British Columbia Hansard — MONDAY, AUGUST 27, 2001
20010827pm-Hansard-v2n27
British Columbia — Debates (Hansard)
2001 Legislative Session: 2nd Session, 37th 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)
MONDAY, AUGUST 27, 2001
Afternoon Sitting
Volume 2, Number 27
CONTENTS
Routine
Proceedings
Time
Introductions by Members
Oral Questions
Responsibility of
municipalities in enforcement of building code
J. MacPhail
J. Kwan
Tuition fee review
J. Kwan
Government action on U.S. decision on
Canadian softwood lumber exports
W. Cobb
Review of reference drug program
J. Kwan
Tabling Documents
Finance ministry, reports on amounts
borrowed by government for loans to
government bodies, loans to government bodies, amounts
borrowed in foreign
currencies and amounts borrowed for authorized
disbursements for the fiscal year
ended March 31, 2001
British Columbia Arts Council, annual
report, 2000-01
Industry Training and Apprenticeship
Commission, annual report, 2000-01
British Columbia Housing Management
Commission, annual report, 2000-01
British Columbia Heritage Trust,
financial statements, 2000-01
British Columbia Ferry Corporation,
annual report 2000-01
Homeowner protection office, annual
report, 2000-01
Transportation and Highways ministry,
annual report, 2000-01
Public Service Employee Relations
Commission, annual report, 2000-01
Northern Development Commission, annual
report, 2000-01
British Columbia Pavilion Corporation,
annual report, 2000-01
Petitions
Pitt Polder Preservation Society,
preservation of Codd Island wetlands
Vancouver downtown east side health
services initiatives
Motions on Notice
Membership substitution for Crown
Corporations Committee. Hon. G. Collins
Powers of Special Committee of Selection.
Hon. G. Collins
Referral of reports to and mandate of
Crown Corporations Committee.
Hon. G. Collins
Mandate of Education Committee. Hon. G.
Collins
Mandate of Finance and Government
Services Committee. Hon. G. Collins
Referral of statutory officers' reports
to Finance and Government Services
Committee. Hon. G. Collins
Mandate of Health Committee. Hon. G.
Collins
Appointment of Legislative Initiatives
Committee. Hon. G. Collins
Referral of auditor general reports to
Public Accounts Committee. Hon. G. Collins
Amendment of standing orders for third
session of thirty-seventh Parliament.
Hon. G. Collins
J. MacPhail
Mandate of Aboriginal Affairs Committee.
Hon. G. Plant
J. MacPhail
Term of office for acting child, youth
and family advocate. Hon. G. Plant
J. MacPhail
Committee of Supply
Office of the Premier estimates. Hon. G.
Campbell
Vote 9: Office of the
Premier
J. Kwan
MacPhail
B. Penner
Other estimates
Vote 1: Legislation
Vote 2: Auditor general
Vote 3: Conflict-of-interest
commissioner
Vote 4: Elections B.C.
Vote 5: Information and
privacy commissioner
Vote 6: Office of the child,
youth and family advocate
Vote 7: Ombudsman
Vote 8: Police complaints
commissioner
Vote 49: B.C. family bonus
Vote 51: Commissions on
collection of public funds and allowances for doubtful
revenue accounts
Vote 53: Environmental
boards and Forest Appeals Commission
Supply Act, 2001-2002 (Bill 21).
Hon. G. Collins
Introduction and first reading
Second reading
Committee stage
Third reading
Timber Sale Licence Replacement
(Sliammon First Nation) Act (Bill 26).
Second reading
Hon. M. de Jong
Petitions
Closing
of Fraser Mills, Coquitlam, B.C.
Timber
Sale Licence Replacement (Sliammon First Nation) Act (Bill 26).
Hon.
