questions, he said there were 49. Now we're dealing with 19 that have developed into 30. My question to the minister is directed only in this spirit, hon. Speaker: if we don't have all of the information all of the time, we are not going to protect all of the children, and that's been obvious to all the people of British Columbia throughout.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, members, please.

The question, member.

G. Campbell: Can the minister explain to the House why the death of each and every child under the ministry's protection is not known immediately, on the day it occurs, to the ministry?

[2:15]

Hon. D. Streifel: Every step of the way, the Leader of the Opposition prefers to play a numbers game with these tragedies as opposed to getting to the root cause of what's wrong within our society. The hon. Leader of the Opposition refuses to accept that this work was done by Gove. This was referenced in Gove, and we have continued that work. The issue is to learn from these tragedies, hon. members, not play politics and not trade in the tragedies of the lives of these children and their families. You disgust me.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, order! Members, I don't want to have to start naming names, but I will.

The Leader of the Opposition on a supplemental.

G. Campbell: Once again this minister has not answered the question. In fact, this minister wouldn't have known what was going on if this opposition hadn't asked him some questions and he finally got brought up to date. The fact of the matter is that this minister has constantly used ignorance as his defence, and ignorance is not a defence, it's negligence.

Judge Gove is very clear, and these children are in this minister's care. The judge said quite clearly that we should set up a system which would track every one of our children who was in the ministry's care or under the ministry's protection. Can the minister tell us when that tracking system, that computerized protection system will be up and running so we can start protecting our children before the fact, not after the fact?

The Speaker: The Minister of Social Services. A caution, please. There was relative quiet for the question; let there be relative quiet for the answer.

Hon. D. Streifel: Every step of the way, when this government has brought forward initiatives to improve the well-being of poor families, whether it be on child care, B.C. Benefits, further protection or money expended for computerized programs, the opposition has fought it and voted against it. They have only one interest: to play cheap politics around these issues, and it's not good enough.

The paramount concern here is the protection of children. We have moved since Gove. The Leader of the Opposition insists on mixing numbers when we're dealing with children here. He deals with numbers that go back to 1986, and he knows very well that there are issues . . . there are protection systems put in place that we've spoken about in this House. They have fought against those protections. The current Opposition House Leader in January of this year complimented this government on taking these tragedies and the Gove report out of the political forum and bringing it into an apolitical world.

Now what do they do? Day after day after day they stand up in this House, and they trade in the tragedies of these families. Hon. Speaker, I'm disgusted. [Applause.]

The Speaker: Order, please. The member for Richmond-Steveston.

G. Plant: The importance of this matter transcends the minister's personal feelings.

I want to move to a slightly different issue.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, please. Members, I note that not only do we have heckling from this side of the House, but as the member is asking his question, we have heckling from that side of the House. Clearly, we can't function on that basis. Will you please, members, everybody, do this member the courtesy of allowing him to present his question.

ELIJAH THOMAS CASE

G. Plant: Over the last several weeks, we on this side of the House have raised a number of questions about Elijah Thomas. In asking these questions, we on this side of the House have never released any personal information about baby Elijah or his mother without the family's permission. Now we find that the private medical data of Elijah Thomas's mother has been leaked to the media. In fact, the Vancouver Province reported yesterday that it had obtained government documents detailing the prescription drug use of Maryann Thomas. I have a question for the Minister of Health. Could she tell us if her ministry received the permission of Maryann Thomas to release this confidential medical data?

Hon. J. MacPhail: This opposition tables document after document. They release letters about families and briefing documents in this Legislature and to the media, etc., that contain private and confidential information -- information that I would never in a moment consider putting in the public domain in the fashion that the Liberal opposition does.

But I will also tell you that at no time have I ever released in any fashion any confidential information, and I have no knowledge whatsoever of what the hon. member on the opposite side is discussing.

G. Plant: The Minister of Social Services has, throughout this story, repeatedly avoided answering questions on the Elijah Thomas case by hiding behind the veil of confidentiality. I say, and I'm sure that people in British Columbia agree, that the release of Maryann Thomas's confidential information without her permission would be a blatant invasion of privacy by this government. We know the Minister of

[ Page 1993 ]

Health doesn't know anything about it. My question is to the Minister of Social Services: did his ministry receive the permission of Maryann Thomas to release this confidential medical data?

Hon. D. Streifel: I find it rather peculiar that the member from the opposition, who is a lawyer himself, suggests that I'm hiding behind law. Where did you get your diploma, hon. member? If you don't have respect for law, who should? This ministry and this minister have never released any information that we weren't required to release or had permission to release through a release form by the family in this case. We have never released anything beyond that. We have never released any confidential information beyond what was signed over to us by the mother.

G. Plant: Would that that were so. The fact is that yesterday, and as recently as this morning, government staff -- staff of this government -- were seen shopping this private medical data in the halls of the Legislature to members of the media. So, once again, to the Minister of Social Services: was the private medical data of Maryann Thomas released by someone in his ministry, and did he authorize it?

Hon. D. Streifel: Again, the answer is that this minister has never released any confidential information on this case or on this family.

DEATHS OF CHILDREN IN CARE OR

KNOWN TO SOCIAL SERVICES MINISTRY

M. Coell: Since at least July 23, the report on these children's deaths identified by Justice Gove has been bouncing around the Ministry of Social Services. Now British Columbians have learned that during the ministry's internal review, it discovered an additional 11 deaths. Can the Minister of Social Services tell British Columbians when he learned that his ministry had discovered the deaths of these 11 children?

Hon. D. Streifel: I received that information in going through the report on these deaths. It's now in the hands of the independent review board, and that's where it belongs.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, please, members.

M. Coell: From day one, almost a month ago, this minister has been hiding the truth from British Columbians on a number of issues. Getting answers out of this minister has been like trying to get water out of a stone. Can the minister tell this House why he didn't tell British Columbians about these additional deaths when he first found out?

Hon. D. Streifel: The opposition critic stands up day after day in this House and continues to ignore what we're dealing with here. We're dealing with the tragedies of children. We're dealing with an area that has been examined extensively by Judge Gove. We're dealing with information that was brought forward by Judge Gove, examined further by the ministry and is now in front of an independent board for further examination and recommendation as to the rights of children under the act, and then it will be made public.

M. de Jong: For weeks I've watched this Minister of Social Services try to explain away his incompetence on the basis of some professed desire to protect the privacy of the individuals involved. This minister doesn't care about privacy. What this minister cares about is protecting his political backside; that's all that he cares about.

The Speaker: I want a question.

M. de Jong: How else does he explain the fact that these medical records involving baby Elijah miraculously appear at a time when it's most convenient to his government damage control unit? My question to the minister, quite frankly, is: does he have the courage. . .

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, members.

M. de Jong: . . .and the integrity to acknowledge to this House that he has failed baby Elijah? He's failed that child; he's failed the other children whose deaths have gone uninvestigated, in some cases unnoticed.

The Speaker: Member, this is supposed to be a question.

M. de Jong: Will he do the honourable thing and say to the Premier that the job was above him, that the job was more than the man, and step down and put someone in his place that can do the job?

The Speaker: The bell terminates question period.

Reports from Committees

F. Gingell: I have the honour to present the first report of the Select Standing Committee on Public Accounts for the first session of the thirty-sixth parliament. Hon. Speaker, I move that the report be taken as read and received.

Motion approved.

F. Gingell: I ask leave of the House to suspend the rules to permit the moving of a motion to adopt the report.

Leave granted.

F. Gingell: The Public Accounts Committee takes a great deal of pleasure in submitting this report. I would like the Legislature to know that the Public Accounts Committee, in my opinion, has shown a great deal of discipline and commitment to their roles and responsibilities in moving this project forward.

The report deals with the joint report of the deputy ministers' council and the auditor general, a review of the work done during the thirty-fifth parliament on the first report, Enhancing Accountability for Performance in the British Columbia Public Sector , and now further work done on the second report from the deputy ministers' council and the auditor general, which sets a time frame and an implementation plan for this project.

[2:30]

I'm really pleased that this government has allowed and encouraged the bureaucracy to move this project forward. It's an important project. It's going to pay dividends, I believe, for all British Columbians. It won't happen quickly. We need to

[ Page 1994 ]

have patience and understanding, but we need to give the bureaucracy the encouragement they deserve for the strength of character that they show to bring this project forward.

I really do recommend that all members of this Legislature read this report and, particularly, the first report which was tabled in April, if they haven't had a chance to do that. Hopefully, this government will allow the Public Accounts Committee to sit intersessionally, because we mustn't allow the work of the committee to get behind the development of these plans and programs by the ministries.

With that, hon. Speaker, I move that this House adopt the report.

Motion approved.

Tabling Documents

Hon. A. Petter: I have the honour to present the 1996 annual report of the office of the auditor general.

Motions on Notice

SELECT STANDING COMMITTEE

ON LEGISLATIVE INITIATIVES

Hon. U. Dosanjh: With leave, I move Motion 44 standing in my name on the order paper.

Leave granted.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Hon. Speaker, this is a motion to appoint a Select Standing Committee on Legislative Initiatives, as printed.

[That a Select Standing Committee on Legislative Initiatives be appointed for the 36th Parliament, pursuant to

Section 9 of the Recall and Initiative Act (SBC 1994)

Chapter 56, the said Committee to be composed of: Mr. Bowbrick (Convener), Messrs. Randall, Waddell and Stevenson, Ms. Sawicki, Mr. Lali and Ms. McGregor, Messrs. Farrell-Collins, Nettleton and Thorpe and Ms. Whittred and Mr. Weisgerber.]

Motion approved.

Tabling Documents

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Hon. Speaker, it's my pleasure to table the Forest Renewal B.C. annual report of 1994-95, the Forest Renewal B.C. business plan for '96-97, and the Forest Renewal B.C. financial statements as at March 31, 1996.

Hon. D. Miller: Since it's annual reports day, I have a number of documents to table so that those members, prior to rushing off on their summer holidays, their cruise ship vacations and the like.... I want them to take copies to read on their summer holidays.

We have the B.C. Ferry Corporation 1995-96 annual report; the Victoria Line Ltd. 1995 annual report; the Ministry of Municipal Affairs 1993-94 annual report; the Ministry of Housing, Recreation and Consumer Services 1994-95 annual report; the Municipal Affairs and Housing '96 ministry report; the B.C. Assessment Authority 1994 annual report; the B.C. Housing Management Commission 1994-95 annual report; and the Ministry of Employment and Investment '93-94 annual report.

Interjections.

Hon. D. Miller: I've never heard such objections to the release of information in my life, Mr. Speaker.

An Hon. Member: They're archives.

Hon. D. Miller: Some of them are a bit dusty.

