2008 Legislative Session: Fourth Session, 38th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes

only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

WEDNESDAY, MARCH 5, 2008

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 27, Number 10

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Page

Introductions by Members

Tributes

Pamela Charlesworth

Cubberley

Introductions by Members

Statements (Standing Order

25 B )

Importance of

sanitation

J. Kwan

Olympic venues

McIntyre

Francophone minority communities

Thorne

Tynehead Women's Auxiliary

D. Hayer

Jumbo Wild initiative

Macdonald

Mining industry events

MacKay

Oral Questions

Services at Retirement Concepts

seniors facilities

C. James

Hon. G.

Abbott

Call for a seniors representative

C. James

Hon. G.

Abbott

Gentner

A. Dix

Haisla First Nation and B.C.

Utilities Commission decision-making process

Austin

Hon. R.

Neufeld

Horgan

Respite services for disabled

children

Simons

Hon. T.

Christensen

Motions on Notice

Committee of Supply to sit in two

sections (Motion 37)

Hon. M.

de Jong

Farnworth

Puchmayr

L. Krog

Horgan

Routley

[ Page 10229 ]

WEDNESDAY, MARCH 5, 2008

The House met at 1:35 p.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Prayers.

Introductions by Members

Hon. L. Reid: I have three wonderful guests in the gallery today. One is my constituency assistant

Katherine Hatlen, and I am very pleased to welcome her back to this place. She is joined by her mother Dorothy Hamilton and her little girl Allie Hatlen. I would ask the House to please make them very welcome.

Hon. G. Campbell: In this House we all know how difficult it is to actually be successful in an election of any kind. I think the House should recognize the incredible longevity of Scott Sutherland, of Canadian Press, who has been elected to his seventh consecutive term as the press gallery president. I'm sure everyone in the House will say that is an exceptional record of performance. It might be important for people to know, though, that there were no challengers to this particular election. Congratulations to Mr. Sutherland for his success.

Tributes

PAMELA CHARLESWORTH

D. Cubberley: With the House's indulgence, it is with sorrow that I rise to mark the passing of Pamela Charlesworth. Pamela was a committed and inspiring activist in our region here whom I and others in the chamber, I believe, and many people in the region had the privilege to know as a colleague and friend.

She was for two decades a driving force at the Provincial Capital Commission, whose job during those years was to enhance the amenities of the capital region. As PCC chair, she secured the buildings and grounds of St. Ann's Academy in perpetuity, oversaw the closing of a small street and secured the connection of those lands to Beacon Hill Park.

She also helped establish a regional greenways initiative and played a key role in this region in bringing about the Galloping Goose Trail, which is one of the treasures of the region today. In her professional life, Pamela was a very talented architect, and she's left a lasting legacy of residential buildings here that will be treasured by future generations. She was kind, bright, funny and wise, and I miss her badly already. I thank the House for its indulgence.

Introductions by Members

R. Sultan: In the gallery today we have representatives from several of British Columbia's private insurance companies. These are people covering commercial and residential, as well as automobile risks.

From the Insurance Bureau of Canada, we have Lindsay Olson, our vice president; Serge Corbeil; and Miranda Lee. From the ING insurance company of Canada, we have Brett Thibault and Norah Alexandre. From the Dominion of Canada General Insurance Company, we have Jehangir Sethna and Anthea Smith. From AXA Pacific Insurance Company we have George Bozanin, and from Aviva insurance company of Canada, we have Jim Robinson, as well as Yvette Boyling.

Collectively, the British Columbia private insurance companies and their agents employ more than 12,000 British Columbians, pay taxes of about a quarter of a billion dollars into our provincial coffers and, in the last two years, have paid claims of $150 million related to unusual and severe weather events alone. Would the House please make them all welcome.

A. Dix: I wanted to welcome to the legislative precincts — and, I think, to the galleries as well today — students from Windermere School in my constituency of Vancouver-Kingsway. In my own personal rankings of high schools in British Columbia, Windermere is either first or second. I want all of you to wish these extraordinary students from Windermere welcome.

I. Black: I would like the House to help me make welcome Buzz Knot, who's in the gallery today. I also owe Mr. Knot a lunch, because my duties prevented me from joining him, so I suspect I've got a tab coming at me later this afternoon. Would the House help me make him feel welcome.

[1340]

Hon. M. Coell: I have two introductions today. Solomon Reece is the chief of the district aboriginal student advisory council. The council is representative of their authority on aboriginal jurisdiction and culture at the student level. Solomon is a grade 11 student attending Gulf Islands Secondary School and is working here in the Legislature for this week as part of his work experience. Accompanying him is deputy chief of the council, Ian McDonald. Would the House please welcome them both.

Statements

(Standing Order 25

B) IMPORTANCE OF SANITATION

J. Kwan: World Water Day 2008 will be celebrated by the UN on Thursday, March 20. In 2008 the day will highlight issues on sanitation in accordance with the International Year of Sanitation 2008 People around the world are encouraged to celebrate the day, to draw attention to the world sanitation challenges.

In my constituency of Vancouver–Mount Pleasant hundreds of people do not have access to basic sanitation facilities, whether they're homeless or living in substandard housing. They're forced to use public

[ Page 10230 ]

facilities at community centres and libraries and are regularly harassed by private security.

Every day people are forced to defecate in the streets, brush their teeth outside, and they do not have the dignity of privacy that many of us take for granted. The idea that this situation exists in a world-class city like Vancouver, steps away from million-dollar condominiums, should be embarrassing to all of us as policy-makers.

Sanitation is the most important medical advance since 1840. According to a reader survey in the British Medical Journal , improved sanitation reduces cholera, worms, diarrhea, pneumonia and malnutrition, amongst other maladies that cause disease and death in millions of people. Today 2.6 billion people, including almost one billion children, live without even basic sanitation. Every 20 seconds a child dies as a result of poor sanitation. That's 1.5 million preventable deaths each year.

Improved sanitation has positive impacts on economic growth and on poverty reduction. According to a recent WHO study, every dollar spent on improving sanitation generates an average economic benefit of $7. Without improving sanitation, none of the other millennium development goals to which the world has committed itself will be achieved.

I ask all members in this House to join me in expressing our commitment to both protect water resources for everyone and to meet our international obligations on sanitation standards for all of our citizens, regardless of economic status.

OLYMPIC VENUES

J. McIntyre: I rise today to pay tribute to a group of workers and volunteers who have made B.C. and Canada proud. Propelled by the honour of hosting the 2010 games, the Vancouver organizing committee committed to completing all competition venues well in advance of 2010, and I'm proud to report that this commitment is being realized.

The four mountain venues were not only built to top environmental standards, but we have completed them over two years prior and on budget. I believe that no other host city has these bragging rights.

This feat offers a strategic advantage to our athletes and volunteers who can now start to utilize these state-of-the-art facilities to train on a series of national and international events to ensure that we're all as good as we can be come 2010.

Here they are: the Whistler sliding centre in the heart of Blackcomb mountain, home to the bobsleigh, luge and skeleton events; the Whistler Creekside venue, showcasing the alpine skiing events. Upgrades to the men's downhill course, the Dave Murray, and the women's and paralympic course, Franz's run, will present a formidable challenge. The Whistler Olympic Park in Callaghan Valley will host the biathlon, cross-country skiing, Nordic combined and ski jumping events.

I'll be attending the opening ceremonies for the upcoming cross-country ski championships, the Haywood nationals, on Sunday, March 16, and I can hardly wait.

In West Van, Cypress Mountain will host freestyle and snowboard competitions. I recently spoke about the great opportunity West Vancouver had hosting the 2008 World Cup for aerials and moguls.

[1345]

This achievement could not have been realized without the assistance of over 2,000 men and women who worked on these projects. Their commitment to excellence parallels that of an Olympic athlete — certainly, a gold medal victory.

Also, the completion of the venues could not have taken shape without a strong partnership with local businesses and first nations. The Squamish and Lil'wat Nations companies completed 50 percent of the construction work at the Whistler Olympic Park. Great feat in a short few years.

Fostering greater economic opportunities across B.C. while establishing greater cultural and social relationships is a strong foundation for the victories that lie ahead.

FRANCOPHONE MINORITY COMMUNITIES

D. Thorne: During the 39th parliament, the Standing Senate Committee on Official Languages will conduct a study on the status of francophone culture in Canada and specifically in francophone minority communities. The B.C. Francophone Federation has asked that Johanne Dumas represent the province of British Columbia on March 10. Johanne is from Maillardville and is a great champion of the French culture, working tirelessly with the many volunteers from this dynamic French community in my riding.

The B.C. federation wanted the senate to hear from a person who is a doer, not just a theorist of culture. I believe they have made an excellent choice with Johanne Dumas and the community of Maillardville, a legendary seat of francophone culture in western Canada.

The committee will identify vulnerable areas where needs are most pressing and will make recommendations to the federal government after studying aspects of culture, such as the growing influence of anglophone culture, in general — and American culture, in particular — the increasing removal of culture from primary and secondary school curricula, and the failure to recognize culture as an essential, and not superfluous, part of the economy.

Will this House please help send Johanne Dumas off to represent B.C. with a large round of applause.

TYNEHEAD WOMEN'S AUXILIARY

D. Hayer: There is nothing that brings people together more closely than its neighbourhood hall. No one runs those halls better than the ladies auxiliaries who help people in need, organize social events and community dinners, and raise funds to keep the halls operating. It is with those thoughts that I want to recognize Tynehead Women's Auxiliary, a group of ladies who operate and maintain the historical, century-old Tynehead Hall.

These ladies are constantly fundraising to help people in need, to maintain the hall and to upgrade its facilities. They are not just volunteering their time

[ Page 10231 ]

and effort to our community. They are carrying on a tradition born 100 years ago when the first Tynehead Women's Institute — the first WI on British Columbia's mainland — took over the operation of this community gathering place. They are lovingly working to support this centre, the hub of the pioneer community of Tynehead.

Many are the members of original pioneer families or are longtime members of Tynehead, including President Andrea Terris and directors Maxine Wilson, Joan Parolin, Lil Stanbury, Margaret Smith, Bel Carter, Kim Adamson-Sharpe, Monica Matsi and along with many other volunteers who assist with functions, including Kathy Poole, Liz Milligan, Zina York, Nancy Kalinovich, Jackie Woods, Doris Hoffman, Leonora Bradley, Barry Shiles, Graham Sharpe, Baird and Bram Terris, Alexius Matsi and many other volunteers.

Without their dedication and support, our traditions would be lost, our neighbourhood would be a lesser place and our society would lose touch with its history. While I commend the generosity of the ladies of Tynehead, I know every other member in this House has similar organizations in their communities who selflessly volunteer many hours to their neighbourhoods.

I ask everyone to join me in saluting these wonderful people who do so much to make where we live a better and great place to be.

JUMBO WILD INITIATIVE

N. Macdonald: As members know, I live very close to the Alberta border, so I was particularly concerned, as I think most members would be, about the very low turnout in the Alberta provincial election. It was, I believe, 41 percent. It's within that context that I want to talk about a grass-roots group that has been politically active for over 15 years.

Jumbo Wild is a Columbia Valley–based community group. They formed to democratically resist Jumbo Glacier Resort, which has long been a contentious issue in the Columbia Valley. The resort is proposed for the Purcells, 15 kilometres west of Invermere. I don't want to talk about the specifics of the project. This is more to do with the issue of democracy.