M. de Jong
Committee stage
J. MacPhail
Third reading
Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment
Act (No. 2), 2001 (Bill 23). Hon. G. Plant
Committee stage
J. MacPhail
Hon. R. Thorpe
Point of Order
Committee stage of bill, scope of debate
Hon. G. Collins
J. MacPhail
Chair's ruling
Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment
Act (No. 2), 2001 (Bill 23). Hon. G. Plant
Committee stage continued
J. MacPhail
Hon. R. Thorpe
Hon. G. Plant
Hon. K. Falcon
Hon. G. Collins
J. Kwan
Hon. G. Abbott
Third reading
Public Service (Merit Employment
Commissioner) Amendment Act, 2001
(Bill 10). Hon. S. Santori
Committee stage
J. Kwan
Third reading
Crime Victim Assistance Act (Bill
24). Hon. R. Coleman
Committee stage
J. MacPhail
Third reading
Tabling Documents
Emergency aid society, letters in support
of non-profit, rental and cooperative
housing
British Columbia Lottery Corporation,
annual report, 1999-2000
Municipalities Enabling and
Validating Act (No. 3) (Bill 25). Hon. G. Abbott
Committee stage
Third reading
Royal assent to bills
Constitution (Fixed Election Dates)
Amendment Act, 2001 (Bill 7)
Health Authorities Amendment Act (No. 2),
2001 (Bill 9)
Public Service (Merit Employment
Commissioner) Amendment Act, 2001 (Bill 10)
Community Charter Council Act (Bill 12)
Parental Responsibility Act (Bill 16)
Provincial Court Amendment Act (No. 2),
2001 (Bill 17)
Consumer Protection Statutes Amendment
Act, 2001 (Bill 19)
Lobbyists Registration Act (Bill 20)
Skills Development and Fair Wage Repeal
Act (Bill 22)
Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (No.
2), 2001 (Bill 23)
Crime Victim Assistance Act (Bill 24)
Municipalities Enabling and Validating
Act (No. 3) (Bill 25)
Timber Sale Licence Replacement (Sliammon
First Nation) Act (Bill 26)
Fumertons Limited (Corporate Restoration)
Act, 2001 (Bill Pr401)
Fumerton Holdings Limited (Corporate
Restoration) Act, 2001 (Bill Pr402)
The Bank of Nova Scotia Trust Company
Act, 2001 (Bill Pr403)
Supply Act, 2001-2002 (Bill 21)
[ Page 805 ]
MONDAY, AUGUST 27, 2001
The House
met at 2:03 p.m.
Prayers.
Introductions by Members
Hon. G.
Campbell: Hon. Speaker, I can't claim that this particular person is present
in the precincts, but I know that all members of the House would like to be sure
that the Minister of Education and Deputy Premier has our best wishes and, more
importantly, that Hamish Michael Marissen-Clark is welcomed appropriately into
British Columbia as one of our newest citizens. I hope all the House will make
him welcome.
Hon. T.
Nebbeling: Today in the House we have with us Jody Allen. Mr. Allen is a
resident of Victoria. However, this is the very first time that he is visiting
us in the House. I hope he will be witnessing an invigorating debate, and that
may lead to him coming back to the House on a regular basis.
[1405]
Hayer: It gives me great pleasure to introduce to you today two members of
my family. My son Anthony Hayer and my nephew Nicklos Lundman helped us with our
barbecue, which we had over 1,000 people attend last Sunday. Also in the gallery
with us today are Bill Reid, president of the Cloverdale Chamber of Commerce;
Ron Watson, executive director of the Surrey and White Rock Home Care
Association; and Martin Van Huizen, vice-president of Field & Marten
Associates. They are also residents of my community. Would the House please make
them welcome.
Hon. S.
Hagen: We have in the precinct today two guests from San Clemente,
California: my wife's uncle, Art Schleger, and his friend, Sherry Bozeman. Would
the House please make them welcome.
J. Bray:
Joining us in the gallery today is a very talented woman from my constituency,
Elizabeth Ferguson, who has just completed her bachelor of arts with distinction
in environmental studies and German from the University of Victoria. Also, she
has won a Rotary ambassadorial scholarship and will be travelling to Oxford,
England, this fall to complete her master of science in environmental change and
management. She has come to the Legislature to see this wonderful building, to
see us in action and to get a firsthand look at government. I would ask the
House to wish her good luck in her studies and also to welcome her today.
Hon. S.
Santori: In the gallery today I am very pleased to welcome some good
friends and constituents from the city of Trail. Here today are Argero Quiriconi
and his wife, Lorena Quiriconi, as well as their daughter, Lucia MacLean, and
her two sons, Jeff and Michael. This is Argero's and Lorena's first trip to
Victoria even though they have been living in British Columbia since the early
fifties. Also, all the way from the beautiful region of Tuscany in the province
of Pisa, visiting, are Mara Parenti and Guiliano Parenti. I would ask that the
House make them feel welcome.
Brenzinger: Today I am proud to introduce my beautiful daughter and her
boyfriend, Kirsten Brenzinger and Jay Tottle. Would the House please make them
welcome.