Also, the B.C. Heritage Trust '94-95 and '95-96 annual reports, the B.C. Buildings Corporation '95 and '96 annual reports, and the British Columbia Inquiry into Gasoline Pricing, Interim Report , dated July 5, 1996.

Motions on Notice

SPECIAL COMMITTEE TO MONITOR

TRANSITION COMMISSIONER ON

GOVE INQUIRY RECOMMENDATIONS

Hon. J. MacPhail: I move Motion 42 standing in my name on the order paper, and I move it as printed.

[That a Special Committee be appointed to monitor and evaluate the progress of the work of the Transition Commissioner in respect of recommendations arising out the Gove Inquiry into Child Protection, and that the Special Committee so appointed shall have the powers of a Select Standing Committee and is also empowered: (

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

(

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

(

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

(

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

(

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

The said Special Committee is to be composed of Ms. Gillespie (Convener), Messrs. Kasper, Hartley and Ms. Kwan, Ms. McKinnon and Mr. Coell and Mr. Neufeld.]

Motion approved.

Motion without Notice

APPOINTMENT OF

CONFLICT-OF-INTEREST COMMISSIONER

Hon. J. MacPhail: By leave, I move that this House authorize the Select Standing Committee on Parliamentary Reform, Ethical Conduct, Standing Orders and Private Bills to select and unanimously recommend to the Legislative Assembly the appointment of a commissioner or commissioners of conflict of interest pursuant to the committee's final report on the matter of the Members' Conflict of Interest Act.

Leave granted.

J. Weisgerber: First of all, let me say that I'm pleased with the motion. I'm pleased with the intent of the motion. It seems to me, though, that if this motion were to be implemented, the committee couldn't, until the next sitting of the Legislature, recommend the appointment of a new conflict-of-interest commissioner.

[ Page 1995 ]

I've just seen the motion, and in a very friendly way I would suggest that it would be more appropriate for the committee to recommend to the Premier an acting commissioner, and that that be done prior to the next sitting of the Legislature. Failing to do that appears to leave Mr. Hughes in place until this House is reconvened, and I think perhaps that is not in the best interests of this assembly or in the best interests of Mr. Hughes.

Hon. J. MacPhail: Just in reply, I accept the spirit in which the advice was offered. The intent, of course, is to move forward in a cooperative and unanimous way, as quickly as possible, to put in place a method by which our conflict-of-interest matters are heard. That's the spirit and the intent of the motion. With that, I hope we could see our way clear to pass this.

Motion approved.

Orders of the Day

Hon. J. MacPhail: In Committee A, I call Committee of Supply. For the information of the House, we'll be debating the estimates of the Ministry of Health and Ministry Responsible for Seniors. In this chamber, I call Committee of Supply. For the information of the House, we'll be debating the estimates of the office of the Premier.

The House in Committee of Supply B; G. Brewin in the chair.

ESTIMATES: OFFICE OF THE PREMIER AND

MINISTRY RESPONSIBLE FOR YOUTH

(continued)

On vote 8: minister's office, $2,409,000 (continued).

B. Penner: Good afternoon to the Premier. I hope that being able to go home last night and have some sleep helped the Premier lower his blood pressure a bit. He was getting a bit excited last night. In his capacity as the minister of youth -- just to return to the topic of youth -- I'd like to pick up a bit where we left off last night. We essentially covered most of the topics I wish to canvass with the Premier. I realize that some of these topics do transcend ministry lines and to a certain extent involve responsibilities associated with the Ministry of Social Services.

Because we no longer have the opportunity to canvass Social Services estimates, I will raise the following matter with the Premier in two ways: first, in his capacity as the Minister Responsible for Youth, and second, as the first minister in this government.

There's a program that the NDP introduced in this session of the Legislature, and it had to do with increasing benefits for poor people. Since that program was introduced -- and I might add for the record that it was a program supported by this side of the House -- some problems have come to the forefront. I'm wondering if the Premier is aware of some of the difficulties that people are having under the B.C. Benefits program in accessing some of the advertised services. My question to the Premier, through you, hon. Chair....

The Chair: Sorry, hon. member, that's not for the Premier at this point. That's not in order; it's a matter of legislation which has already been dealt with. We're dealing with estimates here, and that's the financial administration of the Premier's Office. So legislation -- B.C. Benefits -- is not on the table at the present time.

B. Penner: Thank you, hon. Chair. I've risen today to debate with the Premier his role as the first minister in this government. The estimates that are before the House have to do with his office, and his office is the office in this government that sets and administers policy, and drives the policy agenda for this government. It is in that capacity that I wish to rise....

The Chair: Hon. member, there is a ministry that has responsibility for those issues, and that's really where that issue belongs. The Premier has other responsibilities, and I encourage you to take those issues to the ministry involved. You might want to try a different line of questioning.

B. Penner: Just for the record, I would note that this matter did have to do with youth. I thought the Premier would be interested in youth, as he calls himself the Minister Responsible for Youth. However, it appears that's not the case.

The Chair: That's irrelevant.

B. Penner: I'll move to a matter that's of more local concern to the residents of Chilliwack. Again addressing the Premier in his capacity as the Minister Responsible for Youth, there's a program that took place in Chilliwack. It was called Job Fair '95, and more than 9,000 students and adults attended this program that occurred in November of 1995 last year. It wasn't simply a matter that took place in Chilliwack. I'm told that people attended from as far away as Maple Ridge and Langley and from as far east as Boston Bar. They received a grant of some $20,000 in 1995 from this government.

It didn't occur in 1996; for whatever reason, the organizers saw fit not to hold a job fair. But they want to hold one again next year, and I'm told that the anticipated date at this time is March 1997.

Just to step back a bit, the way that this job fair works is a little bit different than what I remembered from my time in high school and what the Premier probably remembers, where different people in the community would come into the school and tell you about the things that they were interested in talking about. The way this program works is that more than 90 different individuals, businesses and professional groups took out space at the recreational centre in Chilliwack to provide information to interested youths and students.... I note that the Premier has just left the chamber.

However, I'll keep going here, and I'll have to get back to the pith and substance of my comments once the Premier is back in the chamber.

This program is fairly unique in that it allows students, rather than just listening to other people tell them what they think they need to hear, to go into a different setting where they can pick and choose from more than 90 different topics -- things related to their future careers. I think one indication of the success is, firstly, the number of people who attended, and secondly, the fact that even just a few weeks ago, when I last checked, students who went to this seminar last fall were still coming to the local employment centre, the local apprenticeship centre and the local community college, asking how they could take courses related to the jobs that they heard about

[ Page 1996 ]

last November. So it seems to have had a tremendous resonance among those people who attended. They attended this seminar and learned about jobs that are actually available -- that need positions to be filled in different industries. So I support this type of initiative.

The difficulty that the organizers of this event are facing is the problem of funding. I would point out that virtually all of them do it strictly on a volunteer basis. I believe they did hire one person last year for a one-month period to help organize and pull all the loose ends together, but most of these people are volunteers. Last night in estimates debate with the Premier, in his role as Minister Responsible for Youth, we talked about some of the shortfalls in the Youth Works program, in terms of providing unemployed young people with timely training to help them get skills and move on to the employment areas of their choice.

[2:45]

If we're talking about giving students and young people adequate skills and training to get available jobs, I think the first thing we have to do is let them know what kinds of jobs are available. Job Fair '95 did that, and I'm told that Job Fair '97 will be much the same. I see the Premier has just re-entered the chamber. The way that Job Fair '97 would work is that approximately 90 different businesses and individuals and professional groups would set up booths where students and other people, including adults, could come through the recreational centre and inquire into those particular job categories that interest them.

Again I stress to the Premier that these are presentations made by industry groups and professional groups, where they're actually looking for people; they need to hire people. Rather than students learning about jobs that may not be required, they're actually learning about jobs that do exist.

In 1995, when the job fair was last held, this government -- I'll give them lots of credit for that -- saw fit to provide the organization with a $20,000 grant so they could pull this together. I stress that this is run by volunteers. Last time only one individual received any remuneration, and that was just for the one-month period around the event to help pull loose ends together. It's almost entirely volunteer-driven.

What they're looking for is some commitment from this government, and particularly from the Premier in his role as the Minister Responsible for Youth, and some form of financial support to help provide our youth with more knowledge about the types of jobs and futures that are available to them.

Before I sit down, I'll reiterate that this program has a broad scope, from Boston Bar all the way to Langley and Maple Ridge.

Hon. G. Clark: Yes, I'm actually familiar with the jobs fair in Chilliwack, and I remember the representations made by the previous member for Chilliwack and others on that, and I was pleased that we could provide some modest funding for it. Certainly we'll entertain funding next year, although we have a fiscal situation which is challenging. So if you want an answer today, the answer would be no. But clearly we will try to do what we can because these can be, and usually are, excellent programs. Just for the member's knowledge, there are literally dozens of these job fairs around the province, and they often are very helpful in terms of matching up employers with prospective employees.

B. Penner: Before I leave this topic, I would like to indicate to the Premier that the name of the prime organizer of this event is Cal Purcell. He contacted me by phone yesterday and indicated that he'll be coming to Victoria next week, in the hopes of meeting with some government officials to see if there's some avenue to get funding or some support. I believe he is looking at some creative solutions. I'm aware and he's aware that of course these are tough times for government financially.

So we're certainly willing to be creative in how we approach it, and we're looking for any ideas and any support we can get from this government. I wonder if the Premier can indicate whether he might be available next week to meet with Mr. Purcell on behalf of Job Fair '97.

Hon. G. Clark: I won't entertain any of this kind of thing on the floor of the House. Thousands of people try to get in to see me, and I try to accommodate as many people as I can, and I'm sure I'll accommodate the member if I can, but this is not for discussion here in the chamber.

B. Penner: I believe my colleague from the riding of Vancouver-Quilchena has a few questions for the Premier.

C. Hansen: I want to follow up very briefly on some of the issues raised last night regarding the student summer employment program. The minister had indicated that an evaluation process would be undertaken of the summer employment programs that existed throughout government. One of my concerns with some of the programs involved is that rather than counting the quality or the quantity of work, it actually counts just the number of participants in these various programs.

I understand that in many of these programs there may be employment opportunities for students that amount to one day or two days or in some cases one week. In the case of the PNE, we're talking about a two-week program. I'm wondering if, in the evaluation process that is done, the Premier would be prepared to include in that evaluation the number of days of work that are actually achieved by students involved in the program.

Hon. G. Clark: Yes. Not only the days of work, but I agree with the member that we also want to assess the quality of the work experience to make sure that any government funds are going to something which hopefully leads to either permanent employment or training which is applicable or has some public service component or likewise. Generally speaking -- candidly -- many of the programs are very good, especially the 50 percent cost-shared program that's generated some very, very interesting programs. The E-team programs are good.