[1350]

Citizens, especially our youth, need to believe in our system. They need to see that it works properly. In Alberta and here in B.C. people are not engaging in the system the way they should. It's especially troublesome that it is the youth that seem to be most disengaged.

Like many members of the Legislature, I've lived in other parts of the world. From 1999 to 2003, I lived in Africa — wonderful at many, many levels, but it certainly reminds you of the importance of grass-roots democracy and the empowerment it brings. We come back from these experiences knowing that, in Canada, we are particularly lucky to be able to be democratically involved.

Jumbo Wild has done everything that citizens should do. They have done their responsibilities as citizens. They have worked democratically, using letters to government, using bumper stickers, manning booths, writing letters to the editors, attending demonstrations, setting up websites and a host of other activities.

When we make decisions as politicians, we all need to be aware and respectful of the people who put us here and do all that we can to strengthen British Columbians' participation in the public decision-making process. Jumbo Wild provides a fine example of citizens engaged.

With that, I ask the House to join me in applauding and saluting their efforts.

MINING INDUSTRY EVENTS

D. MacKay: Following a record-setting year in the mineral exploration industry in the province of B.C., which topped $400 million, I'd like to spend a couple of minutes and talk about what has taken place, what is taking place and what will take place down the road here.

In the latter part of January of this year, the Mineral Exploration Roundup 2008 — which, by the way, was the 25th silver anniversary for that event — attracted over 6,700 participants from 48 countries.

What is taking place today is the PDAC International Convention, Trade Show and Investors Exchange. That's taking place in Toronto this week, and I noticed the Minister of State for Mining just returned today. That event is the most important event in the world of exploration, bringing together over 18,000 attendees from all over the globe.

Now, I'd like to talk a little bit about what will take place in April of this year at the community of Smithers, which just happens to be where I live. On April 16 to 18, Minerals North will take place at Smithers.

You might wonder if, in fact, it has attracted any interest up there. I can tell you that the trade booths sold out in the first hour on the first day of registration. So 350 people have registered already — although that's a far cry from 18,000 people — and 450 people have got tickets for the banquet that will take place on the 18th. By the way, we have some great luncheon and dinner speakers coming for that event.

The objective of Minerals North is to establish contacts and build working relationships, to inform communities about mining and exploration projects and issues, and to hold a dialogue on the impacts and benefits of mining.

So if any of you are considering coming up to Smithers on April 16 and 18, you're probably going to have to drive there, because all the hotels are full.

Oral Questions

SERVICES AT RETIREMENT CONCEPTS

SENIORS FACILITIES

C. James: Once again, Retirement Concepts is at the centre of an investigation. Once again, the Minister of Health and the B.C. Liberals are trying to bury the incident reports. Once again, seniors are being neglected and abused, and the Minister of Health refuses to do anything about it.

[ Page 10232 ]

Summerland Seniors Village, Beacon Hill Villa, Golden Ears seniors village — all these facilities are run by Retirement Concepts, and there are significant problems with all of them. Families are worried about the safety and the well-being of their loved ones.

My question is to the Minister of Health. Will he commit today to put seniors and their families first and conduct a full investigation into Retirement Concepts provincewide?

[1355]

Hon. G. Abbott: I don't believe that some residential care facilities ought to be held to the highest standards; I believe that all residential care facilities ought to be held to the highest standards. It does not matter to me — it does not matter to this government — whether that facility is privately owned, whether it's publicly owned, whether it's owned by a non-profit or anyone else. Everyone in this province will be held to the highest standards if they're providing residential care.

Every day thousands of British Columbians get up, and they provide excellent care to the people they serve. We work through our licensing officers. Wherever we see an allegation or a complaint, it is rigorously and thoroughly followed up on.

Mr. Speaker: The Leader of the Opposition has a supplemental.

C. James: Seniors and their families deserve better than simply more words from this minister. They deserve action. They deserve change, and they deserve respect, which they're not getting from this government.

The minister just doesn't get it. The incident reports are very clear. There's a crisis in seniors care in this province, and the minister needs to wake up to that.

Just this afternoon we learned that another Retirement Concepts home, this one in Coquitlam, is set to cut care for residents by 115 hours per week. This will have a direct impact on seniors, but this minister refuses to investigate this company's practice. The director of care for Retirement Concepts was clear today. She said: "Health care is in crisis. We're trying to do our best."

Retirement Concepts gets that there's a crisis. Why doesn't the minister, and why won't he investigate?

Hon. G. Abbott: I congratulate the Leader of the Opposition on being sharp enough to pick up the HEU press release that was issued just prior, in respect of the Coquitlam facility that she referenced. I'm sure that was entirely a coincidence that it just happened to come out prior to question period.

I know that this Leader of this Opposition and this New Democratic Party don't like private providers. They are against private providers. They will do everything they can to discredit private providers, regardless of what the evidence is.

What we have in this province is a very thorough, very rigorous process around ensuring the highest standards. If anyone doesn't fulfil the requirements, the high standards that they are obliged to fulfil, we will come down on them like a ton of bricks, and that includes Retirement Concepts.

Mr. Speaker: The Leader of the Opposition has a further supplemental.

CALL FOR A SENIORS REPRESENTATIVE

C. James: How many families have to come forward to get this minister to listen? How many seniors have to live with neglect before this minister and this government will recognize that they're providing poor care for seniors, and seniors deserve better in British Columbia?

Seniors have built this province. They spent a lifetime building this province, and they deserve better than a minister who is in denial. These are real problems. These are real investigations going on — Victoria, Maple Ridge, Summerland and now cuts in services in Coquitlam.

If the Minister of Health won't investigate Retirement Concepts, if he won't stand up and protect seniors, then will he take our proposal and establish a representative for seniors who actually will stand up and protect them?

Hon. G. Abbott: We will investigate Retirement Concepts. We'll investigate every residential care provider who doesn't meet the high standards that we set out for them.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

[1400]

Hon. G. Abbott: The sanctimony that I hear from this Leader of the Opposition and from this opposition…. They may want to think about some of the stories that we saw in, for example, The Vancouver Sun on July 13, 1998, entitled, "Vulnerable care home residents being abused." It details 14 care homes…

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. Members.

Continue, Minister.

Hon. G. Abbott: …in Vancouver, Surrey, Burnaby and Delta, where incidents of physical, sexual and emotional abuse had occurred. Or they can look at The Vancouver Sun from 1994, which details 21 cases of physical, sexual and emotional abuse by care aides.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

G. Gentner: In every case this dithering minister has known about the problems for months, even years, and he has done nothing about it. The accusations of abuse at Summerland date back to 2006. The deplorable conditions at Beacon Hill Villa date back to 2004.

[ Page 10233 ]

The government has known about the understaffing at Golden Ears village for over two years, and now we hear about Dufferin.

The Minister of Health has known about the problems for years. He's hidden them away, and he's done nothing. The minister doesn't get it. The public does not trust him to deliver independent investigations. Will he bring in a seniors representative to conduct a broad investigation into all the practices of Retirement Concepts now?

Hon. G. Abbott: This member is absolutely incorrect. In every case where we receive an allegation, in every case where we receive any suggestion of impropriety or inappropriate care, we have a rigorous system of licensing officers, of standards. I challenge this member to come up with one that was ignored. In every case we receive a complaint, we follow up on it. We take appropriate action to remediate it.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. Members.

Member for Delta South has a supplemental — Delta North; sorry.

G. Gentner: I represent the people of Delta North, but there are times I do indulge myself and look after people in Delta South.

The Minister of Health is pretty good at blaming others, but it is his policies, his funding, his neglect creating the crisis. Earlier today Leslie Karmazinuk, director of care at Retirement Concepts, blamed funding for their problems. They can't meet the needs of their residents because they do not get enough funding. They can't provide proper standards of care because they don't have enough staff.

Retirement Concepts is blaming the government and the health authorities. The health authorities are blaming Retirement Concepts, and the government and the minister are blaming a previous century. There is no accountability.

So to the Minister of Health: will he commit today to bring in an independent representative so we can finally have some real accountability and real investigations and real protection for our vulnerable seniors in the province of British Columbia?

Hon. G. Abbott: We don't take problems and throw pixie dust at them and suppose that that's going to make them go away. I challenge the member to come up with one example of one complaint that hadn't been rigorously followed up on. He can't name one. They have a pat answer. They don't have one example where the licensing officers have not followed through with rigour on every case.

[1405]

In terms of the funding for residential care, it is up $200 million over 2001 — $200 million. In terms of facilities — up 12 percent over three years. To say that there hasn't been an increase is absolutely wrong and typical of this member and this opposition. They say a lot of nonsense. They have nothing to back it up.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

A. Dix: Serious allegations of problems at Beacon Hill Villa came forward in 2005. The families of people at Beacon Hill Villa weren't made aware of those. The minister knew, though.

Summerland, May 2006…. They weren't published. The families weren't told about them. The minister knew.

The minister talks about a ton of bricks. Two months later he rewarded Retirement Concepts and the Vancouver Island Health Authority rewarded Retirement Concepts with a massive contract for the Casa Loma project. He didn't come down on them with a ton of bricks. He dropped a ton of cash on them.

The fact of the matter is…. The minister wants names: Nanaimo Seniors Village, Beacon Hill Villa, Coquitlam, Maple Ridge, Williams Lake, Summerland….

You know, these are pretty serious issues. Seniors are very important, I think, to every member in this House. The problem is that the Minister of Health isn't doing his job in informing seniors. He isn't doing his job in protecting seniors.

My question to the minister is this. If he's not going to do his job, why doesn't he take our advice and establish an independent officer for seniors issues — a seniors representative — so seniors have a place to go and someone who will follow up on their complaints and not bury them?

Hon. G. Abbott: I think the opposition may want to have a seminar on internal coherence for their question period questions. I had a comment from the member for Delta North saying that we weren't giving enough money to Retirement Concepts. Then I get from the opposition Health critic we're giving them too much money. They've got to get their act straight here, one way or another. Too much or not enough? Get it straight.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Take your seat, Minister.

Continue.

Hon. G. Abbott: If there was ever evidence that talk is cheap, it comes from this opposition every day of the week in question period — every day of the week. For all the big talk in question period, in ten years they were able to add 1,400 units of residential care. Since we took office, now 4,000 units of residential care and assisted living.

Mr. Speaker: Member has a supplemental.

A. Dix: Of 79 members of the House, the only one who knew the full story about Beacon Hill Villa and

[ Page 10234 ]

Summerland was that member, the Minister of Health. And yet two months later he rewarded this firm with a contract that was massive.

Oh, there was a press release. Oh, the government was praising Retirement Concepts. The Minister of Tourism was in the press release. Can't miss that out. There are priorities over there. Get the Minister of Tourism in the announcement. He's praising Retirement Concepts.

The minister knew different. Why did he at that time, when he knew what was going on in Summerland, when he knew what was going on in Beacon Hill Villa and he wasn't telling anyone about that, reward his pals at Retirement Concepts with that contract?

[1410]

Hon. G. Abbott: Talk is cheap, so I challenge this opposition Health critic. I challenge him to get up on his feet now. I challenge him to get up on his feet and tell me one example of where the licensing officers or where this system did not operate as it is set out in law to do. Give me one example, Member, of where that happened. One. One example. One.