Roddick: I have two introductions to make. First, there is a young couple up
in the gallery today from my riding of Delta South, a businesswoman who has
enabled me to pursue provincial politics and a budding scientist who is
currently taking his PhD in genetics at UBC. Would the House please make welcome
my daughter and her husband, Kate and Layne Harvey, on the occasion of their
fifth wedding anniversary.
Second, Mr.
Speaker, is a businessman also from Delta South who succinctly described my move
from selling fertilizer to that of politician as a relatively short step — a
man who, of course, now has to do everything that his daughter directs him to do
from the business point of view. But he still manages to find enough spare time
to enthusiastically drive Miss Daisy. Will the House please welcome my husband,
Noel Roddick.
R. Lee:
I would like to introduce four visitors from Burnaby North today: a graduate
from Simon Fraser University, Anne Lee; a Burnaby North secondary student, Jarek
Lee, who is talented in playing the piano, violin and trumpet. Another
outstanding pianist is Montecito Elementary attendee, Darek Lee. Throughout the
last school year Darek enjoyed the guidance of his teacher, Ms. Gaetz. Each
student in her class had the opportunity to prepare and deliver over 25
speeches, almost once per week. Last, but not least, an energetic preschool
student, Leanne Lee, is an exceptional tap dancer and artist. They are all
members of my family. Would the House please make them welcome.
[1410]
Visser: Today I have some visitors from the North Island to introduce to the
House. In the gallery are Deb Lloyd, my constituency assistant; her daughters,
Crystal and Angelica Lewis; and her mother, Evelyn Brendeland. There's also Andy
Adams, a past riding association president for the North Island, and some very
close personal friends of mine, Dennis Morgan, and his two daughters, Sydney and
Carmen. Would the House make them welcome.
Hon. J.
van Dongen: I have a number of visitors today from my constituency. Visiting
us are Bhupinder S. Gidda, Arinder Kaur Gidda, Gursimran K. Gidda, Mehroop S.
Gidda and Jyoti K. Sangha. I ask the House to please make them welcome.
[ Page 806 ]
Mayencourt: It gives me great pleasure to introduce a good friend of mine,
Mr. Bob Quartermain of Vancouver-Fairview. Bob worked on my campaign and is an
executive with the mining companies Silver Standard and Golden Knight. It gives
me great pleasure to have him here today. We had lunch earlier, and he said that
the last time he was in question period was in Great Britain, with Margaret
Thatcher on the hot seat. So he's here to see how we compare in terms of being
civilized. I hope that the House will give him a good show.
Hon. R.
Neufeld: It's my pleasure today to introduce to the House Suzanne
Boucher-Chen, a director of Mirant; and John Maher, a project developing manager
for Mirant. They're a company that's investing heavily in electricity and oil
and gas in the province of British Columbia. Would the House please make them
welcome.
P. Wong:
I would like to introduce Siu wan Ng, my constituency assistant, together
with her husband, Po wah Ng, and her four-year-old son, Gent Ng, who is my youngest
political adviser. Also, I would like to introduce Daniel Cheung, a B.C. Liberal
youth leader who is going back to Saskatchewan next week to complete his
university degree. Would the House please make them welcome.
Hon. R.
Thorpe: On behalf of my colleague from Penticton–Okanagan Valley I'm
pleased to advise the House that yet another world record was established this
past weekend in British Columbia: 1,994 participants took
part in the Iron Man
in Penticton, establishing a world record this year.
Interjection.
Hon. R.
Thorpe: Just wait.
Also
participating were 4,600 community volunteers, from nurses to doctors, massage
therapists, Penticton Search and Rescue, and paramedics from throughout the
province of British Columbia. Amazing — 39 countries were represented. The
winner of the women's was Gillian Bakker from Winfield, British Columbia, and
the winner of the men's was Peter Reid from Victoria, British Columbia. Would
the House please give them their congratulations.
Oral Questions
RESPONSIBILITY OF MUNICIPALITIES
IN ENFORCEMENT OF BUILDING CODE
MacPhail: Last Friday the Supreme Court of British Columbia ruled that the
municipality of Delta had a legal duty to enforce the building code and had
failed to do so adequately. The court said that there was a clear responsibility
for the municipality of Delta to enforce the building code.
To the
minister responsible for leaky condos: can he assure us today that his
government has made a decision to not bring forward legislation that would allow
municipalities to avoid their responsibilities arising out of the leaky condo
crisis?