The ones the member referred to, the PNE jobs, obviously are a little different category, but we've been quite upfront about that. We're not trying to hide anything.

I think a full evaluation of all of the programs -- the number of days worked, the number of jobs created, the number of potential jobs created, the quality of those jobs, the pay, because they also vary in pay, the level of the subsidy, whether that can be changed, all that -- will be part of the review, with a view to improving program delivery next year.

C. Hansen: I was wondering if the Premier could tell us what the time line might be on that evaluation and whether or not it could be shared with us at the time. There are some real concerns that I have, and they are meant to be very constructive. I'm of the opinion that this year the program was started too late to be truly effective. It's my hope that the

[ Page 1997 ]

government will be very aggressive this fall in making sure that there is a strategy that will result in timely delivery of those programs next year, which I think are very important, because I think students desperately need those jobs in the summertime.

The other thing I have a concern about that the Premier may wish to address is the coordination between the federal and provincial programs that are involved in summer student employment. I think there is a need for a much closer working relationship between the Canada employment centres for students and the various provincial programs. That is an area that should be addressed in part of that evaluation program. I'm wondering if the Premier could comment on those items: the time line for the evaluation, whether or not that information could be shared with us, and also the time line for the planning of the 1997 program.

Hon. G. Clark: They are all related. The reviews are usually conducted -- and this will be no different -- near the end of the fiscal year in order to guide deliberations with respect to budget-making for the next year: whether this meets the test, whether it's acceptable, whether it can justify tax money, in many cases. It's a little different in this case, because some programs are summer programs. Therefore the evaluation will start almost immediately upon the conclusion of those programs or the end of the summer, if you will.

I have no hesitation providing the information for the member and taking his advice. I genuinely say that to date most of the comments I've heard from the member are very constructive, and I'd be very interested in working with members of the House on these questions.

Now, it's a little problematic in terms of the timing of the evaluation and the budget for next year and when I can get you the material. I'm not trying to be evasive, but it will more likely be near the end of the fiscal year. It might be too late to involve the member in the critique, although he can obviously raise it in the House, etc. We'll make decisions on funding before the member gets material. We'll be consumed in the review process and the budgetary process simultaneously, and we'll have to make some decisions without the benefit of the member's input. I just say that candidly.

After we make the decisions, all of that information we can make available to you. Then we'll be held accountable in here and hopefully pay attention to what the member says and try to incorporate his remarks.

C. Hansen: Last night the Premier was asked about the job strategy generally, not just student jobs. He had mentioned that there were several initiatives that had been announced to fulfil that. I was reading through some budget papers from the budget that was introduced at the end of April.

One of those papers makes this reference: "In the next few weeks, a new jobs plan with ambitious, achievable targets for private sector job creation will be announced." I gather from the Premier's comments last night that these are actually several initiatives that have come out, I guess, during the course of the election and subsequent to that. I wonder if the Premier could explain to the House what he sees as that package.

Hon. G. Clark: I hope the member appreciates that I can't give a detailed answer to that. First, we have a jobs investment strategy, which is a very comprehensive document. We have a

summary document, which probably the member has. If he doesn't, we'll provide it for him. It has essentially four tenets, just to repeat: Skills Now, or the skills training component; the infrastructure component, or B.C. 21, investment in infrastructure; forest renewal, or investment in the resource base; and balancing the budget and fiscal debt management -- in other words, doing all of that within the context of a balanced budget. That's essentially the job plan, the jobs investment strategy.

Now, flowing from that is a series of initiatives, where we tried to put specific targets on job creation around the province. We made some of those during the election campaign; there are some others, and we are fleshing those out. We put some job targets in place -- for example, the jobs and timber accord. That is, if you will, a work in progress. We have some work done on it. We put together what we think are reasonable targets, and now we're engaging, in that case, the forest industry, people working in the forest sector and others to work to achieve those targets.

No doubt the member will be informed of the progress of the jobs and timber accord over the course of the next months and years. So there is a series of initiatives like that, fleshing out how we achieve those job targets.

C. Hansen: In the most recent budget, one of the budget papers says: "We" -- meaning the government -- "will be introducing a comprehensive jobs plan." My question follows up on that: will there be an actual document, an actual program that will be a comprehensive jobs plan, or is this the several different programs that come together under some umbrella that is just labelled a jobs plan?

Hon. G. Clark: I said we have, first of all, the job plans framework. We have the central thrust -- the ideology, if you will -- the philosophy of the government with respect to investing in the future of the province, investing in the training of our young people, investing in our forest resource base.

That's the essential difference between our party and the party across the way that believes in tax cuts for corporations, banks and the wealthy, and believes that will trickle down to create jobs. The member's laughing, but this is absolutely consistent. For years in this chamber that's been the agenda. Deep cuts to public spending and large tax cuts have been the economic strategy.

Our strategy is to try to preserve health care and education and to invest in the infrastructure of the province, in the skills and training of British Columbians and in the forest resource base. Recently, of course, we're also looking at investing in the fishery resource and others as part of that comprehensive modern strategy to deal with competitive pressure that the province faces. It's a fundamental cleavage between the Liberal Party and our party.

So as we move forward, we're fleshing out the pieces in the regional strategy and trying to put some job targets within that rubric of the overall investment plan, to drive home some specific job targets. We've released some of those -- the Kamloops region and others. We're going through a sort of regional analysis. Over the course of time, the jobs targets and how they flesh out will become apparent, all underneath the umbrella of the jobs and investment plan we released a year or so ago.

C. Hansen: I'm going to resist the temptation to get into a debate of where the Liberal Party comes from on these. I think we went down that slippery slope last night, and in the end we wound up with periods of time when not much was accomplished, when it comes to what the estimates are all about. We certainly reserve the right to come back to that later in the day, but in the meantime, I do have some serious

[ Page 1998 ]

questions that I'm looking for serious answers to, without getting into a political debate of the various philosophies expressed within this House.

I want to ask the Premier specifically about the jobs and timber accord as a component of the jobs plan. Are the negotiations taking place under that jobs and timber accord being driven primarily from his office?

[3:00]

Hon. G. Clark: Yes.

C. Hansen: I want to ask the Premier if the forest renewal fund becomes a component in meeting the job creation objectives that are sought under the jobs and timber accord.

Hon. G. Clark: Clearly it would be a component. Let me elaborate on my rather too glib answer a minute ago. The Ministry of Forests, the Forest Renewal board, the industry, unions, environmentalists, the Ministry of Employment and Investment, the Ministry of Small Business, the Ministry of Environment and a variety of others are involved. This is a major initiative of the government.

It is true to say that I'm driving that agenda. I campaigned for leadership of the NDP on that subject. I campaigned to become Premier on that subject. My deputy minister is a key player in the forest sector strategy, in driving the jobs and timber accord. The head of CPCS, Tom Gunton, reports to me, and the policy units around there are part of the driving force to pursue this.

But it's not something that I can or would do without the active participation of the major ministries that actually deliver the service, understand the nature of the business and can pursue the kinds of trade-offs required to make a jobs and timber accord work. Similarly, Forest Renewal has a separate board, a separate agency.

However, if you're looking at a job target of creating more jobs in British Columbia in the forest sector, then we're not simply saying that those jobs are going to be created by this particular sector or that particular sector without looking at all of it, because it includes everything. It includes investments made by Forest Renewal, by the government, by industry, etc.

I think it would be unfair and unsuccessful if we simply said that we expect, say, the existing companies in the industry to create 22,000 more jobs. We expect in general that industry can sustain more employment. We know that, essentially -- if you want, crudely -- if we had exactly the same ratio of jobs per cubic metre harvested as they have in Oregon, Washington, California or virtually anywhere else in the world, we would have probably 40,000 or 50,000 more jobs. We put a much more modest target on it, because we know there are some reasons we don't have that many jobs. It's not anybody's fault.

There are lots of reasons -- distance to market, various factors. We feel that moving in that direction is required. We're going to work hard, using every tool we have at our disposal, and work with every group we have any contact with to try to drive those job numbers up.

C. Hansen: We may come back to the subject of the accord at a later point in these debates, but I'll put it aside for now.

I want to ask the minister about something he was quoted on when the Youth Works program was announced. I know the Premier made the point that he didn't want to canvass that in detail, but I did want to question him on a particular reference made at the announcement, I believe, in Burnaby. The Premier was quoted at that time as saying that there would be 13,000 private sector jobs created. I just wonder if the Premier could elaborate. Was it a misspeaking or a misquote?

Hon. G. Clark: It's not correct. I don't know whether it was a misquote of mine, misspeaking on my part or an inaccuracy on the part of the reporter. I do actually suspect it was the latter, but I don't want to hide behind that. I said what I have said consistently before and since: 13,000 training spaces would be made available, not jobs at the end of the training programs. It's interesting that you should note that, because there's been lots of coverage of this, and I think only one story -- at least, I was advised some weeks later of one story -- referred to it as jobs. It's not jobs.

C. Hansen: The reason I raise that is that I'm aware of the one article, and I had tried to find other references to it. I think that, as a result of that one

article -- and there may have been radio coverage as well -- there was definitely a perception on the part of the players and those involved in those programs that it was in fact 13,000 jobs. I think 13,000 training spaces is quite a different story.

I want to switch to another subject, if I may: the compensation negotiations with regard to the settlement framework agreement for the Kemano completion project. I wonder if the Premier could advise us of the status of those negotiations with the Kemano completion project.

Hon. G. Clark: There's nothing particularly new to report. There are ongoing discussions with Alcan to follow up on the memorandum of agreement that was signed. The memorandum of agreement we signed expired without a resolution, and so the company is free to sue the government. They have not chosen to do that. They have been interested in continuing dialogue with us, and I think there have been a few discussions, but no progress has been made.

C. Hansen: Does the government plan to still abide by the intent of the original settlement framework agreement? Has there been an extension to that framework agreement, or are the negotiations taking place in the context of the now expired agreement?

Hon. G. Clark: It's not been extended, so the discussions can talk about whatever the people want to talk about. Clearly we signed the framework agreement. I strongly support the framework agreement, and I'd like to have a resolution on this. I'd like to have a resolution which protects environmental values and leads to more jobs and certainty in Kitimat.

I'm not satisfied with the current situation, because we did take a very difficult action, a unilateral action to cancel this agreement. It was the right decision to protect the environment. We have a situation where the workers in Kitimat deserve job security. They deserve the company to reinvest in that community, and much of that is stalled pending the uncertainty associated with some of this debate.