You've got ten?

Mr. Speaker, the member claims to have ten examples. I challenge him to get on his feet right now and give me one example of where the licensing officers failed, where the health authorities failed.

Throw lots of dirt, but don't have anything to back it up. That's where you're at, isn't it? Get on your feet. Give us one example of that.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. Members.

HAISLA FIRST NATION AND

B.C. UTILITIES COMMISSION

DECISION-MAKING PROCESS

R. Austin: Yesterday two city councillors from Kitimat called me to say that they had met with Chief Steve Wilson last year prior to his letter to the Premier. The city councillors confirmed that Chief Wilson told them that, indeed, he had a deal with the Premier, a deal in which Chief Wilson would remain neutral on the Alcan energy purchase agreement in exchange for the Premier's support of his projects. For the past two days this government has denied that such a deal was made.

Will the Premier finally admit that he made a secret backroom deal with one of his friends to give away our water resource to a large corporation?

Hon. R. Neufeld: Well, for the third day in a row…. Hopefully, this member, who actually is taking a lead from the last two questions about throwing some dirt and having no wall for it to stick to….

We have never actually subverted any decision of the B.C. Utilities Commission. In fact, it was our government that re-empowered the B.C. Utilities Commission when we came back into office.

The Chief that this member refers to, as I had said yesterday and the day before, is a leader in his own right in the northwest, wants jobs for his people, wants economic activity for his people and will continue to actually advocate for that. And we should be supporting him instead of trying to subvert it.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

R. Austin: I have also received a letter from the hereditary chiefs of the Haisla. They say they were made aware of Chief Wilson's letter to the Premier last December, and they were shocked.

The hereditary chiefs say that they provided a copy of Steve Wilson's letter to the BCUC, to B.C. Hydro and to Alcan. In their letter to me, the Chiefs say that they did this "out of concern for the integrity of the hearing." They say that Mr. Wilson's letter shows that not only is industry dealing unilaterally with Steve Wilson, but so is the Premier of British Columbia personally.

The Chiefs have called for an independent investigation into this matter, a call that I strongly support.

My question again to the Premier: will he investigate these allegations?

Hon. R. Neufeld: Well, I believe Chief Wilson is more of a leader in that part of the world than this member from….

Interjections.

Hon. R. Neufeld: You know, Mr. Speaker…. You know what…?

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Take your seat.

Minister, do you want to start again?

Hon. R. Neufeld: You know what? It's easy to say words in here where there's immunity. When you have to go out in a hallway and actually accuse a chief from the northwest that he was actually going to do something illegal….

[1415]

I would challenge that member to go out there and do that right now, right after question period. Go out there and actually accuse that chief of maybe doing something illegal.

This side of the House actually wants something to happen in the northwest part of the province of British Columbia. The Chief wants something to happen in the northwest part of British Columbia in employment. That opposition just wants to search and destroy — destroy every job opportunity that they may have. That's consistent with what they did when they were in office, and it's consistent with what they're asking for today.

J. Horgan: Well, we have representatives from the Kitimat council saying that this is inappropriate. We

[ Page 10235 ]

have the four hereditary chiefs of the four houses of the Haisla Nation saying that this is inappropriate.

The Haisla chief sent the letter from Chief Wilson that was hand-delivered to the Premier, sent it to the chief executive officer at B.C. Hydro, sent it to the CEO of Rio Tinto and sent it to the B.C. Utilities Commission.

So apparently, the only people in British Columbia who don't know about this are on that side of the House. My question is to the Premier. Will he stand in this place and protect the integrity of the Utilities Commission and deny the allegations made by Mr. Wilson?

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. R. Neufeld: Well, if there's anybody going to respect the integrity of the B.C. Utilities Commission, it's members on this side of the House that re-empowered the B.C. Utilities Commission. It was that member as an adviser to the past Ministry of Energy and Mines that removed that responsibility from the B.C. Utilities Commission.

What we want to do, along with Chief Wilson, is actually have jobs and opportunity happen in the northwest part of the province. We want to have activity happen in the northwest part of the province.

We actually want to see an Alcan upgrade. I know that opposition doesn't want to see an Alcan upgrade. They've preached against it from day one; they continue to do that. But I challenge that member, too, to go outside of this House after and make a charge that a chief from the northwest part of British Columbia was actually accepting a bribe.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

The member has a supplemental.

J. Horgan: With respect to Chief Wilson, the Haisla hereditary chiefs say as follows: "We confirm we have not delegated our authority to Steve Wilson. He does not speak for us."

So with respect to what the Haisla want in their territory, I can confirm, in the letter to the Premier, that the government has assisted in moving around some land to assist an independent power project in the region, but they've done nothing to secure a smelter in Kitimat. They've done nothing to secure jobs in Kitimat.

Instead, they've made a backroom deal with an individual. It's before this House, it's before the Utilities Commission, and it's before the CEO of B.C. Hydro. If he's not briefing you, who is? Stand in this place, Mr. Minister, and declare that this allegation is false, or investigate it. Get an independent body and investigate the allegations today.

Mr. Speaker: I remind members: through the Chair, please.

Hon. R. Neufeld: I know that the opposition relished in the fact that the B.C. Utilities Commission actually turned down the first application from Alcan and B.C. Hydro. They relished that there wouldn't be any activity happen in the northwest.

I know that now today they're upset because the B.C. Utilities Commission, a quasi-judicial body separate from anything else, made a decision entirely unto itself to actually move ahead with the power purchase agreement between B.C. Hydro and Alcan. That means jobs will actually happen in the northwest part of the province. They were talking to a duly elected chief, Chief Wilson, from the northwest, from the Haisla Nation.

I challenge him again to go outside of this House after question period and throw a little bit of that mud around in the hallway out there, and see what happens.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. Members.

[1420]

RESPITE SERVICES FOR

DISABLED CHILDREN

N. Simons: Yesterday the House learned that a service to children with developmental disabilities is going to be no longer available to their families. For eight years Corner House has provided respite for children with severe disabilities. But on April 30 they'll close their doors because the government has instituted a 66 percent cut to their budget. This comes almost a week to the day after the Representative said that the ministry had to provide more responsive services to these families and children.

The minister says it's all fine, because he's moving to a cheaper model. Can the minister confirm that he intends to replace respite care with a scheme to hand families cash to find their own services?

Hon. T. Christensen: Corner House is a residential respite resource here in Victoria. It is a resource that has been funded by Community Living British Columbia. As members will know, Community Living B.C. is an authority that has been set up and is governed by a board, the majority of whom are from the developmentally disabled community, either self-advocates or family members. They are entrusted with determining how services are best delivered to persons with developmental disabilities.

In the Victoria community they have been working towards providing individualized funding for respite services. They have determined that they will be able to serve close to four times as many children and families who require respite services by making this shift and allowing a more personalized approach to respite care.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

The member has a supplemental.

[ Page 10236 ]

N. Simons: I'd have nothing against that, were it to be true. But unfortunately, this is going to leave families in a more dire situation than they're already in, which has already been shown to this entire province by the Representative's report of last week saying that services were not accessible and were difficult to access and that waiting lists were too long. This is going to do nothing to help that.

Yesterday he said it was a mutual decision. It was not a mutual decision. The government is forcing these agencies to close, and it's not a mutual decision. The minister should stand up in this House and say they've got an unthought-through plan which is going to cause families to suffer.

Will the minister stand up and say to this House that he's not going to implement more cuts to services, when the services are so needed by families in this province?

Hon. T. Christensen: If the member is suggesting that the board of Community Living British Columbia doesn't care about the developmentally disabled, that people who have family members who are receiving those services shouldn't be entrusted with the authority…

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. T. Christensen: …to best guide the delivery of those services, then he should stand up and say so — because that's what he's saying.

CLBC has determined that they can better serve individuals requiring respite services by moving from a residential resource model to one that takes a more personalized approach and that allows more children to be served, something that certainly I have heard and take to heart — the fact that more families require respite services.

Direct-funded respite is something that CLBC has introduced over the last couple of years. It has allowed a significant increase in the number of children that are receiving respite services. Those are the right steps to take to ensure services are available. The government will continue to support CLBC with additional funding to ensure that more children and adults are served.

[End of question period.]

Orders of the Day

Hon. M. de Jong: I call Motion 37 standing in my name on the order paper.

Motions on Notice

COMMITTEE OF SUPPLY

TO SIT IN TWO SECTIONS

Hon. M. de Jong: I move the following:

[Be it resolved that this House hereby authorizes the Committee of Supply for this Session to sit in two sections designated

Section A and

Section B;

Section A to sit in such Committee Room as may be appointed from time to time, and

Section B to sit in the Chamber of the Assembly, subject to the following rules:

1. The Standing Orders applicable to the Committee of the Whole House shall be applicable in both Sections of the Committee of Supply save and except that in

Section A, a Minister may defer to a Deputy Minister to permit such Deputy to reply to a question put to the Minister.

2. All Estimates shall stand referred to

Section A, save and except those Estimates as shall be referred to

Section B on motion without notice by the Government House Leader, which motion shall be decided without amendment or debate and be governed by Practice Recommendation #6 relating to Consultation.

Section A shall consist of 18 Members, being 11 Members of the B.C. Liberal Party and 7 Members of the New Democratic Party. In addition, the Deputy Chair of the Committee of the Whole, or his or her nominee, shall preside over the debates in

Section A. Substitution of Members will be permitted to

Section A with the consent of that Member’s Whip, where applicable, otherwise with the consent of the Member involved. For the fourth session of the Thirty-eighth Parliament, the Members of

Section A shall be as follows: the Minister whose Estimates are under consideration and Messrs.

Bennett, Cantelon, Hayer, Horning, Jarvis, Lee, Lekstrom , and Nuraney , and Ms.

McIntyre , and Roddick and Messrs. Bains, Chouhan, Cubberley, Evans, Farnworth, Fraser and Ms.

Conroy .

4. At fifteen minutes prior to the ordinary time fixed for adjournment of the House, the Chair of

Section A will report to the House. In the event such report includes the last vote in a particular ministerial Estimate, after such report has been made to the House, the Government shall have a maximum of eight minutes, and the Official Opposition a maximum of five minutes, and all other Members (cumulatively) a maximum of three minutes to summarize the Committee debate on a particular ministerial Estimate completed, such summaries to be in the following order:

(1) Other Members;

(2) Opposition; and

(3) Government.

Section B shall be composed of all Members of the House.

6. Divisions in

Section A will be signalled by the ringing of the division bells four times.

7. Divisions in

Section B will be signalled by the ringing of the division bells three times at which time proceedings in

Section A will be suspended until completion of the division in

Section B.

Section A is hereby authorized to consider Bills referred to Committee after second reading thereof and the Standing Orders applicable to Bills in Committee of the Whole shall be applicable to such Bills during consideration thereof in

Section A, and for all purposes

Section A shall be deemed to be a Committee of the Whole. Such referrals to

Section A shall be made upon motion without notice by the Minister responsible for the Bill, and such motion shall be decided without amendment or debate. Practice Recommendation #6 relating to Consultation shall be applicable to all such referrals.

[ Page 10237 ]

9. Bills or Estimates previously referred to a designated Committee may at any stage be subsequently referred to another designated Committee on motion of the Government House Leader or Minister responsible for the Bill as hereinbefore provided by Rule Nos. 2 and 8.]