Hon. G.
Abbott: The short answer to the member's question is no. We have no plans to
bring in legislation to exempt municipalities from that responsibility. In
fairness, though, I have not seen any proposal at this point from either the
municipality or the Union of B.C. Municipalities with respect to this matter. I
understand, through the channels of media, that they have some plans to do that.
Of course, we will receive their request respectfully when it arrives. But the
short answer is no.
Mr.
Speaker: Leader of the Opposition with a supplementary question.
[1415]
MacPhail: Actually, it isn't the UBCM that this government should fear; it's
his own Premier that he should fear. There are reasons why the minister should
be worried about what his own government will do. He wasn't here in 1995, but
the then Leader of the Opposition introduced a private member's bill here that
remains on record, which would have removed any legal responsibility on the part
of municipalities to enforce either the local statutes or the B.C. Building
Code. His own Premier introduced that. So if the now Premier had his way, leaky-
condo owners in Delta would still be stuck with the bill. To the minister
responsible for leaky condos: could he reassure us that his own Premier's
private member's bill that we have right here will not become the law of the
land in British Columbia?
Hon. G.
Abbott: I understand that the Premier has no plans to introduce a private
member's bill into the Legislature with respect to this matter. While we would
certainly welcome any advice that the opposition may have with respect to this,
again, in deference to the courts and to local government, I think we have to,
first of all, acknowledge that it was an important decision that was rendered on
Friday. It may, subject to appeal by Delta, be a precedent-setting decision with
respect to resolution of the leaky-condo matter. But again, I don't think we
should try to anticipate too much here. I think it's very important that we give
careful scrutiny to the decision that was rendered on Friday and try to govern
ourselves appropriately. Obviously, this has been a very important issue — a
very key problem in people's lives in the lower mainland, particularly.
Mr.
Speaker: Leader of the Opposition with a further supplemental question.
MacPhail: The now Premier's view remains on record in his private member's
bill, which has not been changed. In fact, I would say that we have even greater
concern that this Premier wants to continue to provide incentive to
municipalities to not properly enforce
[ Page 807 ]
building codes and to not properly inspect construction sites. Leaky-condo
developers have reason to expect favours from this government, given the private
member's bill. In fact, the construction and development industry has given more
than $2.5 million to the B.C. Liberals in the last five years.
Again, to
the minister responsible for leaky condos: can his government reassure, given
their current practice of giving favours to everyone who contributes to their
party, that they'll stand up against the construction industry and not bring in
legislation to allow the municipalities off the hook?
Hon. G.
Abbott: I find it deeply ironic that this member, who led a government that
dithered on the leaky-condo issue for a decade…. All they could do was point
fingers, and it appears that all they can still do is point fingers on this
issue.
Interjections.
Mr.
Speaker: Order, please.
Hon. G.
Abbott: Rather than try to address the issue at hand, all that government
was able to do was point fingers, try to lay blame, and they're still stuck in
that mode. It's time to move ahead, hon. member. It's time to get real about
this problem. This government is determined to turn around the housing industry
and the construction industry through some positive policies, for a change, and
get beyond the decade of decline that was sponsored by that government over
there.
Interjections.
Mr.
Speaker: Order, please.
[1420]
J. Kwan:
The minister is absolutely incorrect. It was the previous government that
launched the Barrett commission. It was the previous government that established
the….
Interjections.
Mr.
Speaker: Order, please. Order, please.
J. Kwan:
It was the previous government that established the interest-free loan program.
It was the then opposition members who opposed every step of action we took.
Maybe the minister should check his responsibilities — the minister
responsible for leaky condos — on what actions were really taken and where his
government stood on that issue.
On a
different track….
Interjections.
Mr.
Speaker: Order, please.
Please
continue.
TUITION FEE REVIEW
J. Kwan:
On a different track, I have the privilege today to ask the first written
question from the public. These are questions I have been asking the minister
responsible for weeks around this important matter, and to date she refuses to
answer. This question is to the Minister of Advanced Education.
The
question comes from Jaime Matten, Chairperson of the University of Victoria
Students Society. She asks this question to the minister responsible for
universities and colleges. "Please describe your planned process to review
the tuition fee freeze. Please include the following details: time lines,
including starting date; participants, including registered associations;
hearing dates and locations; and the role of private providers."
Hon. S.
Bond: I am absolutely delighted that the first question we are receiving
through this process is coming from a student. I think that's exciting. It talks
about opening up the process and listening to students, and I think it's a great
one.