I'm quite happy talking about this too, although I'm wandering into some turf which is not totally my responsibility, at least directly. The key question -- or some of the key questions -- are the questions of water flows in the river, and those are not resolved.

C. Hansen: I know there are some very real concerns on the part of residents in that part of B.C. with regard to

[ Page 1999 ]

the future of the power block that is now being sold to B.C. Hydro. I wonder if the Premier could comment on whether or not the future of that power is part of these negotiations and, specifically, whether B.C. Hydro is a party to these negotiations. What role do they play in the negotiations that might be taking place?

Hon. G. Clark: The very specific answer is yes, they're clearly part of the negotiations and discussions. The next question you asked was: "Is Hydro involved?" The answer is only in a technical sense, in terms of giving technical advice, legal advice and others with respect to their role and their contractual arrangements. We see this as a government decision, and as the sole shareholder of B.C. Hydro, we'll make the decision in the public interest. Hydro is not party to those negotiations.

C. Hansen: Could the Premier advise us of an anticipated time line for these negotiations? I know the original....

Hon. G. Clark: I wish.

C. Hansen: I think I got my answer, thank you very much. Perhaps he could elaborate on that. Are we talking about months, are we talking about years? Secondly, is the Premier confident that these discussions will be resolved by negotiation rather than before the courts?

Hon. G. Clark: We certainly hope a resolution will take place in months, and that's my desire and my position. I think, realistically.... I actually don't know the answer. It could take much longer than that to get a resolution.

With respect to the court action, we are not planning to sue Alcan; we're planning to negotiate resolution. But if Alcan chooses to sue the province of B.C., that's their prerogative, and they can do that anytime. We can't stop them from doing that. We're not going to be steamrollered into any kind of negotiated settlement on the basis of a legal threat, so we're carrying on.

Now let me put it in a more positive light, if I could. Alcan, I believe, would like to settle this in a negotiated fashion. The province would like to settle this in a negotiated fashion, and we are trying to do that. I remain cautiously optimistic, actually, that we can get a resolution that meets the interests of the very disparate parties to this dispute, if you will, in terms of the interests and concerns that people have.

C. Hansen: Is the Premier prepared to make sure that any settlement that comes out of these negotiations is tied to economic development and job creation opportunities that will take place in the province of British Columbia?

Hon. G. Clark: Certainly that's a key objective that I have. In fact, I would say it's the key objective. I don't think the economic development question is the hard one to resolve; I think the environmental one is hard to resolve.

C. Hansen: I wonder if, in the budget and budget estimates that are before us, there are any costs included that would be used for settlement in this particular case.

Hon. G. Clark: No, there aren't.

C. Hansen: I only have one or two questions left in this area. I wonder if the Premier could advise us whether or not there will be an opportunity to debate the proposed settlement in this Legislature before it is finalized.

Hon. G. Clark: No.

C. Hansen: The final question I have before I turn it over to a colleague is.... I was quite surprised to learn that these negotiations were in fact being driven by the Ministry of Environment. I looked back to the assignment of cabinet responsibilities at the time that the executive council was sworn in, and I didn't see any change of designation at that time. I've certainly looked for any press releases or things that have come out. I'm wondering if the Premier could explain the rationale for these negotiations being assigned to the Ministry of Environment.

Hon. G. Clark: I'm just checking, because I'm not sure that the member is correct. The current Minister of Environment is the lead minister designated on the discussion of Alcan, and was prior to the election, as well. That has not changed. It's not being driven by the Ministry of Environment, as the member asserted, and it isn't today. It's a separate responsibility that the minister has, which is only partially related to his ministerial duties.

We felt that the negotiations are of sufficient magnitude that we should empower or formally have a minister be responsible for the detailed negotiations and some of the decisions, to report back to cabinet. That minister has always been, I believe, the current Minister of Environment, who is only recently in that position.

C. Hansen: Could the Premier explain, then, what ministry of government is actually driving these negotiations under the leadership of the Minister of Environment?

Hon. G. Clark: The Premier's Office.

[3:15]

C. Hansen: I'll turn the questioning over to a colleague.

L. Reid: Just moments ago the Deputy Premier suggested that these annual reports are fine reading, and that indeed we should bring them in to debate in this chamber. I intend to do just that. I'm referring to the office of the child, youth and family advocate. Joyce Preston has recently come into this position.

It's my understanding that this is the Minister Responsible for Youth, the Premier. The comments that are made in this document referencing youth services are found on page 30, for the Premier's information: "Government presents a very confused face in its services to people between 16 and 24 years of age. In 1995 services have appeared to be built on shifting sands. There has been a lack of clarity regarding such areas as entitlement, focus, approach, the availability of various programs and which government ministries are involved." My contention is that this has not changed dramatically.

The Chair: Hon. member, excuse me. I'm sorry to interrupt you at this point, but it concerns me somewhat that that seems to be relating more closely to Social Services than it does directly to the Premier's responsibilities for youth as he has described them in the past. Now, unless the Premier is keen to discuss these, I just want to draw to your attention that supposedly it isn't the Premier's task to respond to every issue from every ministry. So with that caution....

[ Page 2000 ]

L. Reid: Madam Chair, I appreciate your concern, but I certainly do not share it. This person is an individual of the Legislature, and again I ask the Premier to respond, since he has taken great delight in the last number of months saying that he is indeed responsible for youth.

Hon. G. Clark: When we appoint legislative officers who report to the House, they are effectively watchdogs on government. I think it's a credit to the previous government and all members of the House that we would appoint such a watchdog, if you will -- sorry, maybe that's too narrow a definition -- or someone of Joyce Preston's calibre to this particular position. I take very seriously any criticisms that she has of the government with respect to youth services, and certainly that's very hard-hitting criticism indeed. I think it means we have lots of work to do.

What we're trying to do is work on how we can streamline and organize services to young people, in keeping with the Gove report and in keeping with my own responsibilities and others that other ministers have. One of the challenges of modern, complex government -- frankly, too complex and too large, in many cases -- is the overlap of responsibilities and duplication of responsibilities that we find. It's particularly acute, as I think all members know and have seen recently, in ministries like Social Services and Health. That is what Ms. Preston is referring to in particular.

Of course, my responsibility as Minister Responsible for Youth is to try not to set up a bureaucracy, a competing bureaucracy or competing agency, but rather to act to drive a youth-focused agenda in the line ministries.

The answer is that this report came out, really, before I took responsibility for youth in British Columbia -- the Minister Responsible for Youth. I'm sure it was written before that. What I'm trying to do is bring some focus to programs for young people. I'm doing that in two ways: firstly through the office of the transition commissioner and secondly through my youth secretariat, so that we can in fact fix some of the problems that Ms. Preston has referred to there, which I generally agree with.

L. Reid: I appreciate the Premier's comments with reference to youth. Certainly, speaking as a past teacher and past school administrator, a lot of what the Premier is attempting to do falls on fertile ground on this side of the Legislature. We all appreciate that the issues facing youth today are significant. What concerns me and what is reflected in this report certainly -- the Premier, I understand, is also responsible for the cabinet policy and communications secretariat -- is that the message of government has to be consistent.

Joyce Preston is saying throughout this document, and I will quote it into the record just for superb clarification here:

"Government's attitude as expressed in programs developed for this age group" -- and again, she is speaking of 16 to 24 years of age -- "has been alarmingly inconsistent. The messages seem to change constantly: go to school -- don't go to school; we'll provide training for everyone -- your family should take care of you; you're just lazy -- get a job. On top of this are such occurrences as social assistance payments being suddenly reduced.... "

All of those messages are inconsistent. Again, I think that is an issue for the Premier's Office and certainly for this Premier who has taken responsibility for youth. I agree with the comments contained in this report, that the messaging has not been consistent. I ask the minister, the Premier, to comment.

Hon. G. Clark: I said before that I take seriously Ms. Preston's comments, so I don't want to minimize them. But I have to say I don't entirely agree with that assertion. I actually think we are making progress on a message. It may not be a message that Ms. Preston likes. It may not be a message that the member opposite likes, and I accept that as a valid opinion. But the message is pretty clear; we did cut welfare rates for single employables. We are changing the entitlement, from entitlement to cash to entitlement to training. This is a big change. It is a change that has been criticized by many people.

But it's one that I feel not only confident about but that I feel comfortable with and I feel is absolutely essential. I think that message has been clear.

I'm not trying to put out some kind of temporizing discussion or hide behind that, but I hope that the member opposite would agree. That particular legislation, Youth Works, has just come in right now. The implementation of it is in September. Again, we are in a kind of transition here for programs for youth, so parts of the different messages are, as we work through this transition.

I said this a minute ago and I'll say it again: one of the reasons for taking on this portfolio is to try to drive a more consistent message and to make sure that is in keeping with the government's agenda. Hopefully, that will address many of the concerns that people like Ms. Preston have identified -- although it may not, because there also appears to be some subjective philosophical difference I detect in those remarks, and that won't go away even if we get a simple, straightforward message.

L. Reid: I certainly agree with the Premier when he suggests that Joyce Preston is an officer of the Legislature. Indeed, these people are put in place to be watchdogs of the system. The fact that this person may not share the Premier's view philosophically is probably a good thing in lots of respects.

One of the points she does make is around specific populations -- i.e., teenage moms trying to do day care and trying to return to school. Certainly in the lead-up to the election those were a number of the issues you yourself raised, Mr. Premier -- when it came to print media, when it came to television media -- that these were the more difficult populations to serve and that these would be the groups you would be there for. Are there some plans and status reports on whether or not anything has evolved from that particular volume of advertising? Have the programs followed?

Hon. G. Clark: Yes, they have. I mean, I don't have them with me here, because it is not my direct responsibility. Yes, and again, Ms. Preston is not here to defend herself, and I am not trying to criticize. One of the challenges is.... We have actually done -- I won't say it's too much -- a lot. There hasn't been the kind of tying together in theme.

When you are an activist government initiating the biggest increase in child care spaces in the history of the country, in British Columbia in the past few years, when you have the biggest capital spending in the history of the country in the last four years, when you are doing those kinds of things, you need to bring some focus and make sure that all these initiatives are coordinated in a way which has, in this case, a youth-centred focus.

Obviously, as we move forward tying it together, bringing in some theme, we'll have a bigger challenge in keeping pace with those investments because of our fiscal situation and our commitments on taxes and others. In a way, it gives us the opportunity to pull all these initiatives together, streamline them, see how they fit, reform social services the way

[ Page 2001 ]

Judge Gove has talked about, or at least put in place many of the recommendations, and look at how the ministry of youth, Health, Social Services, other agencies, Education and Training all fit together.