[1425]

Passage of the budget vote and the motion to move to Committee of Supply triggers the commencement of what we call the estimates debate. The practice here in the Legislature has been to divide the Committee of Supply into two sections: Committee A, which we frequently refer to as the little House, and Committee B in this chamber. The mechanism that affects that split is a sessional order.

With one notable exception that I'm going to speak to this afternoon, this Motion 37 follows the model previously adopted by this House in past years with respect to effecting that split between Committee A and Committee B. The provision that members are aware is missing from this motion is that which would require three ministries to have their spending estimates considered in this chamber in their entirety. In my remarks today, I will endeavour to offer to the House the government's rationale for this alteration.

I should say, by way of a preliminary commentary, that we have participated in, experienced and seen many institutional reforms take place with respect to the operation of the Legislature. Members have, I'm sure, a variety of views, but I think on balance most of them have been well received — not all of them. We have had debates, some of them lengthy debates, in this chamber on a few of those changes. In other cases, we have been able to agree with unanimity on what some of those changes should be.

I suspect, based on what I have read and on the reaction today in the House, that this will not be one of those days when we are able to claim unanimity. That's fine. I will listen to the comments that are offered by members opposite, carefully, as I always do. I hope they will give me a moment today to offer my rationale for commending these particular changes to the House.

I should say, as well, that there are a few members in the chamber who have been here long enough, who will know that discussions around the operation of estimates and how that might change have been the subject of discussions, negotiations and observations for over a decade. I can think back to the time when a former colleague, Fred Gingell, presented a report in the mid-1990s laying out a series of options.

For one reason or another, it always has seemed to have been that component of the discussion that fell by the boards, and we haven't made any of the institutional changes with respect to the operation of the estimates debate that probably were warranted but have never come about. In part, I think that's attributable to the fact that there hasn't been agreement on precisely what the model should be. That's not a case of assigning blame. It just is a fact that we haven't come to that agreement.

I think, as well, that if we canvassed the views of members, most members would agree that the effectiveness and utility of the model we presently employ is lacking. I don't think we're going to change that today, but it is probably something that does need to be addressed. As other members have observed, there are times in the life of a parliament and I suppose in an electoral calendar that lend themselves better than other times to having those discussions and trying to address those points.

I'm not suggesting for a moment to the chamber that today we are addressing any of those larger questions around the effectiveness or utility of the overall process that we follow to debate the estimates in this chamber.

I will offer this to the House, and that is that the original rationale, as I recall it, for the requirement that three of the ministries have their spending estimates considered in this chamber wasn't particularly complicated.

[1430]

It was because this chamber offered an opportunity to broadcast to people who were not here, who were not in attendance,

whereas the little House or Committee A did not afford that opportunity. That was a logical rationale, and that was the case for many, many years.

That has changed. I think all members know that the days of seeking quiet refuge in the little House, away from the prying eyes of the camera — I think there's always been Hansard for the committee — have disappeared. For at least the last year and possibly two there has been broadcast capacity from the Douglas Fir Room.

I am reliably informed that there is a live feed by virtue of webcast and that proceedings from the Douglas Fir Room are rebroadcast on a daily basis. I'm advised that starting this week, or soon, an experiment involving the rebroadcast of debates from the Legislative Assembly on the weekend for those who aren't in a position…. So if Hockey Night in Canada isn't your thing, you can tune in to the rebroadcasts from the Legislative Assembly. That's fine, and that offers people who might not otherwise have a chance to see some of what goes on here an opportunity to do so.

I do want to emphasize this fact to the House. This is not in any way, shape or form an attempt to hide proceedings. They are as open, as accessible and as available to the public from the Douglas Fir Room as they are from this chamber by virtue of the broadcast that takes place.

I see the member for Surrey–Panorama Ridge seems skeptical about that. I'll be interested to hear his rationale for that skepticism, insofar as the broadcast capacity is there, utilized and available for everyone to see. If he has a different take on that, I'll be interested to hear his rationale for why he believes that this somehow constitutes an attempt to hide the proceedings or to keep them from the public.

I should say this as well. I suspect that members will accept this or not, and I'll hear about that later. The alteration to this motion is not intended nor designed to mean that there will not be estimates debate in this chamber. It does remove the obligation or guarantee that three ministries in their entirety would be debated in this chamber. It does do that. But it is entirely possible that portions of the estimates would continue to be held and debated and discussed in this chamber.

What it does do and what it is intended to do is send a clear signal that within this chamber legislation will be given the priority. It does do that. Members, I'm

[ Page 10238 ]

sure, will come to their own conclusions, but that is clearly what the government is endeavouring to signal and intends to follow up on in the days and weeks ahead, should Motion 37 pass.

I have also heard — and I suspect I will hear some more — about how this constitutes an attempt to reduce the opportunity that the opposition will have to scrutinize the spending estimates and the budget. It is not intended to do that.

I should say this. There are, in my view, two fundamentally important functions that this chamber and the members serve, in addition to all the other things members do in terms of serving their constituents: first, to create the constitutionally-based laws by which people in British Columbia live; and second, and of equal importance, to grant to the Crown spending authority.

Those are the two primary functions for which this assembly and we as members gather, and they are important functions. The opportunity for the official opposition to scrutinize the spending estimates of ministries and government is a fundamental part of that and will remain so.

[1435]

What I thought I would do for members is place on the record the calculation that I have done in asserting that an adequate opportunity will continue to exist in order for MLAs to fulfil that function, particularly that function as opposition MLAs.

Happily, someone other than me keeps a record of these things. I went back about six years. I hope that is representative, but others may take a different view. The average amount of time spent on estimates over that six-year period is 175 hours — 174½ hours. Now, it has been going up of late. For example, in 2005 we spent 154 hours; in 2006, 194 hours; and last year we spent 212 hours. It has been ratcheting up, but the average over the six years has been 174½ or 175 hours.

Were the estimates to begin in Committee A today, there would be 190 hours available for debate. That's excluding any additional time that might be made available in this chamber. I'll say that again. In the past six years an average of 175 hours has been spent on the spending estimates. If we commence debates today in Committee A, there will be 190 hours.

Admittedly, that is slightly below what was spent last year, but in my respectful submission, it is well within the range of what we have spent on spending estimates over the course of the past six years, at least.

I think the last thing that I wanted to convey in these opening remarks to the House…. I'm not sure how interesting or helpful members will find this. I did seek to conduct a bit of a survey on what takes place in other jurisdictions across Canada with respect to the spending estimates, which isn't to say that we have to replicate or feel constrained or bound by what others do. But in the context of what I anticipate to be a lengthy discussion this afternoon, I thought I would provide for members a

summary of what I found. It has been influential to me and the government in terms of our thinking on this subject.

I'll just take a moment to relay the information that has been provided to me as a result of that survey. Let's start with the really big House. That is the one in Ottawa, in Parliament. I'm told they do this, and this is according to their rules. The specific rule, 81(4), says: "In every session the main estimates to cover the incoming fiscal year for every department of government shall be deemed referred to standing committees on or before March 1 of the then expiring fiscal year."

They have until the end of May to do their work. I don't know how often they sit, and I don't have an hourly component for that, but they are all deemed referred out of the House of Commons to their select standing committee.

However, it does include this provision. It says: "The Leader of the Opposition is permitted to select, in consultation with the leaders of the other opposition parties, the Main Estimates of no more than two departments or agencies for consideration in Committee of the Whole for up to four hours."

Now, I'm not aware of whether or not Committee of the Whole automatically translates into the House of Commons, but for the sake of this discussion, let's assume it does. So in Ottawa the opportunity does exist for the opposition to select two agencies or departments — ministries — and to have their estimates considered for up to four hours before the Committee of the Whole.

Our neighbour to the east, Alberta…. This is a theme that begins to emerge. There is either a reference out to select standing committees for the estimates or some very strict time limits, and in some cases both.

[1440]

In Alberta the Committee of Supply is composed of all members of the assembly and spends a minimum of two hours debating each department's budget estimates. The estimates are considered for no more than 75 hours. That's what they do. That would seem to replicate what we presently have insofar as the Committee of the Whole, which places significant constraints around the timing available — 75 hours.

In Saskatchewan estimates are deemed referred to a committee, of which there are three. Detailed examination of the estimates takes place in committee, after which it is referred back to the assembly. So it would appear that in Saskatchewan they do all of their estimates before committees.

In Manitoba, when the estimates are tabled in the House, they are referred to a Committee of Supply with not more than 100 hours for the business of supply and debate. In Manitoba the Committee of Supply is actually authorized to meet outside of times when the chamber is sitting. That's an idea that has been bandied about.

Again, I spoke earlier about our collective inability to look at the broader question of how estimates should be conducted. But a maximum of a hundred hours, three sections of a Committee of Supply, and they're able to sit outside of the hours or the times that the chamber is sitting.

In Ontario, once the estimates are tabled, they are again deemed to be referred to the Standing Committee on Estimates. That Standing Committee on Estimates will consider between six and 12 ministries' and offices' estimates.

All other estimates — that is, the ones that are not selected for consideration by the Standing Committee on Estimates — are deemed passed by the committee

[ Page 10239 ]

and will be reported back. So in Ontario's case, they don't actually get an opportunity to conduct a detailed examination of each ministry. They pick — I don't know how many ministries there are in Ontario, but I hazard a guess — 20-some-odd. They would review maybe half, maybe less, and the rest are deemed passed. That's the approach they have taken.

In Quebec the main estimates of expenditure are referred to several standing committees for consideration. In the maritime provinces, in New Brunswick, when the estimates or supplementary estimates are transmitted to the House, they are deemed to be referred to the Committee of Supply. The House may refer any departmental estimates to the Standing Committee on Estimates, which shall report back to the House. In each session in New Brunswick not more than 80 hours shall be allocated for the consideration of the estimates and the supplementary estimates — there again, fairly strict time constraints around the consideration of the estimates.

P.E.I. The only note I have is that estimates are considered during Committee of the Whole House on Supply. So they would appear to do what we do here. I don't know whether their House splits or not, but P.E.I. would seem to continue to do something close to what we have in British Columbia, although I suggest that the circumstances are somewhat different in terms of the magnitude of the task presented to members.

In Nova Scotia the members of the House constitute a Committee of the Whole on Supply to consider the estimates. The opposition leader determines which five ministers of the government's estimates are to be considered by the Committee of the Whole on Supply and the order that they're going to be considered. All estimates not determined for consideration by the Committee of the Whole on Supply are referred to the Subcommittee on Supply.

In that case, that too strikes me as being somewhat similar to what we have presently — or had, subject to the order of the sessional motion before the House — with this proviso. They have a maximum of 40 hours allowed for consideration of estimates by the Committee of the Whole. So the Committee of the Whole gets 40 hours, and the Subcommittee on Supply presumably has more time than that.

Finally, in Newfoundland the estimates procedure takes place in a Committee of Supply, and it's limited to 75 hours in total.

[1445]

I confess that, as always, my preference on matters of this sort is to be able to come into the chamber and be able to convey a change or an amendment on matters of this sort that enjoys the support of all members. I know this one doesn't, and I anticipate that I'll hear much over the next hours this afternoon about why that is.