We made at
least two commitments to students in this province that I'm happy to speak
about. The first one, which will give students a sense of assurance, is the fact
that we honoured the tuition freeze and, more importantly, fully funded it for
the coming year. We actually fully funded that particular promise.
The second
promise that we intend to honour our commitment on is the process of
consultation. I'll be very pleased to announce in the very near future the exact
dates and the process we intend to use for the tuition freeze consultation. In
my very early discussions with stakeholders we've already talked very
superficially with a number of groups, including the Canadian Federation of
Students and the Canadian Alliance of Student Associations, about how we might
effectively conduct that consultation.
Within the
very short term we will announce the locations. The participants will be
students, administrators and educators, with possible avenues for other, broader
consultation.
Mr.
Speaker: The member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant with a supplementary
question.
J. Kwan:
My question is to the Minister of Advanced Education. There is a study that
was just released today, and it was put forward in the Vancouver Sun . USC
Education Savings Plans released the 2001-02 guide to university costs in
Canada. B.C. residents pay some $4,000 less a year in tuition — two-thirds of
the national figure and the lowest overall cost in the country.
My question
to the minister responsible, the Minister of Advanced Education, is: why is
there a need for review when it is clear that tuition fee freezes help students?
When it is clear and is validated by others who have looked into this matter,
why would you dither on this issue? Commit today to all the students in British
Columbia that you will continue the freeze over the
[ Page 808 ]
next years to ensure access to education to all students in British Columbia.
Hon. S.
Bond: One of the prime reasons we are going to have a look at this issue is
one that is raised continually. That's the issue of increased access and
opportunities for students. Perhaps the most significant reason that some of
those access issues are a problem today is that universities and educators are
telling us that they haven't fully funded the tuition fees, causing more
complications.
Interjections.
Mr.
Speaker: Order, please. The member for Cariboo South has the floor.
[1425]
GOVERNMENT ACTION ON U.S. DECISION
ON CANADIAN SOFTWOOD LUMBER EXPORTS
W. Cobb:
Last week our Forests minister travelled to Montreal to discuss the softwood
lumber agreement with our federal and provincial counterparts. Will the Minister
of Forests tell us — the many families and communities who depend so heavily
on the forest industry for their livelihood — what actually was accomplished
at that meeting?
Hon. M.
de Jong: At the meeting in Montreal on Friday B.C. made our presentation to
the other provinces: our three-pronged, tracked strategy for moving forward on
our objective of securing free trade in softwood lumber products with the U.S.
I'm happy to report to the House that we received support from all of the
provinces and the federal government and that really for the first time in two
decades, when we confront the Americans at the table later this week, we will be
doing so with a single, strong Canadian voice unified in pursuit of our
objective of free trade.
I'm also
pleased to report that we secured agreement from across the country for
participation in the public campaign we are launching within the United States
to remind Americans of how damaging this is going to be not just to trade
relations with Canada but also to Americans who want to purchase homes and
Americans involved in the home manufacturing business.
Lastly, I
am less pleased to report that we have not yet secured agreement on a program
that would assist companies who might be experiencing difficulties with respect
to the bonding requirement. British Columbia raised the issue of employing the
Export Development Corporation as a mechanism for doing that, but we have not
yet secured that agreement.
Mr.
Speaker: The member for Cariboo South with a supplemental question.
W. Cobb:
I also understand that the minister is going to meet with the federal
government and with our provincial representatives next week on the softwood
lumber agreement. Can you enlighten us on what's going to happen there?
Mr.
Speaker: I'm sorry. I do recognize you. The Minister of Forests.
Hon. M.
de Jong: I always want to follow the rules in this chamber, Mr. Speaker.
the member: first of all, what I hope we emerge with out of these discussions is
a specific work schedule. This is a matter of far too great importance to
British Columbia and indeed to the country to allow the Americans to try and
postpone or drag their feet on this. So I look for us to have a firm
schedule of
meetings that will emerge from Thursday's discussions.
I also want
to test, in a very direct and specific way, the Americans' commitment to
actually achieving a long-term agreement. This question has emerged far too
often. It's softwood lumber 5, and we don't want a softwood lumber 6, 7, 8 or 9.
Forest-dependent communities deserve to know that their governments, both at the
provincial and at the national level, are approaching these talks with a view to
securing a long-term strategy.