I think it's a very valid criticism that governments generally are having a hard time struggling with this. I can't tell you how many interministerial committees there are on some of these issues. I sometimes think there is an endless series of meetings between ministries. We need to cut through all of that and really get the minimum of overlap and duplication we can, streamline it and make sure that services to young people and to kids are the priority, and try to deal with some of these turf challenges we often have in government.

L. Reid: In response to my last question, the Premier said that it was not his direct responsibility. Fine. What is his direct responsibility under the responsibility for youth? In terms of referring people to that office, who indeed would you wish to see and actually respond to their concerns? Which issues are you taking responsibility for?

Hon. G. Clark: It's a brand-new office in the Premier's youth secretariat. There are, I think, two or three people there. Again, my purpose for it is not to set up another program delivery structure -- partly because of criticism like that which you read out from Ms. Preston, and that I think the member shares -- but rather to try to get a small central agency developing policy around youth issues and driving, if you will, within the line ministries the kind of youth-focused agenda that the government and that I as minister want to adopt.

Hopefully, that kind of approach will in fact go a long way to doing what I just said: getting the right accountability structures, getting the jurisdiction correct, driving through some of the confusion, duplication and overlap that we have seen and that you've alluded to. I think that's appropriate.

I anticipate that that secretariat will get slightly larger, hopefully not very large. An option that I am considering, and staff know this -- we haven't made any decisions yet -- is the notion of every ministry having a youth advocate, for example, in the ministries and either working with the youth secretariat or for the youth secretariat. So we're driving, kind of cutting through some of this stuff and making sure we're constantly focusing on some of those issues.

I don't want this to sound overly simplistic, but hopefully, with the youth secretariat, if it has that kind of function.... We have to make sure that it harmonizes or marries with the changes coming out of Gove, which is an ongoing process and a legislative committee. So, even though I just said what I said, we don't want to do that. We want to make sure that we're working on the same sort of wavelength and team. Then, hopefully, we can work with people like Joyce Preston, an officer of the Legislature, to make sure that we're addressing some of the concerns that she has raised in her report.

If there are philosophical differences, that's fine. That may be good, as I think the member said. But we'll just be upfront with those. Those are differences in philosophy -- but not differences in program delivery, or confusion or unfocused attention, which is what most concerns me about the remarks she's made and, frankly, that I think we're all saying we agree with in a way.

L. Reid: Certainly I take well the Premier's comments about the need to make the system more cohesive and do away with the stovepipes. When the Premier talked about how many interministerial committees there actually are, yes, I have a fondness for that debate. I've been in it many times. No matter how many there are, this communication still does not happen. So my question specifically to the Premier is on the time line for the youth secretariat. What do you intend to achieve by any particular date? If you could give us that, we'll be able to cross-reference over the next six or ten months and have some accountability framework that we may address.

[3:30]

[J. Doyle in the chair.]

Hon. G. Clark: I can't actually give you a date here. We haven't given it that kind of time line.

L. Reid: A target.

Hon. G. Clark: Well, the target.... In part, I think it would be better tied to the implementation of Gove and how we move that along. Again, I don't want to jump in with a model that I might be excited by, on the youth secretariat in an abstract sense. Do you know what I mean? We want to make sure that it's working with people like the child and youth advocate, people particularly like those on the Gove implementation and Cyndi Morton, who is reporting to me. We'll try to get it all or a lot right, recognizing that there will be incremental changes. You know, nothing stands still until we do that.

In some ways, the initiative around the youth initiative, other than pursuing aggressively the broad policy stuff and my personal involvement in it and some of the initiatives we've taken, whether it's the tuition freeze or the employment programs.... The broader mandate of the secretariat will be evolving and will only be really developed once we get these other pieces to fit right. I'm hoping that we can do that in a year or so. I can't remember the time frame for the Gove implementation, but there is a legislative committee.

I hope the member will indulge me in canvassing this again when we start making progress on all these other areas, so that we can see how this fits in with the model and how it's hopefully cutting down some of the confusion and problems that the member has alluded to.

L. Reid: For the Premier's information, I appreciate that he wishes his secretariat to dovetail with what Gove is doing. Is the Premier aware that the Gove legislative committee has not met once during this legislative session?

Hon. G. Clark: Yes, but it's the shortest legislative session in 40 years. The committee will be . . . .

L. Reid: No, it's not the shortest legislative session.

Hon. G. Clark: Oh, whatever. I'm sorry. I'm not trying to make a political point by saying that.

An Hon. Member: Yes, you are.

Hon. G. Clark: No, I wasn't. There may have been other sessions that were around the same, but it's a short session, and people understand the circumstances around that. The Gove committee will be struck and will be meeting. I give you that commitment. We've got to make this work, and I think all members of the House, regardless of some of the partisan theatrics, want to see this work.

L. Reid: I absolutely agree with the Premier that we need to make this work, but I can assure the Premier that we have

[ Page 2002 ]

had this commitment before. When this House met in April, we were told the Gove committee would continue to meet. It has not met in the previous four months. I think it's somewhat an issue of negligence on the government's part to have all this self-righteous indignation when questions are raised, but at the same time, the committee that could be handling some of those issues has not met, as a direct request of this government and certainly, I would assume, this Premier. Would the Premier comment?

Hon. G. Clark: I'll accept the criticism that the committee hasn't met. I hope the member would acknowledge that it's not a deliberate attempt to subvert the process. There has been an intervening election, this is the middle of August, and we are in a short session. We intend to have the committee meet.

I also hope the member would recognize that the work of Cyndi Morton and the professionals reviewing this is keeping pace. It hasn't stopped because the committee hasn't met. Again, talking to even the Leader of the Opposition, I'm advised that the committee is only going to meet three or four times in the course of the year. It's not like it's going to meet all the time. So I'm not opposed to meeting more than that, but the advice I've been receiving is that it's not a heavy workload. It's more reporting in and consultation. So that work is proceeding apace.

The committee will meet. It will be reporting in, and as the member well knows, with full access to briefings. I'll make sure of that if there's any concern in terms of making sure that individual members like the member -- who I know is very interested and concerned about this issue -- have access to Cyndi Morton. I just acknowledge that the committee hasn't met and that it should meet, first of all. Secondly, I hope the member will acknowledge that it doesn't mean that work has slowed down at all. It means, in fact, it's continuing on, and I think the member knows that.

L. Reid: For the record, I would say I have the highest regard for the work that Cynthia Morton is doing. My question specifically is: who is responsible for implementation of the Gove inquiry?

Hon. G. Clark: Well, the transition commissioner reports to me, so I'm assuming it's me. The work is being done. There's a legislative committee, an oversight committee. I'm driving it. The reason it reports to me is that -- I assume all members agree with this -- obviously, we want some distance from the Ministry of Social Services, which has some challenges to overcome and has been subject to some criticism by Judge Gove, although Social Services would be in a sense the logical agency.

Secondly -- and I think this is very important -- there are some recommendations that may flow out of that which will lead to structural changes or recommendations for structural changes, and the Premier is responsible for the makeup of cabinet and the makeup of the structure of government. It's the sole prerogative of the first minister. So if you want it to work and have structural change, then it makes sense to have the Premier's Office and the Premier involved in that, so that it has a high chance of success in terms of making the structural changes that might be recommended.

I think there's a sort of logic to that. That work is underway. I know that lots of members have been consulted, and there's all kinds of intense work being done. It is a transition period. It should be reporting to a committee, but the committee has not met for a few months. It does need to meet, but as I've said, I've given some undertaking that it will.

L. Reid: Let's review what we have before us. We have a Premier who is assuming that he's responsible, we have a committee that has not met, and we have one superb public servant. I would suggest that this Premier is not keeping his end of the bargain. The question specifically was: when will the committee meet? The Premier must know that the committee has had only a single organizational meeting where they basically appointed a chair and a vice-chair. That is not substantive work on behalf of the very profound, very serious recommendations that Justice Gove has made.

Again, to the Premier, as the person who has taken great delight in parading around the province suggesting that he's taken the responsibility for youth very seriously: when will this committee meet?

Hon. G. Clark: I'm accepting the criticism of the member to an extent. All I'm saying is: don't equate a committee meeting with progress on youth issues or on implementing the Gove report. I just refuse to accept that.

We have a transition commissioner for child and youth services. She is a superb public servant, and she is working extremely hard. It's a challenging issue, and members of the opposition are fully briefed on this. I haven't heard any criticism or complaints about the work that's being done, and it's fully available to be canvassed. All this work is proceeding apace, and it will report to a parliamentary committee. But in the meantime, it reports to me -- not just in the meantime but at all times. Judge Gove, I remind members, wanted some independence for the office of the transition commissioner from line ministries, which is the principal reason, I guess, that it reports to me.

I'm trying to give the member credit, and I accept some of the criticism. But I just hope that the member would also accept that simply because the legislative committee hasn't met, that doesn't mean their work isn't being done. It is being done.

L. Reid: I would encourage the Premier, then, to enter into discussions with his House Leader. Whenever there is a question raised on Gove, she stands there and says that we have a committee. Frankly, that's useless if the committee doesn't meet. So in terms of my original comment today about messaging across government, obviously you and your House Leader need to have a conversation about how important it is to convey the same message.

In terms of the Premier's comments around having each ministry take some responsibility, I come back to one of my other points made this afternoon about accountability. Let's leave Gove for a moment and ask: how are you going to measure success for any youth initiative that your secretariat is going to drive, in your words?

I'll give you an example. The First Job in Science and Technology program, which directly relates to the 16-to-24-year-olds, is a program that I absolutely support -- no question about that. It was oversubscribed early on, so there's no more ability to take advantage of or benefit from that program, and there's no communication that the program is no longer available. You yourself, Mr. Premier, stand in this House saying: "Isn't it a fabulous program?" The public message is that it is still available. So either it is superbly successful....

And I would grant the Premier that I think it probably is, but you can't keep overselling it. Once it is subscribed, it's done. So either come to the table with something that is going to offer opportunities to young people or.... You can't sell the program for four years when there's no opportunity for any new person to enter into the process.

[ Page 2003 ]

Hon. G. Clark: I don't think that's entirely fair. The member has acknowledged that she agrees that it's an excellent program, that it had a 100 percent takeup and that there is a waiting list. So in a way, it's too successful. We are not advertising it on TV or anything; we're not promoting it. It's just that....

L. Reid: It's the third time this week you've mentioned it.

Hon. G. Clark: I do mention it a lot, because it is a tremendous program -- a success.

Interjection.

Hon. G. Clark: It is somewhat expensive.

If these government programs are oversubscribed, you can't simply go back. I know the members wouldn't want me to go back and increase the budget in the middle of the year.