I would suggest that the adjustment here is warranted insofar as the original rationale for requiring estimates to be conducted in this chamber really is no longer applicable, insofar as the ability to broadcast the proceedings now exists from the committee room. The change that is being proposed here does not reduce the opportunity that the opposition has to perform an important function, which is to scrutinize the spending estimates by ministry.

In fact, based on the average time spent over the last six years, we are still well above that, the average having been 175 hours. If we commence in a timely manner, there being 190 hours and possibly more, if we were able to do some of the estimates in this chamber…. Admittedly, the government is saying that in this chamber legislation would be given the priority.

Lastly, when consideration is given to the processes that are followed in virtually every other jurisdiction, the amendment adjustment being proposed here is not out of line with any of those jurisdictions and therefore is worthy of support.

With that, I'll move the motion and look forward to hearing from hon. members.

M. Farnworth: It's my pleasure to rise and take my place in the debate on this motion, and I have a lot to say. I have a lot to say on this motion, because this motion strikes right at the very heart of what this place is all about.

Interjections.

M. Farnworth: I can hear some moaning from the member, and I hear the member for Richmond East doing a big sigh.

[K. Whittred in the chair.]

It's really unfortunate about that, because one of my initial comments on this particular motion goes back to how it came about. The member for Richmond East, myself and a few others — the member for North Vancouver–Seymour, the member for Nanaimo, the member for Yale-Lillooet — were actually here then, when the change took place.

The Government House Leader indicates that it was about televising and the ability…. You know, issues that had previously been technologically not feasible had been addressed. Well, that's true to a point. It was part of the discussion. It was by no means the whole discussion, and I will get to that in a minute.

This motion gets to how we operate in this chamber, in this institution, and how we respect what it does. We respect the work that takes place here, and we respect the purpose of what we are supposed to do, which is to make legislative laws that are the framework from which government takes place and are how we govern in this province and to scrutinize the spending and the ability to spend and the approval of that spending by governments.

That's what we're here for. We're not here to see how short a session we can make. We're not here to make it as convenient as possible for a government party or an opposition party because we don't like the way things are structured. We're here to do the business of the people of British Columbia legislatively and by scrutinizing expenditures. If we don't respect and believe in that, then we really have no business being here.

[1450]

[ Page 10240 ]

Back in 1991…. This is the point I'm coming to that the hon. member finds problematic. The member for Peace River North was here back then too. At that time, he was on his first incarnation of a political party.

An Hon. Member: He was a fellow traveller.

M. Farnworth: He was a fellow traveller — Social Credit.

He's laughing, and I find it unfortunate that he thinks it's funny. I remember back in 1991 that he didn't think it was so funny. Neither did his leader, and neither did the opposition.

What took place back then was that government called the session. Government opened the session, and they came forward with a legislative agenda. The opposition decided when the session would close. The government didn't make that decision; the opposition made that decision.

We would start with a throne speech. We would go to a budget speech. We would break into estimates, and we would go. We would go, and we would go and we would go — quite often into July or August, till nine or ten o'clock, sometimes around the clock.

But the opposition always had the ability to scrutinize estimates for literally as long as they wanted to. There were no restrictions. The member for Peace River North would come in and talk about energy policy until the gas ran out.

An Hon. Member: Hey, he's a deep well.

M. Farnworth: As my colleague said — I'm sure he will make his comments from his own chair in the future, because he respects this place — the member for Peace River North sometimes could be a very deep well.

Sometimes, as a minister, it was hard and tedious. Other times it was fascinating when you got into the discussion about the spending estimates and what was going on in a ministry, because they're important questions to be asked — important policy questions, important issues related to expenditures taking place in that ministry.

We took the time — and the opposition was able to take the time — to make sure that they had scrutinized as thoroughly and as in depth as they felt able to. Now, sometimes it made you wonder, because you were talking about things as…. If I remember correctly, back then one member from Surrey-Cloverdale, not the current incumbent, spent time wondering about the size of napkins on B.C. ferries.

That's the right of this member, but there were other times when we'd seen very serious issues debated in the estimates debate that were able to be asked, explored and ministers held accountable because we had the time to do it. That was a very, very key part of the work that we do here as legislators.

In 1992 a change was made, and that was to put the estimates into what we call the Committee A room, the little House, in part because we had the ability to televise. So issues around broadcasting and questions being asked were able to be televised. That was part of it, but at that time, considerable debate took around even that — about moving a function which had been done here in this chamber out of this chamber, this heart of our institution, to an outside room.

[1455]

It didn't pass overnight. It wasn't something done unilaterally. It wasn't something just dropped, and that's it. "We're talking about it the next day, and it's going to be done." There was a lot of debate around it, not all of it positive. There were issues raised that had to be dealt with. There were concerns by an opposition at that time about even the legality of being able to do it.

The Government House Leader's party, when they were in opposition back then, raised questions about the actual legality of being able to do it — to move spending estimates out of here. We had to have answers to those questions.

There were questions raised about the ability of members on this side of the House scrutinizing legislation at the same time that estimates were going on — very valid questions. A lot of discussion took place. In the end it was a negotiation — discussions with the Opposition House Leader at the time, David Mitchell, and the House Leader for Social Credit at the time, Jack Weisgerber.

It was agreed that if we were to do this, one of the things that was required and that gained some acceptance was a recognition that this is still the fundamental chamber — still the heart of this institution, still the seat of our legislative democracy in this province — and that the opposition would be able to call three estimates and the Premier's estimate for debate in this chamber.

We know how our system works. Government has most of the power — some days it feels like all the power — but the opposition still had the ability to ensure that some of those estimates were debated in this chamber, in this House and not pushed aside, not squeezed up against a deadline.

Back then there was no deadline. Opposition could take as much time as they wanted, but you were able to ensure that those estimates were in this chamber in full view of the public galleries, in full view of the legislative gallery, in full view of the public of British Columbia — not Alberta, not Nova Scotia, not Prince Edward Island, not Nunavut, not the House of Commons but the Legislature of British Columbia.

Since 1992 that has been the practice in this House, and it has worked. Generally — in fact, without exception, I think — what happens is that regardless of who is in government and who has been in opposition, it has traditionally been many of the big, important ministries of the day or the ministries that are front and centre at public attention that the opposition has chosen to call in this chamber.

[1500]

Invariably, it has been that Health estimates, the largest expenditure of the provincial government, have taken place in here. The largest social policy function in this province — the estimates — has been debated in here.

[ Page 10241 ]

The other one, more often than not, has been forestry. Forestry — the largest, single most important, historical and, I think, evocative of this province industry — has been debated in here. At a time when 10,000 jobs have been lost so far this year, it seems more important to me than ever that we would want those estimates debated here, not pushed aside into a small chamber — no matter how well it's set up to broadcast, no matter how well it is set up for Hansard. This is our chamber. This is where those debates should take place.

The other estimate that usually comes in here more often than not reflects public policy that is front and centre in terms of public interest. The last few years it's been Environment. Given that the government has made so much of its climate change proposals, it would seem to me that again, this is the appropriate place to do that. Or Children and Families, when that was front and centre. It was symbolic of what was front and centre in this province. They took place here.

Finally, the Premier's estimates. The head of the executive council came in this chamber and answered questions from the Leader of the Opposition on expenditures from the Premier's office and expenditures of the executive council — again, in this chamber, which is the seat of our legislative democracy.

So that's how it came to be the current situation. It changed in 2001. The Government House Leader has put forward some statistics and numbers about the last six years. I think that if we're going to be fair in that discussion, we should recognize a couple of things. For three of those years we didn't have an official opposition. Government didn't recognize two members as being an official opposition. As heroic as the work that was done by those two — and then, subsequently, three — members was, there is no way that we can say: "You know, let's look at those years as being indicative of how estimates debate should take place."

I see I'm being handed…. I think the question was about a designated speaker, and I am certainly the designated speaker.

Interjection.

M. Farnworth: And as my colleague the House Leader said — that's right — he's the designated listener. I know, as I said before, that I've got lots to say.

[1505]

Anyway, the point I was making was that to say that somehow this has been the average, when in fact for three of those years we didn't have an official opposition…. We didn't have the ability to scrutinize estimates in the way that they should have been done. I notice the….

Interjection.

M. Farnworth: I know the member for Comox Valley just made a comment. I won't comment on when he heard it, other than to say…. I've recognized the ability that my colleague from Mount Pleasant and the former member for Vancouver-Hastings so ably did. But it was two people.

We also didn't have a parliamentary calendar. As I said, we had a different parliamentary calendar then, one that allowed…. The government opened the session; the opposition closed the session. Now we have a fixed calendar with a fixed date that says that we will start on this day, and we will end on this day for a spring session. [Applause.] The member applauds, and quite rightly. There is a lot of support.

You will not get argument from me, hon. Member, about the desirability of a fixed calendar date. Where we will disagree, hon. Member, is the fact that that means we should observe that fixed calendar date, both spring and fall.

An Hon. Member: You only had three fall sittings in ten years.

M. Farnworth: Once again, the member for Kamloops–North Thompson gives me the opportunity to educate him. What he forgets to say is….

Interjection.

M. Farnworth: The member for Fort Langley–Aldergrove was here in those days too. Hon. Member, back then, you decided when the session ended, so it went on for several months. You didn't have the requirement for a spring session and a fall session.

You went for months at a time, and quite often, when you were in opposition, you had 350 or 450 hours of estimates debate. You debated the legislation till the cows came home. There wasn't the need for a fall session, hon. Member. When there was a fall session, it was to debate another treaty.

There was more time than you could shake a stick at. That's why you brought in the calendar — because you thought you didn't like that system. That's fine.

But please, don't try and somehow say that we only brought in three sessions. There wasn't a requirement to. You didn't demand one. We had more than enough time to debate. In fact, it was literally getting close to two and a half times the amount of time spent on estimates back then than we have the ability to do right now.

If you're going to make those comments, hon. Member, at least make sure you've got your facts straight and you know the history of this place.

So we got to a fixed calendar, and that's a great thing — having the fixed calendar. It requires a number of things, though. First, it requires some discipline on the part of the opposition in terms of how much time it spends on estimates debates. It also requires discipline on the part of the government in terms of the amount of legislation that it brings forward, and it requires discipline on the part of the government to actually follow a calendar.

The rationale that the Government House Leader offers up, or one of the rationales, is that we need to ensure that in this chamber legislation takes priority. Well, it already does take priority. The Government

[ Page 10242 ]

House Leader and the government decide what legislation to call and when to call it. They have that ability right now to say that legislation is the priority.

Do you know what? Nothing illustrates that more than if we look at what is on the order papers, what's been tabled in this House.

[1510]

Here we are, almost at the end of the fourth week of the session, and we have eight bills tabled in the House — eight bills. And many of these bills are pro forma budget bills.

If the government's worried that they don't have the time for the legislation, bring it forward. You've got a whole army of people drafting legislation. You've got more ministers than, I think, just about any government in this province has had that wants to bring forward legislation.

I've sat over there. I know how it works. You don't just do legislation two weeks before the session goes in. It's being done back in the fall. You're planning your legislative calendar. You know what you want to bring forward.

I see some shaking over there. Maybe it's a little different. I don't know, but I'm pretty sure it's not: "Let's pull a bill out of a hat and see that that one gets to go in," or "It's a lottery." Given some things we've seen with the way school playgrounds have been funded, maybe that's how it's done. I don't know. but most legislatures start well in advance of the session in terms of the amount of legislation they want to bring in and the timing of when they're going to table that legislation.