If I could just deal with the member's comments on this particular program, what we have to do now is perhaps look at whether the full subsidy is required, given the tremendous success of the program. Not everybody would want to hear that, but it seems to me that maybe we can keep the budget and have more people working by reducing the subsidy. That's exactly the kind of program review which we're engaging in. We obviously cannot and will not.... I shouldn't say it in advance of the budget process, but I might as well. Funding is not going to be increased. Can we redesign it?

Is it a success, as successful as I think it is and as many people think it is? Can we make it more successful from a cost-effectiveness point of view by adding spaces without costing money? That's exactly the kind of review we're undertaking.

In answer to the general question that the member asked, we have to take each of these program initiatives we announced and evaluate them against their own goals, and then measure their success and look for ways in which we can either improve the program or eliminate the program. Again, I say very, very seriously that that's a real option. If the program is not successful, we're going to get rid of it.

And if it's really successful, as the member suggested, can we either enhance the funding -- probably not, but obviously we want to look at that -- or make it even more successful by altering it, by tailoring it, by looking at it? We haven't done the evaluation yet; it's a new program. I accept the notion that it's clearly, dramatically oversubscribed -- on both sides, employers and employees. That's a nice problem to have. It's also one which points to possible changes to the program so that we can get a bigger bang for the buck.

L. Reid: I appreciate the Premier's comments on accountability and some kind of planning process that needs to happen.

What I would put before this Premier is whether or not he can put in place a calendar when the windows of opportunity do exist for each of these various programs so that young people are aware. I think it's incredibly demoralizing for a number of these young folks to phone and be told the program is done and that they no longer qualify. Some planning for a year-long calendar, such as this is program X -- whether it's First Job in Science or any of the others -- and how long the window of opportunity exists....

Then, frankly, constituency offices around the province would have some valuable information to share with people. This Premier, I know, will realize how many times some of these young people have tried to get on the line to make a telephone call, and after their fiftieth try, they get through and are told: "Sorry." We're not communicating effectively. This government, I think, if they're truly committed to young people, will stop frustrating them at every turn.

The minister suggested that there would be an evaluation of this program. Will there be an interim evaluation? Are we talking six months from now, a year from now? When can we expect one?

Hon. G. Clark: I'm not trying to be obstreperous, but I did canvass this with the member for Vancouver-Quilchena at a little bit of length, so I'll try and do it briefly, if that's okay.

We will be doing a program evaluation review of all the programs and the youth employment initiatives that I announced, the youth guarantee. It will be a program evaluation leading up to decisions that will be made about the budget next year. That generally means that they start this fall. Some of the program evaluations will be completed at the end of the fiscal year, and some of them earlier than that, as we make further decisions.

I committed to the member for Vancouver-Quilchena to provide evaluative work done on these reports. I also quite candidly said that we would be making decisions on the budget based on our evaluative work before the member opposite actually gets the evaluative framework. So I'll try and commit to getting it to you before the end of the fiscal year, and then you'll have to judge or critique the decisions we made coming out of budget process in the debate next year, armed with the same information that we have.

L. Reid: I thank the Premier for that information. He will know that I canvassed his colleague the Deputy Premier, the Minister of Employment and Investment, around science and technology very thoroughly, and the answers were not forthcoming. So I thank the Premier most sincerely.

One of the last recommendations that I will reference from the office of the child, youth and family advocate is, in the words of Joyce Preston: "Above all, we will work to provide avenues for the voices of youth to be heard directly by government." I have a recollection of a youth advisory council that was in place over the last number of years, prior to this government, I believe. I don't think it was continued. Does the Premier have a similar forum in place? How does he hear directly from young people in this province?

[3:45]

Hon. G. Clark: That's a good question. We had a youth forum with a couple hundred people there, and it was a very intense workshop. It was excellent for me, personally, and I hope for many of the people. We had a report coming out of that forum -- I don't know if the member has it. Some people recommended a re-creation of the youth forum, and it's under consideration, although I've been a bit cynical about -- not the youth forum -- the Youth Advisory Council. Some people recommended that coming out of the forum actually, but I've been a bit cynical about it.

You've got to watch setting up people institutionally when they represent youth from various agencies. I'm not opposed to it, and I'm trying to engage young people in the discussion. In general, there wasn't a lot of support for it at that youth forum.

So what we're planning to do in all likelihood is hold another youth forum and try to learn from some of the critiques that people had. Whether we set up some kind

[ Page 2004 ]

of formal structure such as the Youth Advisory Council.... I'm open to that. I'm not closing the door to that, but we certainly haven't made that decision at this time.

L. Reid: I thank the Premier for that guidance, and I would like the Premier to know that I'm not tied to any particular forum. How you choose to receive that input is absolutely your call. I would suggest to the Premier that the input -- the simple asking -- is what is vitally important. Though certainly none of us on this side of House fall into the age bracket of 16 to 24, we would very much like to be included in....

Interjection.

L. Reid : It was a year or so ago for me, hon. Premier, and I know you and I are of the same vintage. But in terms of the opposition having equal concern and equal ability to participate in the process, I would welcome you granting us that opportunity. Would you kindly comment?

Hon. G. Clark: I actually think some MLAs were invited to the last youth forum -- maybe not opposition members. But I don't have any problem with that at all. It's not a partisan issue, provided members want to be constructive in the dialogue, and I'm sure they do. As long as I get to pick which opposition members are invited....

L. Reid: Well, Mr. Premier, you get to pick everything else, so I would think that certainly falls into your area of responsibility. I thank you for the concern you demonstrate on behalf of young people in this province. Please note that the members of the opposition will work very closely with you to advance some good opportunities.

G. Campbell: I'd like to go back to the Premier's responsibility for the Gove report. I know that Cynthia Morton has been put in place as a transition commissioner, and my first question is whether she has had the opportunity to provide the Premier with either verbal or written reports on her work since Gove reported out and since her appointment. The Premier's responsibilities for the Gove report and its implementation have been outlined briefly here in these estimates, and I know that Cynthia Morton has been appointed.

The question to the Premier is: has he received either verbal or written reports from Cynthia Morton on the activities she has undertaken, and what actual actions have we taken?

Hon. G. Clark: It's a three-year appointment; obviously I've had some discussions with Cynthia Morton around that. She is preparing a written report for me, a six-month report due in September, to canvass where we've got to and the range of options for proceeding. So September is the first time I'll be receiving any detailed written submission from her. As we outlined a minute ago -- just to comment a bit further -- we have a legislative committee on Gove, and hopefully it will dovetail nicely with some work in terms of reporting to her. She can seek guidance, if you will, from me as the person responsible and then seek input from the parliamentary committee on some of the options.

G. Campbell: I understand that Ms. Morton has just gone on a cross-country tour to talk, I assume, with other provincial jurisdictions and other agencies perhaps. Before she went, can the Premier tell me, did she discuss the tour with him? Did she discuss what objectives and goals she had established for herself? Is she actually carrying out the Premier's instructions, or is she simply flying on her own?

Hon. G. Clark: Well, first of all, I had to personally approve much of the travel, so.... I think she was in Michigan. It was a conference, I believe. This is just going from memory. I can get that for the member.

I guess the real answer is: a bit of both. She has been discussing with me verbally some of the issues. I've asked for, and she's preparing, a detailed report for September. She is also consulting with experts across the country and attending some conference around this. The Gove report is the foundation, of course, and much of the work has been done. It's very appropriate in this exercise, it seems to me, to be gathering information to guide decision-making starting in September, which will obviously continue over the next few years.

G. Campbell: We spent about a million and a half dollars on the Gove report, I think. Maybe it was $2.3 million; I can't remember. We spent a sizeable chunk of taxpayers' dollars establishing some independent recommendations. I recognize that those have to come through government, and government will eventually make those decisions. I'm not suggesting that shouldn't be the case. My concern is that when she goes out, I would like.... Let me stand back a minute.

One of my concerns about the Gove report, to be brutally honest and candid about it, is that the report was tabled. It is, I think, a pretty scathing indictment of all of us and what we've done and how we've acted and whether or not we've managed to carry out our responsibilities to the children of this province under our public care. I don't think there is anyone in this House who doesn't believe we should be caring for those children properly.

I was a little taken aback by the promptness with which the response came back, not specifically from the government -- because the words from the government were different than this -- but from the bureaucracy, which said: "Well, gee, this is going to be awfully tough to do. You know, it's different than what we've done before. I don't know whether we can do it or not." The problem still exists, and we know the problem still exists. If what we're doing now with Ms. Morton is rediscovering or re-examining all the issues that Gove examined, I think we're wasting our money. I would rather that we move forward in an executive capacity to make sure that those recommendations are put forward.

For example, the recommendation we talked about today, for a computerized tracking system in the child protection area, is something that I believe we could have done nine months after the report was in. I think there are a number of other areas where it really takes.... You don't need a transition commissioner to say to you: "Gee, you had better investigate this." We've had everyone we know tell us we should investigate it. The investigation is not simply into the death or the cause of death; it's into the activities that the ministry took. We have not seen that come forth. I recognize that the minister has taken some small steps in that regard now.

I'm concerned about who is actually tracking the report. There are dozens and dozens of recommendations in the report. I've got recommendation 118 as an example: ". . .within six months after delivery of this report" the government should report to the ombudsman on plans to implement his recommendations.

I know the answer, but I'm going to ask the question of the Premier anyway. Has that report been presented to the

[ Page 2005 ]

ombudsman at this date? Do we know exactly how we're carrying out all of those recommendations in that report, what activities we're undertaking, etc.? Those are critical questions to us. I don't believe that the committee is going to be executing the report. They should be looking at possible steps to be taken after it's been considered, and the steps forward have been outlined by the transition commissioner and the government.

Hon. G. Clark: First of all, let me do something somewhat unusual and say that I agree with most of what the Leader of the Opposition has said. Clearly some of the incidents raised both in this House and outside highlight the need to move on these recommendations. Now, we are moving on the recommendations. Cyndi Morton is working hard. They're not reinventing the wheel. There will be a detailed report back to me in September. To that extent, I don't agree with the member. But I will say that all members of this House want to deal with this issue expeditiously -- and I as much as or more than any other member.

I will ensure that it happens. I will grant you that there are some time lines and deadlines in some of the recommendations that have not been met, but it is not because of any kind of nefariousness or otherwise. It's simply because we're working through this.

Now, where I strongly agree with the member is his concern about the intransigence and the difficulty -- or at least the perceived difficulty -- of making changes in the bureaucracy. I think that is part of the problem. The Gove report does document problems in that ministry. It is clear that we cannot wait to deal with the transition to fix those problems. We have to move on them now, and I don't believe it's been moving fast enough for me. So I share the member's view.