So here we are in week 4, almost at the end of week 4, and there are eight bills. Now, we know that the number of bills doesn't necessarily indicate the amount of time spent on the legislation, because if they're bills that have general support by both government and opposition, they will pass quickly. If they're bills that are controversial, they won't pass quickly. Opposition will take the time to scrutinize them.

If, by the end of the spring session, we haven't got through those bills, the government has a number of options. They can carry them over to the fall, or they can invoke closure, both of which have been done in this House. Despite protestations by the opposition, neither has caused a dramatic uproar in the public, by and large, because with the calendar of a fall session the government has the ability to do the work they need to do if they don't have the time to do the legislation in the spring session.

Which brings me to some comments I'd like to remind members of the House of. I'd like to remind them of why we have that opportunity in the fall to deal with legislation if there's not time in the spring.

A speech that the Premier gave to the B.C. Liberal convention, April 17, 1999, in The Vancouver Sun , page A12: "Instead, the place would be organized" — that's the Legislature — "on a fixed schedule, with a fixed budget date, a regular spring sitting for financial measures and a fall sitting for legislation."

A regular spring sitting for financial measures. Well, if budget estimates are not financial measures, I don't know what is. That's one of the fundamental things that we do here. In the Premier's own words, that's what the spring session is about — financial measures. This motion before us limits us, limits the opposition in its ability to deal with those financial measures and places considerably more power in the hands of the government.

[1515]

The Premier said it again on July 21, 2001, about restoring public trust in government. The Premier says he's unafraid to make another vow. "The 90-day agenda, particularly, was put in place to show people that we actually meant what we said. You do it in big ways. You do it in small ways, like saying we would have a fixed parliamentary calendar."

Unafraid to make the vow. Sure, he's been unafraid to make the vow, but the government has certainly been afraid to follow through on it. They've certainly been afraid to follow the parliamentary calendar.

The government made commitments. They made changes to the calendar in this place. Trouble is that they haven't followed it through by keeping to those changes that they proposed and made. Where before that calendar came in and where before there was never much of a debate about the amount of time spent, other than questions about: can we do it differently….?

I was a member of Public Accounts and looked at ways of making and using estimates differently. The one thing that was never done was that we would impose something. We didn't impose changes in the estimates process in the way that this motion that's before us today does.

Last year we sat 78 days because we had a fall session. But prior to that, in 2006, we sat 46 days. Over the last few years we have sat, on average, 48 days less than the Senate of Canada. The unelected Senate over the last few years has sat more than we have — the Senate. What a damning indictment — the Senate. We've sat less than Manitoba, New Brunswick, Ontario, Quebec, Saskatchewan and the House of Commons.

Now, I don't think it's too much to ask that the government follow on its commitment on a parliamentary calendar. I don't think it's too much to ask the government, if they've got a legislative calendar that they think is heavy, to get the bills in on time. Get them tabled earlier on in the session. They've got the priority. They've got the ability. They've got the power. They decide when the bills will be tabled. They decide when they'll be called. So I'm really quite surprised at why the government feels it needs to make legislation the priority, that it doesn't have sufficient time.

As I pointed out, there's a whole fall session which has been intended and which has been used before to carry legislation over. In terms of the actual hours, the Government House Leader says that we may be around 190 hours if we pass this motion in a timely fashion and that we can go forward and have that time in estimates.

[1520]

The member says that's right. The member forgets a couple things, though. First off, we used to have a lot more time in this place to scrutinize estimates. Under

[ Page 10243 ]

these changes, we will lose 62 hours of estimates debate that last session, or last spring session, was done in this chamber — 62 hours.

Just so I'm not accused — and I know that no one on the government side would accuse me — of fudging the figures, I will take out the four hours that were done by Agriculture, because it was by consent that we did that here. So technically, 58 hours — 14 hours on Forests, 17 hours on the Environment, 19 hours of Health estimates, and nine hours for the Premier's estimates — were done in this chamber.

As I recall, the government had some concerns about our ability to get some legislation through in a timely fashion, and the opposition agreed and said: "You know what…."

J. Horgan: Magnanimous to a fault — that's what we are.

M. Farnworth: My colleague from Malahat–Juan de Fuca says "magnanimous to a fault."

We agreed that we could put some of the…. I think it was either the Forests estimates…. I think it was the Health estimates. We would do them in the little House, because we wanted to make sure that we could get as much done as we could, particularly on those areas that we agreed to. Then the government was free to do what it felt it needed to do in terms of its priorities, whether to bring closure on a bill or to carry them over to the fall. The opposition was willing to work with the government in terms of ensuring that the business got done.

The same in the little chamber. We may have had our dust-ups over legislation, and we may have had our disagreements about whether or not it was right for the government to use closure on a bill or felt that a bill should be carried over to a fall session. But one thing this side of the House has been clear on since the 2005 election is that we've made every endeavour to ensure we got the estimates passed by the end of the spring session.

We did our work and got the estimates passed, because while we can have our disagreements over the legislation, we recognize our responsibility as an opposition and the government's right as government. We got the estimates passed by the end of the session.

One of the things that made that work was those 58 hours of estimates that were done in this chamber. To somehow suggest that we'll have the same amount of time is just not right. Under this resolution, the 58 hours that were spent in here now have to take place in that chamber.

It's by the sole discretion, the magnanimity, the willingness of the Government House Leader to agree, to allow, to deign to permit, to be munificent, to be benevolent, to sort of shower down on the opposition that: "Maybe we will have…. I'm in a good mood today, so we can do some estimates in here."

I see the Government House Leader laughing, and I share his laughter. But the problem is that that's not how it should be done in this place. It should not be on the basis of whether someone is in a good mood or whether someone, regardless of political party, wants to punish an opposition or reward an opposition. That's not how this type of decision should work.

[1525]

Changes should be done on the basis of consultation. They should be done on what is best for this institution and what is best for the public of British Columbia. What is best for this institution is to draw upon our historical ways of dealing with issues, which have evolved over the time to meet our needs and our conditions. I appreciate knowing what goes on in other provinces. I appreciate the fact that Prince Edward Island has 150,000 people, and they probably do things a little differently than we do here. I understand that.

The same with Alberta, a wonderful province, but at the end of the day, no matter how democratic, it's still a one-party state. I'm not sure that's the model I want to choose for our province. It may be good for the people…. The people of Alberta may like it, but hey, this is British Columbia.

The people of British Columbia do things in a British Columbian way. We don't need to do them the Alberta way, the Saskatchewan way, the Prince Edward Island way or the Quebec way. We do it our way, which reflects our political culture, which reflects our historical way of doing things, which reflects our parliamentary traditions.

Our parliamentary traditions saw that the opposition historically had a very strong role and had the ability to question, to debate and took the time it needed. Rule changes came into place. We're not opposed to that, as long as the ability and the rights and the privileges of opposition, regardless of who they are, are protected.

Fifty-eight hours may not seem like a big deal to people, and outside this chamber it probably doesn't. "What are they arguing about? What are they debating about?" But it's a fundamental principle of why we are here. Fifty-eight hours allows us…. Well, last session 19 of those 58 hours were spent discussing health care in British Columbia.

I remember when the Minister of Economic Development was Health critic.

Hon. K. Krueger: He did a wonderful job.

M. Farnworth: And he did a very good job. He was a very good critic, and I enjoyed my time with him as critic. I enjoyed it for two reasons. One was the questioning that took place, because it allowed issues to be dealt with, it allowed the critic to ask questions, and it allowed issues to be aired and expenditures scrutinized the way they needed to be. It allowed the minister….

[S. Hammell in the chair.]

Interjection.

M. Farnworth: The member for Kamloops–North Thompson does make life somewhat interesting sometimes with his comments.

[ Page 10244 ]

I'm in a good mood, Member, so I won't get into your time as critic, not in my ministry but in other ministries.

What does the government mean in its Conversation on Health? What are we doing with Pharmacare? What's our plan for Pharmacare? What's happening with particular drugs? To raise particular cases of constituents and get them, sometimes, answered by the minister….

[1530]

There's a fundamental difference between question period and estimates debate. Question period is just that. It's question period; it's not answer period. But in estimates debate, in estimates….

Interjection.

M. Farnworth: The Minister of Education says that she'll have to read that back to me someday. Well, maybe after the next election she'll be able to.

The fact is that that has been historically the criticism of this chase. But in estimates debate, you don't have that luxury. It's not two questions per member, then sit down and go on to the next. It's not a 30-minute time limit. You have the ability to get into an issue. You have the ability to question that issue. You have the ability to dig down into that issue, and the minister has the resources at her or his disposal to answer the questions or to commit to getting back to the member or to this House with the answers to those questions. Those are the types of things that happen in this House with 19 hours of debate on Health estimates.

With 14 hours on Forests estimates last spring session, again, the Minister of Forests and Range sat on this side of the House. The Government House Leader also sat on this side of the House. I asked questions on Forests issues. It wasn't done in an hour, two hours or three hours. It took a lot of time.

We're in a constricted calendar now. We don't have the same amount of time as in those times before the fixed calendar. But we had the opportunity, those 58 hours in this chamber, to devote to one of the most important industries — and the most important industry, historically, in this province — forestry, to ask questions about forest and range plans, tough questions.

Hon. R. Coleman: You didn't ask those questions.

M. Farnworth: I hear the Minister of Forests and Range talking. He says that he didn't get those questions.

Hon. R. Coleman: No, I didn't; you didn't ask them. Look at Hansard.

M. Farnworth: The member wants to make another comment, and I will resist the temptation of getting into debate about people being away, people not being here, just the scheduling of estimates and an inability to get it back on, to reopen another estimate, but the point is: those are the questions you can ask. Those are the questions that would be asked.

On the environment. Questions in here took place, in the 17 hours of Environment estimates that took place in here last spring session, about fish habitat, about air quality, about the government's green agenda and about tail-pipe emissions. I've asked constituent questions in this chamber in Environment estimates, about B.C. Hydro's role on the Coquitlam River; the potential to restock sockeye salmon back in the Coquitlam River; the need for water — secure water, year-round water supplies — in some of our streams that are endangered by urban developments that result in runoff far too fast, and in streams being dry in summer and not enough water flow for fish.

[1535]

Those are the types of questions that were asked in here. Those are part of those 58 hours. Those are the types of questions that were asked in here — important policy questions that it's the opposition's right and responsibility to ask. What the government is proposing takes away those 58 hours, takes away 58 hours of scrutiny, and that's not right.

The Premier's office — nine hours. I mean, the Premier's

schedule is hard enough on the opposition. We're told: "Oh, we've got a day available, maybe two days." Well, we take advantage of it in here to ask questions that need to be asked. Why is the Premier's office budget significantly larger than just about any Premier's office in the country? If I'm not mistaken, it's like three times the size of the Premier of Ontario's office budget. We get to ask those questions.

We get to ask: why the dramatic increase in public affairs bureau employees? We get to ask questions about protocols relating to what happens when the police come and raid the Legislature.

G. Gentner: Or Ken Dobell.

M. Farnworth: We get to ask about Premier's staff. We get to ask about the role and relationship of Ken Dobell and the contracts he's got.