I want to give him as much comfort as I can that with the detailed report that we expect from Cyndi Morton, and with the committee meeting again, I'm going to personally drive this to, I hope, a conclusion that all members of the House can support. It is increasingly apparent that with some of those problems, we need to move faster and harder in order to rectify them.

Having said all that, the only caveat I'd have to those remarks -- and I don't say this as any kind of shield or obfuscation -- is that it is a difficult, complicated question. There is intransigence -- an old way of doing business -- which has been criticized. Criticism is warranted, and criticism is relatively easy. In establishing a significantly new structure, we don't want to be here two or three years from now arguing for further huge changes. If you're going to make the kinds of significant changes that Gove recommended, and I think all members of the House support, then you want to do it right.

You want to do it fast, but you want to do it right. It's getting that balance which I'm determined to pursue, and I'm determined to ensure that members on the opposite side as well as on the government side understand exactly the kinds of changes we're making. I'm hopeful and optimistic, frankly, that all members of the House will support those changes when they come forward.

G. Campbell: Could I have a commitment from the Premier, then, that the detailed report from Ms. Morton will be submitted to the committee for their review, as well?

Hon. G. Clark: Yes, absolutely.

G. Campbell: In reviewing some of these recommendations, I guess my concern is that we have heard a lot of good words about the Gove report. In fact, what the Gove report has really been about so far, in terms of what the government's response has been, is words. I have, over the last day and a bit -- as have my colleagues on this side of the House -- asked consistently about the issue of accountability.

I believe that at the end of the day, we have seen in this House over the last number of weeks -- and indeed as we've watched and seen the record of the government over the last number of months -- a failure to do what this government said and a lack of understanding that someone has to be held accountable for all of those recommendations and that everyone in this House has to be informed about how those recommendations are being carried forward.

There is no question in my mind that this has not been the priority that we were told it was, it has not been the priority that it should be, and it has not been the priority that the Premier is telling us today that it is going to be over the next year. It is absolutely critical to us that over the next few months, the Gove commission report be brought forward, that all of those recommendations be considered and be either accepted or rejected. We on this side of the House are not going to accept any longer the generalized statements, "We like it and we hope we're going to do it, and you'll get a report on it some day," and stop there.

One of the things, I think, that has touched this off for all of us on this side of the House is that as we've gone through this session and in yesterday's discussions with the Premier, what we've heard consistently from the Premier whenever we are really trying to push to make sure that someone is held accountable is that.... The Premier gets very upset and does one of his numbers.

In fact, last night we discussed what we called the rant and run, where the Premier says whatever he wants to say and then says: "Well, I'll adjourn the discussions." It is not appropriate to adjourn the discussions, to put them off, to wait. The fact of the matter is that in this government, it has been very difficult to find anyone who you could hold to account for anything. We have a Finance minister who does not have his....

Interjection.

[4:00]

G. Campbell: It was much faster than the Finance minister finding out what's happening with his budget, I can tell you that.

We have a Finance minister who says we have a balanced budget, we have a Premier who says we have a balanced budget, we have millions of government dollars which go into telling us we have a balanced budget, only to find out we don't have a balanced budget. What we have is a quarter-billion-dollar deficit in this province.

We have a new budget that was brought in, where all of the mistakes.... You can fix up all the mistakes. Instead of fixing up the mistakes, they compound the mistakes. What the government says is: "Well, now we may not have a quarter-billion-dollar deficit in '96-97. We could have a $700 million deficit in 1996-97." That is not satisfactory, hon. Chair.

We have a Premier who tells us and tells the people of British Columbia: "Don't worry about Forest Renewal funds. They're protected. They are sacred. They will come to your community. They will provide you with jobs." And what happens? As soon as there is an election, as soon as the House is there, they say: "We're going after Forest Renewal funds. We're taking them out of your community. They're not going to be committed to jobs in the province of British Columbia."

Hon. Chair, the Premier told us that he had fired the disgraced chair of B.C. Hydro, John Laxton, and in fact he

[ Page 2006 ]

hadn't fired the disgraced chair of B.C. Hydro, John Laxton. He tells us he's concerned about the Gove report, but this government has not bothered to investigate even one of the deaths which are under their purview. It is simply not acceptable. It is simply not something that we on this side of the House can accept.

The critical thing is for someone in this government to be held to account. It is not, evidently, the Minister of Social Services who is going to be held to account for the way he has acted. We are not going to hold the Minister of Finance to account for the way he has not performed. We will not hold to account the Minister of Forests for the way that particular minister has performed. So we have only one person in the province that we can hold to account for the actions of this government. The Premier told us the budget was balanced, and it wasn't.

The Premier told us that the Forest Renewal trust is sacred, and it isn't. The Premier told us that he had fired disgraced B.C. Hydro chair, John Laxton, and he hadn't.

Hon. Chair, I have no choice but to move -- and I believe that all members of this House will support this motion wholeheartedly -- that vote 8 be amended by reducing the amount of $2,408,000 therein to $1.

[G. Brewin in the chair.]

Amendment negatived on the following division:

YEAS -- 35

Dalton

Gingell

Reid

Campbell

Farrell-Collins

Hurd

Sanders

Plant

Stephens

de Jong

Coell

Anderson

Nebbeling

Whittred

van Dongen

Thorpe

Penner

Weisgerber

Neufeld

Barisoff

Krueger

McKinnon

Masi

Nettleton

Coleman

Chong

Weisbeck

Jarvis

Abbott

Symons

Hawkins

C. Clark

Hansen

Reitsma

J. Wilson

NAYS -- 38

Evans

Zirnhelt

Cashore

Boone

Hammell

Streifel

Ramsey

Kwan

Waddell

Calendino

Pullinger

Stevenson

Bowbrick

Goodacre

Giesbrecht

Walsh

Kasper

Orcherton

Hartley

Priddy

Petter

Miller

G. Clark

Dosanjh

MacPhail

Sihota

Randall

Sawicki

Lali

Doyle

Gillespie

Robertson

Farnworth

Smallwood

Conroy

McGregor

Janssen

G. Wilson

F. Gingell: I wrote to the Premier on May 25 concerning the issue of a proposed termination settlement payment to Gordon Austin, the former chief of the Health Labour Relations Association. The Premier was good enough to respond to me on June 24, advising me that he had asked his deputy minister, Mr. Douglas McArthur, to look into the issue, to conduct an investigation and to report to you. I wonder if the Premier could advise me on the current status of this situation.

Hon. G. Clark: As I indicated at the time, I wasn't very happy with some reported settlement, and I have had the deputy minister review it. That review is not quite complete, although it does increasingly look extremely difficult, because there's a commercial arbitrator's decision around the settlement. So we're still exploring options with respect to that.

F. Gingell: Is the Premier advising the committee, then, that an action or a demand was commenced by Mr. Gordon Austin at this late date with respect to the termination of his employment?

Hon. G. Clark: I'm not trying to be cute about it. We're in the middle of a review of the question as requested by the member, and I responded. We're not quite complete in the review. It should be complete within a few weeks, and it will no doubt be a matter of public debate at that time. I don't want to comment too much further, just to say that we are doing a review. I think my comments are a matter of public record, and the member understands that. So we're simply looking to see what kinds of options we might have.

F. Gingell: My understanding is that this started with discussions and correspondence from Mr. Jo Surich to the Minister of Health and to the current Employers Council. In your deputy minister's investigation into this issue, could the Premier please ensure that in the end, we will know who instructed Mr. Jo Surich to start this ball rolling?

[4:15]

Hon. G. Clark: Certainly, I will try to provide all the information on the subject to the member opposite and to the public with respect to negotiations, subsequent arrangements and our review around those.

F. Gingell: I wonder if, during the process of the deputy minister's investigation, he is going to look into the issue of whether we should re-evaluate the opportunity for laying criminal charges against Mr. Gordon Austin for his behaviour and for the things that happened, which were reported in the media.

Hon. G. Clark: I think I'd have to unequivocally say no, simply because it is extremely dangerous -- and I'm sure the member agrees -- for politicians to intervene on these kinds of questions. There has been an investigation. The decision was made, without political interference, not to press charges. To overrule that or to somehow have that revisited because of any concerns that I or members may have would be literally an untenable situation with respect to other charges that might be laid. So while in this case members may not like the recommendations with respect to not pursuing charges, I'm not going to overrule them.

F. Gingell: Well, I look forward with interest to the deputy minister's report. Without in any way suggesting that it wouldn't be done in a full manner, I think the circumstances were such that it would be worthwhile for the report to contain the background information that covers the last three or four months. I'm not talking about going way back, but just about including how all of this started and how all of a sudden there was a suggestion -- in fact, a request -- that the government consider making a payment, I understand, in excess of a quarter of a million dollars. I look forward to receiving that report.

Hon. G. Clark: I'll have my deputy make a full and complete report, and I'll make it available to members of the opposition and to the public.

[ Page 2007 ]

M. de Jong: I was in the House last evening when the Premier went on at some length professing his disappointment with the undue -- I think he said unnecessary -- levels of skepticism and negativity that he heard from the opposition side of the House. Then he went on at length about how he thought that was counterproductive and indicative of something less than a genuine commitment to improving the circumstances of all British Columbians. As I listened to that, I thought to myself what we might have expected, were the Premier still occupying a seat on the opposition side of this House....

I recognize, of course, that he achieved something of a reputation as a vigorous and effective member of the opposition which he was part of through the latter part of the eighties. I thought to myself: maybe the Premier is right. Maybe we are being unnecessarily negative, overly negative. But I wonder how the Premier himself would have responded if he'd been confronted by a promise by the government he was opposing of a second balanced budget, millions and millions of dollars being spent.

Of course, the only difficulty with those ads is that in order to deliver a second balanced budget, you've got to have a first balanced budget. We now know that that never materialized, and the second balanced budget, which would now be the first balanced budget, isn't going to materialize, either. In fact, it was all one big fraud.

I wonder if the Premier, in his halcyon days of opposition, would have sat back and thought to himself: "Well, let's cut this government some slack. Let's be positive about that. Hey, let's give these guys a break, because mistakes happen." I wonder how the Premier would have responded had he been confronted by a government which swore up and down that Forest Renewal dollars would be kept out of the hands of greedy ministers, regardless of what party they were members of, and then awoke after an election to discover that that very thing was being considered.

I could foresee this Premier sitting back again and saying: "Hey, let's not be overly negative. Let's not be overly critical of a government that has changed its mind, flip-flopped amidst an overwhelming pile of evidence that suggests that's what it intended to do all along."