We get to ask all those questions. We get to ask them in here, and those are the types of questions that 58 hours of debate time in this place occupies — key important issues. That 58 hours is being ripped away

[ Page 10245 ]

from the opposition. Not just this opposition, but it sets a dangerous precedent. I think it sets a dangerous policy change.

At some point the government will be on this side of the House, and they will be wanting to exercise their rights as an opposition. I'm sure they would want to have the opportunity to ask the Premier's estimates in this chamber. They would like the ability to bring into this chamber the three estimates they get to choose.

We don't just make these changes to suit the needs of today, to suit the political expediency of today. The changes that are made are impact and stay in this chamber. That tends to be what happens. I think it's unfortunate that that's how this change is being done, because the bottom line is that it's the politically expedient thing to do.

It's the politically expedient thing to do to try and avoid a fall session, to condense the calendar, to reduce the amount of time and exposure the Premier has here and the cabinet has here. We relegate this institution to reduced status at our peril. The member says at our peril. Well, if we don't respect this place, if we don't respect what we do here, then why should the public? Why should they care?

I believe it is important. We on this side of the House believe it's important. We believe it's important that we respect this place, that we respect why we're here. That means that arbitrary change like this, imposed change like this, is not right.

[1540]

Members have said, "Oh, you still get to debate it in the little House — Committee A room," and technically that's right. But we're short-changed 58 hours.

Hon. R. Coleman: Not really.

M. Farnworth: The Minister of Forests and Range says: "Not really." Well, yeah. No, it is, because that time is no longer done in here. It's done in the little chamber. It means a number of things. It means it's more challenging for the opposition to ensure that we've got the time to debate because, again, it's the government that decides when the estimates will be called. It's not the opposition.

It's the government that decides when legislation will be called, not the opposition. So if the government doesn't want to spend much time on health care estimates, they don't have to bring them in here anymore. They just have to save them up for the last three or four days of the session. They hold over the opposition's head the threat of not being able to get the Premier's estimates in. That's what happens.

If the opposition believes we need to spend time on the Health estimates because that's where the largest expenditure of government goes and if, in the government's view, we're spending too much time there and coming up too tight at the end, then all they have to do is deem the spending estimates passed, and ministries will go through unscrutinized.

Those are real scenarios, and let's not kid ourselves. This is a partisan place, as it's supposed to be, and that's what happens. It means the opposition now is under not just a time constraint, a time constraint that is further reduced by the elimination of the 58 hours, but they need now to be getting through estimates very quickly, depending on the order in which they are called, so that they've got the time, and the ability, to spend on some of those key areas or some of those very politically sensitive public policy areas that come up during a session.

Quite frankly, when it comes to question period, the government can't wait for the session to end or for the break to come in because they don't have to deal with those uncomfortable questions anymore. Or in the case of estimates, they can't wait for the session to end so they don't have to answer questions in estimates. They may not like it, but that's their job. That's our job to ask those questions. We should have the right and the ability to do that, and it should not be constrained by motions like this.

It might be a little different if, for example, the opposition got to call the order of estimates in the little House. That might make a little fairer footing so that the opposition decided the order in which estimates are called. That might be something worth considering. The opposition might ensure that its priorities are the way to go, and we would have to govern in the calendar. That's a possibility. But what's before us is just something that rips away 58 hours of the opposition's time.

[1545]

While estimates were going on in this House, the Committee A— the little House, as we call it — was also dealing with estimates. During those 58 hours here we also were dealing with estimates in there. In the case of the Solicitor General's estimates, I'm sure it would be no surprise to the Solicitor General to know that this year I would be asking questions on crime, the allocation of resources to fight crime and the allocation of resources for public policing. I'm sure it will come as no surprise to him that I will be asking questions on that.

The Attorney General says: "We need more resources to fight gangland violence in this province." The Solicitor General stood in this House and said: "No, we don't need more resources to fight gangland violence." We can see in their budget which one won out. It clearly wasn't the Attorney General. So there will be time spent on the Solicitor General's estimates, asking questions that people in my riding, in Surrey, in Vancouver and right across this province…. What's this government doing to tackle gang violence?

Now, because we've been asked — not so much asked as being dictated to, told to squeeze that 58 hours into the current calendar…. Because this government doesn't want to abide by its own legislative calendar that would require a fall session, we have to either constrict severely the time spent on some individual ministries or — I hope this is not the case — with regards to some ministries, eliminate areas for discussion altogether so that we can try and make up that 58 hours that would have taken place in here, that every opposition party, whether Liberal or New

[ Page 10246 ]

Democrat, has enjoyed the ability to do since 1992: to have those key estimates in this chamber.

I'm not sure if I heard my colleague over the way say: "Why is he going on?" I would say: because, as I promised when I took my place, I have a lot to say on this issue.

Interjection.

M. Farnworth: I am keeping my promise, because this is important. I wish this government had kept its promise on their fixed calendar and recognized when the Premier said, "I'm unafraid to make a vow of a fixed calendar," that he was unafraid to abide by it. Thank you for the opportunity to get that point on the record.

This is about our ability to do what we here as opposition are elected to do. It's to ensure scrutiny of expenditures of significant amounts of money and government policy and that the public knows that that takes place. And that every time we constrain that ability, we lose something.

[1550]

You know, when we gained the nice and sort of civilized structure that came from a fixed calendar, which brought some more civilized work hours to members in this chamber, we were able to know that, okay, the House will finish at 6:30 instead of how we used to go till nine o'clock or ten o'clock or sometimes two o'clock in the morning or even later. That was great, but it did come at a price. It came with the opposition no longer being able to end the session, no longer being able to talk till it felt it had asked all the questions that it needed to ask, until it had exhausted all of its concerns. No. It changed and brought some structure, and it reduced that time.

Some people say that's great, that the trade-off was worth it. But at some point we need to recognize what our primary purpose in this place is. It's to pass legislation. It's to scrutinize legislation. It's to make sure that the laws of this province have been debated, discussed, examined and, if need be, amended, so that when they do receive royal assent, when they are, in fact, the law of the province of British Columbia, we know that it's the right law, that it's a just law and that we've done our job as legislators.

Likewise, it's the same with spending estimates — when we have finished scrutinizing those estimates, when we have finished our examination of the estimates of the Ministry of Energy, Mines and Petroleum, that he has answered all the questions we have for him; that he has answered in detail about British Columbia's energy plan; that he has answered about the issues around transmission; that he has dealt with issues around IPPs; that he has dealt with the issues around B.C. Hydro; that he has answered all the questions we have; and that we have not had to leave something on the table because we've had to choose between this priority and that priority.

Taking these 58 hours out…. That's what it does. It increases the likelihood that questions which should be asked don't get asked. And that's not right. It applies to the Minister of Economic Development in his role as Minister Responsible for the Olympics — to be able to ask questions, for him to be able to answer those questions. I mean, we've had lots of discussion around venues and construction of venues, but there are important and huge expenditures that have yet to be addressed.

One of the key ones, for example, is around security. This is no small expenditure. This is no small item of a ministerial budget. This is an important expenditure that reflects not just on the success of the Olympics but on the success and how British Columbia is viewed in the eyes of the world. The fact that we have 58 hours' less time to ask those questions is shameful. It is just shameful. It's like that with a host of other important issues that need to be dealt with.

As I said earlier, over the last four years we have sat, on average, 48 days less than the Canadian Senate.

C. Wyse: Shameful.

[1555]

M. Farnworth: My colleague from Cariboo South says that's shameful, and he's absolutely right. He is absolutely right.

The Senate of Canada. We should at least be willing to spend the time scrutinizing estimates and legislation that the Senate takes. I know — and I'm being generous here — that when asked questions, I am confident that government ministers would be more than fulsome in their answers than any government senator would be, and I am sure that the opposition would spend more time asking the questions that need to be asked than any opposition senator would.

I've seen this House when it's working at its best, whether in government or opposition. When that's taking place, the public knows that the questions that are on their minds are being asked, that the government isn't avoiding the answers and that the government isn't avoiding the issues.

The trouble is that this motion does just that. It builds on that issue of cynicism. It creates a climate of: "Well, why are they there?" If the government is afraid or wants to take away 58 hours of time that they would have to answer questions in…. Why? They've got the fall session calendar which they were so committed to.

This motion is not necessary. We have plenty of time on the calendar. We have plenty of time to deal with legislation. After all, we've only had eight bills so far, and we're in week four. I keep hearing…. We heard in the throne speech that there was this tsunami of bills to come. There was all this legislation to come….

Hon. K. Krueger: Wait for it, brother.

M. Farnworth: My colleague the member for Kamloops–North Thompson says: "Wait for it, brother." Well, I'm happy to wait for it, hon. Member. We're just wondering when it's going to come.

I mean, last session we had — what? — 40 bills, give or take a few — somewhere around there, not a

[ Page 10247 ]

huge, overburdened number compared to times past. Many of those bills, the opposition will agree…. "You know what? This is a good bill. It's a good piece of public policy. It's a good piece of legislation, and we will pass it quickly."

We will stand up, we will vote with the government on those good pieces of legislation, and we will hear in this chamber that phrase that the Government House Leader loves so much — nemine contradicente .

Interjections.

M. Farnworth: Exactly. N emine contradicente .

The trouble is that that is not a phrase he is going to hear on this motion, and on other pieces of legislation he may not hear that either. But that's what this place is about — to ask those questions, to air those differences, to scrutinize those bills. Once they're here, we can do that.

[1600]

As I've pointed out already, and will point out again and again and again if I have to, until the government realizes…. It's not too late, government members, to recognize the error of this motion. You can still live by those proud words the Premier uttered in 1999 and 2001. You can still live by that vow that he was so proud to make, that we will have a fixed parliamentary calendar. You can still live by that.

It just takes a little bit of courage. Now, I don't know if they've got it, but I ask them to look inside themselves. I'm sure if they do, they'll find it — a little bit of courage to live by that calendar that they said that they were so proud of, the one that committed to a fall session.

You know that if we don't get through the legislation this session, we'll table it. We can table it till the fall. We'd have the summer to scrutinize it. Gosh, we could even have a committee, a legislative committee, go out on the road. Imagine that. What an innovative idea, and one that you wouldn't get hostility from this side of the House on.

We could put together a legislative committee. What a novel idea. We could get that together. A piece of legislation that the government is concerned…. They're concerned. "We don't have enough time to do it. We could put closure, but we don't want to." And I'd say, as Opposition House Leader, that I'm fine with that.

We could breathe life into a legislative committee. We could have it travel the province, talk to people about the proposed piece of legislation and come back with, you know, either it's great and it doesn't need any changes, or we could have some thoughtful amendments that have been brought about because the government and the opposition sat on a legislative committee that went and talked to people in British Columbia — towns large and small — came back with some good amendments, put those amendments in place, and the bill passes. That's what you could do in a fall session.

You could do that, and at the same time you could ensure that the estimates are properly debated. I'm sure that the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum would hate to have his estimates pass with there being outstanding questions unanswered. I've known that member far too long, and I know he would not like that one bit. He'd be devastated if he thought for a minute that his budget estimates had outstanding questions that had not been asked.

I know, hon. Member, that you…. You've sat over here. The member for Peace River North has sat over here. He sat over here in the days when he could stand up and talk, and the opposition could talk for as long as they wanted. He could do that to his heart's content.

An Hon. Member: He was good at it, too.

M. Farnworth: And he was good at it. You know what? I bet you there wasn't a question that a constituent in Peace River North had that that member didn't ask in this House either during legislation or estimates debate.

An Hon. Member: The only problem was you never got an answer.

M. Farnworth: Oh, and I do have to just make sure the member heard the comment that his good colleague said, that the only problem was that the member for Peace River North never responded or answered any of those questions.

Anyway, hon. Speaker….

An Hon. Member: I digress. Carry on.

M. Farnworth: I do digress.

But it does raise a really important point in this debate. What it's all about. It's about asking the questions. It's about asking the questions that need to be asked, about asking the time that it has to do it. If the Senate of Canada can have more time available to it to ask the questions and — who knows? — provide the answers, then surely the province of British Columbia can do the same. Surely we can keep in place a measure that has served this House and this chamber well since 1992.

[1605]

I see the Minister of Health, and I know that when he sat on this side of the House, he was never shy to ask questions. He may sometimes be shy of providing answers, but he was never shy of asking questions. He was able to ask that because the time was there on the estimates debate for him to ask those questions. We didn't come along and rip out 58 hours of the opposition's time to ask questions, so the opposition didn't have to make a choice as to who got to ask questions.

At that time, the opposition Municipal Affairs critic, if I'm not mistaken…

Interjection.

M. Farnworth: …and Forests or the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum didn't have to…. They were both able to ask their questions.

[ Page 10248 ]

That's what this is about, as I keep coming back to. My central point is really clear. The opposition has an important role to do. It's the role of asking questions, holding the government to account and scrutinizing the estimates. It's having the ability to do it in a way that you're not being jammed or that you're having to make choices or that you're not having to worry about….

If we spend 19 hours on Health, which we did last spring session, where are those 19 hours going to come from? Which ministries aren't going to get questioned?

Are we going to have to eliminate those questions, as I said earlier, to the Solicitor General on why he feels that we don't need any more resources to fight gang violence in this province? Or is it going to have to come from the questions to the Attorney General, who says we do need more resources to fight gang violence in this province?

Is it going to have to come out of the Solicitor General's ministry in terms of not being able to ask the questions about if the changes he has made in terms of the Lottery Act are working, if the changes to how the lotteries function are working and if we have sufficient resources in place to ensure that the public have confidence that when they buy a lottery ticket and get it checked, the result they get back actually will be valid?

Are we going to have the opportunity to ask questions of the Solicitor General about the RCMP contract that comes up in 2012? And is he serious when he says that he's prepared to look at issues around regional policing? Do we have the resources to allow that to take place?

Are those the questions that we're going to not be able to ask? Are we going to have to make up for the 19 hours of Health questions that we can't ask in here?

Are we going to have to go to the Solicitor General and maybe not ask the questions around issues regarding correctional officers and around issues on recruitment and retention and why we have significant problems in our ability to keep corrections officers in our system? They're going to other jobs — higher-paying jobs in the provincial government service, other police departments or the federal prison system.

Are those the questions that we're going to have to not ask because of 19 hours of Health estimates that we've got to make somewhere else? The time has got to come from somewhere else, because that's what's going to happen. The government may not have thought about those consequences, but those are the consequences, intended or unintended, that will occur because of this piece of legislation.

[1610]

You've got to find 58 hours, and that's a significant amount of time. It applies to every ministry. On top of that, one of the things that we've had the ability to do when government and opposition can cooperate is to be flexible, to take into account that there's enough room built into the way our

schedule worked that we could accommodate some of the issues around…. A minister's away, a critic is away, let's move this estimate up, let's put this one back a bit.

Ministers and opposition critics need to think about that. It will make it a lot more difficult and a lot more challenging, because the opposition is not going to give up its ability to ask the questions on some of those key priority areas.

The opposition is not going to want to have to stand and decide that if we put something off — we've got the time now — it may not get called again until the end of the session. Then we're jammed for time, and we're not able to get the questions asked or the issues asked that need to be raised, because this government doesn't want to abide by the calendar that it brought in.

It doesn't want to abide by the changes that they made, that they championed, that this government campaigned on, that the public believed when they were told it. That is something we all should think about.

Now, I can understand why the government doesn't want a fall session. Answering questions from the opposition is tedious. Flying over here sometimes is not the most fun thing to do. But guess what. That's what we signed up for. That's what the voters, the public, sent us here to do.

They sent us here in our respective roles, whether opposition or government, to ask questions, to answer questions, to scrutinize the accounts of British Columbia. They did it under the belief that there's a parliamentary calendar that says there is a spring session, and according to the words of the Premier, the focus was primarily financial matters — and that's estimates — and a fall calendar, which would be legislative, because of course the budget is passed, the estimates are passed and the focus can be legislation.

I know the government has said it was really only intended — this is the argument they've used before — for maybe special legislation. That's their line. Well, no, it was pretty clear when it was introduced, but if that's the line they want to use, I can understand that. But if they know ahead of time that they have a huge legislative agenda….

Now, you wouldn't know it from the fact there are only eight bills on the order paper right now.

Hon. G. Abbott: Wait for it.

[1615]

M. Farnworth: The member says: "Wait for it." Well, jeez, hon. Member, four weeks — right? Maybe there's something in the Ministry of Health you guys can use to clear the pipeline. We got the Minister of Health. He's going on about "wait for it."

We're into almost the end of the fourth week. We're at the end of the fourth week, and we expect a bit more than just the budget bill and the forest and range statutes acts. Those are pro forma ones that are done every session. There's nothing we've seen particularly imaginative from the government on its agenda so far.

Hon. G. Abbott: What about the bill recognizing the supremacy of parliament? That was a big one.

[ Page 10249 ]

M. Farnworth: And that comes every session. Bill 1 doesn't even have to get debated, which is what makes it even more unbelievable that, with eight bills on the papers, many of them pro forma — and in the case of Bill 1 doesn't get debated — they are going: "You know what? We are so unable to get eight bills passed in the remaining time that we've got to rip out 58 hours that the opposition would spend on asking questions, on scrutinizing estimates. We've got to rip out 58 hours so that we can get our legislative agenda through without having a fall session."

That's exactly what this is about. They can deny it all they want, but the fact is that that is the truth. They know it, we know it, and the public knows it. We are not going to let that happen. We are not going to let that happen without considerable and vigorous debate.

I look forward to the Minister of Health joining the debate. I look forward to the Minister of Health entering the fray, because we know how much he likes to. The same with the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources and the same with the Minister of Forests and even the Minister of State from Richmond East. I look forward to her entering the debate.

I look forward to hearing their rationale as to why it's okay to take out 58 hours of the opposition's time; why it's okay for us to sit less than the Canadian Senate; why it's okay not to follow the fixed calendar, the fixed schedule; why it's okay to do that. I'd really like to know: why are they so concerned about not having a fall session? Why are they so concerned about taking the estimates from here and making sure they're done in the little House? Why are they so concerned about that?

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

I've already, I think, explained to the members opposite that it cannot really be about making legislation the priority in here when it already is the priority in here. The bulk of our time in here is spent on legislation. The government decides when to introduce legislation. The government decides when to call a particular bill or pull a particular bill. So they have their very considerable amount of power and ability already to influence how much time is spent on a piece of legislation. They can do that.

The opposition has indicated, and past practice has shown, a willingness and a flexibility on our part to take some of that into account, as we did last session when we allowed, I think, a day of estimates or a number of hours of estimates from here to take place in the little House so that we could accomplish some of that legislative calendar.

[1620]

We've made it clear to government that, look, there are bills in the past, there are bills that need scrutiny. If you push them over to the fall, you won't get criticism from us on that. We'll be quite happy to have….

Interjection.

M. Farnworth: I hear the member wondering how long I'm speaking for. Well, as I said, as designated speaker I think I have two hours to speak. I'm not sure how far into the debate I am. But I've got a lot to say, and I intend to say it.

Interjections.

M. Farnworth: You know what? I'm an optimistic person by nature, and I know that if I speak long enough, if I repeat the message long enough, sooner or later you will get it. You will get it that we have to respect this place. You will get it that we have to respect what we do here. You will get it that there is a value in the work that we do here, and you will get it that if we don't respect what we do here, then why should the public?

You will get it that there is an important principle at stake, that when you want to arbitrarily rip out 58 hours of debate time that the opposition has and constrain it, the ability of this place to do the job it's supposed to do will suffer.

You will get that, hon. Minister. You will get that. I'm an optimistic person. As I have said before, earlier on, it is not too late. It is not too late.

Interjection.

M. Farnworth: The member says it is not too late. Don't hold my breath. Well, I won't hold my breath, because I need it to talk to convince you. I need it to convince you of the error of your ways, the error of what is going on here.

Interjection.

M. Farnworth: Well, actually, just to inform the hon. member, my blood pressure is 110 over 70, so….

Hon. G. Abbott: Now you're bragging.

M. Farnworth: No, just stating a fact. So I'm not too worried.

Interjection.

M. Farnworth: My cholesterol? The ratio is, I think, 4.7.

Hon. R. Coleman: A little high.

M. Farnworth: No, no, it's fine. Sorry, it's 4.1 — 4. 1 is what it is.

You know what? That's an example. Questioning — asking questions and giving answers. It's a novel….

Interjections.

M. Farnworth: I know that for some of these members that's a very novel approach. It's something that the Minister of Health may want to think about in

[ Page 10250 ]

question period. Actually answering a question for once.

Anyway, back to the main point at hand, because I know that the rules of the House are "Speak to the motion." In speaking to the motion, the points I'm making….

We've heard earlier about what other provinces do — Ottawa, for example. There the opposition has the ability to have ministries, departments, come to the main chamber in Ottawa and to be scrutinized by Committee of the Whole for four hours. That's a really great idea. That's a great idea in Ottawa. I'd probably be open to it if…

Hon. R. Thorpe: …you were in Ottawa.

M. Farnworth: Well, one, if I was in Ottawa. Yeah, I would probably be open to it if I was in Ottawa. But if we also followed the Ottawa practice of having the fall sitting and observing the full parliamentary calendar — the parliamentary calendar which this government introduced.

[1625]

If change is to take place that the opposition, for example, would buy into, if the opposition was consulted on…. In some of the ways, we have done a lot of change in this place. Much of it is good change, much of it through consultation — some of it not, but debate has taken place.

You know, we might be able to make some changes. But I think a framework for that is a fundamental recognition that when we have a calendar, we follow the calendar.

I see my friend, the member for North Vancouver–Seymour, whom I recognized earlier on. He was here in 1991. He was here in 1991, when he was able to ask as many questions as he wanted.

D. Jarvis: It's really a waste of time.

M. Farnworth: Well, actually, I know that his colleagues, when they were in opposition, may have thought his questions on mining in parks were a waste of time. We, of course, on the government side at that time, thoroughly enjoyed every time he got up to talk about how you could mine in parks. That is something that we used to enjoy immensely.

D. Jarvis: That was '94.

M. Farnworth: Oh, thank you. That was in 1994. He subsequently would continue after that, but in 1991 it was other issues. In 1991, as we heard earlier, it was the member for Surrey-Cloverdale at that time, about the size of napkins on B.C. Rail. I know the member for Peace River North remembers that.

The thing is, the members had the time to ask those questions. They had the time and the ability to ask those questions, whether they were simple, small questions that gave an easy answer or whether they were strange, interesting questions that gave some inkling as