Maybe there's a side to the Premier that I didn't see when he was in opposition and that I'm overlooking now. Maybe I'm wrong. When the Premier was in opposition, had he been confronted by a government that said implementation of the Gove recommendations was going to be a first priority, and he discovered after an election that in fact little if anything had actually been accomplished, with very tragic results as we now know, maybe he would have said: "You know, maybe we shouldn't even be talking about this.

Maybe the role of opposition is not to bring these gross deficiencies in government to the floor of the Legislature." And maybe he would have said: "I think there's a way to put a positive spin on this as well." Maybe that would have been his approach.

I thought long and hard to myself: what would have been the straw that broke the camel's back? What would this Premier, in his opposition days, finally have looked on as the ultimate evidence of betrayal of the public of British Columbia? I thought to myself: I wonder if it might be evidence that a fellow like Mr. Laxton -- who we were told was to have no further association with B.C. Hydro, with the province of British Columbia, no role in representing the people of British Columbia -- is in fact still representing British Columbians abroad, in Pakistan. Would that have been it?

That might have been the straw that broke the camel's back. But today the Premier says to us: "You're being overly negative. You're dwelling on these minor technical breaches of the public trust. Why are you so preoccupied with these things?" That's the message we hear from the Premier.

There is yet another scandal that continues to plague this government, which the Premier conveniently tries to hide in the background, tries to ignore and pretend doesn't exist. But it's still out there, and it relates to his party's involvement in some pretty sordid activities in Nanaimo -- some really sordid activities.

I hope the Premier understands that when he inherited the leadership of his party, he inherited that legacy of deception as well. When the Premier stands up in this House and purports to chastise members opposite and asks how they look at themselves in the mirror, I only need to think about this incident and ask myself and the Premier and members of his party: how does he look himself in the mirror?

Interjection.

M. de Jong: He's looking now, I'm told. He's looking in the mirror now, and he doesn't like what he sees. He doesn't like what he sees to the extent that he sees anything at all. He doesn't like what he sees, and the reason is that he sees a real moral deficiency on the part of his party, the people in his party.

No amount of juggling, no amount of dancing, no amount of obfuscation by the Premier can hide the fact that he has not confronted this issue head on. He has not fulfilled the promise he made during the course of his leadership campaign for the New Democratic Party that charities in Nanaimo would be repaid. It's another promise unfulfilled, and it was a specific promise that the Premier made very early on in that leadership campaign.

I was sitting in the audience at the news conference where the Premier, confronted by very hard questions about the betrayal his party had perpetrated on the charities in Nanaimo, looked at those cameras and looked those British Columbians in the eye and said: "I'll do right by that. I'm going to reimburse them for every penny that they've been defrauded by the fundraising wing of the New Democratic Party." Well, that promise has not been fulfilled.

The Premier dances around. He's dragged, kicking and screaming, into public inquiries; he's dragged into investigations that should have been commenced years ago -- and all the while the question persists: what has the NDP got to hide? What has the party that this Premier leads got to hide? What is the involvement of the Premier, his staff and his cabinet ministers? What involvement do they have in the formative time when these deceptions, these activities, were taking place, when moneys were being ripped out of the hands of charities?

What involvement did they have in the subsequent cover-up to try to keep it from the public, the people who deserve to know the facts of what actually went on? What involvement have they had more recently? What involvement has the Premier's Office had in terms of conducting negotiations, in terms of trying to keep this issue from the front pages of the newspapers where it emerges and appears now and again when one of the various investigations that are ongoing takes place?

You know, the Premier likes to stand up and tout his government's record. It might be the only government in the history of British Columbia where to get a true sense of its record, you have to consult CPIC. The activities that this NDP government has sponsored, through its fundraising wings in

[ Page 2008 ]

Nanaimo and the Commonwealth societies that appear across the country, really defy description. They really defy any true justification or explanation that the government has been able to offer.

It wasn't that long ago -- less than a year ago -- when the former leader of the NDP, the former Premier, stood outside this chamber and threatened to sue anyone who suggested that there was a link between the activities of the Nanaimo Commonwealth Holding Society and the NDP -- he was going to sue them. Well, of course, it was only a matter of days or weeks later that Mr. Parks tabled his report. And lo and behold, what did we find?

We found a very clear link to the activities of that society, and we found a trail -- albeit a trail that showed evidence of great effort being taken to cover up, but a trail nonetheless -- involving hundreds of thousands of dollars. The present Premier, confronted by the reality of that when he assumed the leadership of the New Democratic Party, took great pains to point out that the legitimate claims of those who had been defrauded would be dealt with....

The Chair: Hon. member, I hesitate to interrupt, but I wonder if you would tie this into the estimates of the Premier's Office, as opposed to other tasks that he may or may not have at this point in this session. We're talking about the estimates here.

M. de Jong: With the greatest respect, hon. Chair, I know that all members of the House are waiting for the climax to this scintillating presentation. But in fairness to the Premier, I would like him to be here when I pose the ultimate question. It's rather difficult to do that in the absence of the man who is supposed to be answering for the Premier's Office.

[4:30]

The Chair: You've got to tie it to the estimates of the Premier's Office.

M. de Jong: I'll ask the question of the Premier, and then we'll wait for him to respond.

An Hon. Member: Ask for a recess.

M. de Jong: I'm happy to pose the question. I can offer you the assurance, hon. Chair, that the question I ultimately pose will draw the link I think you are looking for in terms of the involvement of the Premier's Office and the budget we are presently discussing. That's very much the issue: the use that the Premier has made of the resources available to his office in dealing with this matter. It is very difficult, quite frankly, when the person who is supposed to be answering the question isn't available. I can ask the question, but I'm in your hands as to whether we are going to recess to wait for an answer.

The question relates to the status of a particular individual working in the Premier's Office, Mr. Wickstrom, and I'd like to pose it to the Premier. My question is going to relate to that individual.

B. McKinnon: Hon. Chair, I understand that when we get up to speak, we have 15 minutes to speak before we ask the question. Actually, I was enjoying my hon. colleague's speech so much that I would like to give him my time.

M. de Jong: Thank you to my hon. colleague, whose taste and good judgment I've suddenly come to question.

Hon. Chair, the government and the party that the Premier leads came to office amidst promises that a new era would dawn in provincial politics in British Columbia, that the days of blatant patronage and misuse of government funds for partisan purposes would end and that there would be a new era of morality in public life. Unfortunately, we've entered the dark ages insofar as exactly the opposite has happened. Patronage has reached new proportions insofar as the appointment of those whose qualifications for the positions they acquire are dubious at best is concerned.

Interjection.

M. de Jong: I hear the Deputy Premier say: "Shame."

There is a litany of these appointments where it is difficult to see any possible link between the individual who has been appointed, the job they have been appointed to and the skills that person possesses.

If there's one thing that British Columbians are legitimately entitled to expect of their government, it is that it will maintain a professional civil service, free from the constraints of partisan political patronage. Indeed, exactly the opposite has taken place. Perhaps, even as we speak, the Premier is out hiring another NDPer to take his place in the Premier's Office, to dip into the budget that we are debating now, which is supposed to be available to the Premier to do the business of the people of British Columbia -- not the NDP's business, not his party's business, not to engage in partisan advertising of the sort that we saw to such a degree before the last election.

When you think about what these NDP members -- those who were around in the days of the last Social Credit government -- said about political advertising then and what they're doing now, it really boggles the mind. When you drove down the freeway -- I remember those weeks before the election -- and you heard those ads on the radio or you watched those feel-good-about-your-government ads on television, you asked yourself: millions and millions of dollars of public taxpayer's dollars are being spent, and for what?

In the spirit of asking the Premier to account for the expenditures that occur out of his office, let me pose a series of questions relating to an individual, Mr. Wickstrom. If I could ask the Premier -- he looks refreshed, and I know he's disappointed at having missed....

Hon. G. Clark: I think relieved is the word.

M. de Jong: It appears that during the course of my diatribe on government waste, the Premier has yet again visited the public trough. We will learn only later what the cost to the taxpayers has been.

Let me ask the Premier about Mr. Wickstrom -- in particular, when he was hired by the Premier's Office and whether he is still an employee of the Premier's Office.

Hon. G. Clark: Mr. Wickstrom is the executive director in the Premier's Office, and he's overly qualified for the job. He was my ministerial assistant and moved with me into the Premier's Office, and he is doing an outstanding job.

M. de Jong: He's tolerant, if nothing else, having followed the Premier as he apparently has. I wonder if the Premier could enlarge upon what Mr. Wickstrom's duties actually are as his executive.... Is it executive assistant?

Hon. G. Clark: Executive director.

[ Page 2009 ]

M. de Jong: What does an executive director do within the Premier's Office?

Hon. G. Clark: He oversees the management of the office as executive director. He is a sort of liaison with individuals who either can't meet with me -- or want to meet with me, more appropriately -- and does a lot of extensive work with the business community in terms of ensuring that they have access to the Premier and the Premier's Office.

I made a speech some time ago to the Business Council of B.C., where I simply advised them that lobbyists weren't required to meet with the Premier or the Premier's Office. Many of them took me up on that and phoned my office. Because of my time schedule, Mr. Wickstrom handles a fair amount of that in terms of making sure that they get access and information. But beyond that, there are the administrative functions in the office, etc. I don't know where the member is going with this line of questioning, but I had two ministerial assistants. Adrian Dix is now principal secretary, and Ron Wickstrom is now executive director of the Premier's Office.

M. de Jong: The description the Premier offers suggests an individual whose duties relate to the Premier's public office -- as Premier of the province of British Columbia. I would ask the Premier if he is in possession of the information as to what his executive director, Mr. Wickstrom, earns for performing that role.

Hon. G. Clark: No, I'm not. But this is public information, and certainly the member can get it. It is available. It's a political appointment. I'm trying to see if there is any kind of trick question here. I know all members of the Liberal Party are thinking the same thing. It's a political position; he reports to the principal secretary. It's not a public service position; it's an order-in-council. The salary is the same, I believe, as the salary of the former executive director in the previous administration of the previous Premier, and he is doing excellent work on the political side of government.

M. de Jong: Having received that description of Mr. Wickstrom's duties, it would be my expectation, therefore, that his duties wouldn't extend to the performance of functions on behalf of the governing party, the NDP, and that those more partisan functions would be left to party functionaries and not to the executive director for the Premier.

Hon. G. Clark: I don't know. Again, I may be giving the member too much credit. I'm trying to figure out where he's going with this. Mr. Wickstrom is a member of the New Democratic Party, an activist in the NDP. It's one of the reasons that he has this political job. He has been a campaign manager. He's been an activist, as I have been, in east Vancouver for many years. That is an absolutely essential recommendation for a political job on the political side of government.

Again, I could elaborate for a long time on this, but it's pre