We're going
to test Americans. We're going to say to them in our public campaign that the
time has come for Americans to hold their protectionist-minded politicians to
account — those people who, under the guise of presuming to protect a few jobs
in the southern U.S., are going to put thousands of Americans out of work in
other parts of the country and price housing in the U.S. out of the market for
thousands, if not millions, of Americans.
Mr.
Speaker: Since the Speaker inadvertently prolonged question period, I'll
allow one more question from the member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant.
REVIEW OF REFERENCE DRUG PROGRAM
J. Kwan:
B.C.'s reference drug program has saved some $224 million over six years to
improve Pharmacare and B.C.'s health care program. This government and the drug
lobby may not like the reference-based program, but health experts have
determined that it provides for good patient care.
Last week
this Minister of Health Services let British Columbians down, choosing big
business, big tobacco, over the health of workers in return for big election
donations.
[1430]
The drug
lobby has given over $60,000 to the Liberals. To the Minister of Health
Services: is the drug lobby also going to get what it paid for from this
minister: an end to reference-based pricing?
Hon. C.
Hansen: I'm not sure if that member has read some of the mail that's come
into her constituency office over the last five years, but I've certainly read
the mail that's come into mine. It comes from individual patients, individual
British Columbians, whose access to the medications recommended by their doctors
has
[ Page 809 ]
been frustrated. So we have said we are going to review the reference drug
program to see if we can find a more cost-effective alternative that will allow
patients to get access to the medications they need and still allow us to
contain costs within the Pharmacare program.
[End
of question period.]
Tabling Documents
Hon. G.
Collins: Pursuant to the Financial Administration Act, I am pleased to
present reports for the fiscal year ended March 31, 2001, on amounts borrowed by
government for making loans to government bodies, as well as the corresponding
report on loans to government bodies, amounts borrowed in foreign currencies and
amounts borrowed for authorized disbursements. These reports provide an overview
of the province's growing activity in fiscal year 2000-01.
As well, I
have the honour to present the following reports: the British Columbia Arts
Council annual report, 2000-01; Industry Training and Apprenticeship Commission
annual report, 2000-01; the B.C. Housing annual report, 2000-01. These are all
2000-01, so I'll just read them: the British Columbia Heritage Trust financial
statements, the British Columbia Ferry Corporation, the homeowner protection
office, the Ministry of Transportation and Highways, the Public Service Employee
Relations Commission, the Northern Development Commission and the British
Columbia Pavilion Corporation, 2000-01.
Petitions
Stewart: I request leave to table a document in the House.
Leave
granted.
Stewart: This document consists of 1,214 letters compiled by the Pitt Polder
Preservation Society in support of the preservation of the Codd Island wetlands.
P. Wong:
I have the honour to present a petition supporting the Vancouver downtown east
side health services initiatives.
Orders of the Day
Hon. G.
Collins: With leave, I call the following motions on notice. I call Motion
Leave
granted.
Motions on Notice
MEMBERSHIP SUBSTITUTION
FOR CROWN CORPORATIONS COMMITTEE
Hon. G.
Collins: Motion 3 is a motion of substitution. It reads as follows:
[That Mr. Johnston be substituted by Mr. Hawes as a member of the
Select Standing Committee on Crown Corporations.]
Motion
approved.
POWERS OF
SPECIAL COMMITTEE OF SELECTION
Hon. G.
Collins: I call Motion 4. It reads as follows.
[That
in addition to the powers previously conferred upon the Special Committee of
Selection, the committee is also empowered to sit during any period in which
the House is adjourned, during the recess after prorogation until the next
following Session and during any sitting of the House; to determine the
membership of any select standing or special committee of the House; to
deposit a copy of its reports with the Clerk of the Legislative Assembly
during a period of adjournment; and upon resumption of the sittings of the
House, the Chair shall present all reports to the Legislative Assembly.]
Motion
approved.
Hon. G.
Collins: With leave, I call Motion 6.
Leave
granted.
[1435]
REFERRAL OF REPORTS
AND MANDATE OF
CROWN CORPORATIONS COMMITTEE
Hon. G.
Collins: This motion reads as follows:
[That
annual reports and performance plans of British Columbia Crown Corporations
be referred to the Select Standing Committee on Crown Corporations.
In addition to the powers previously conferred upon the Select Standing
Committee on Crown Corporations, the Committee be empowered:
(
a) to appoint of their number, one or more subcommittees and to refer to
such subcommittees any of the matters referred to the Committee;
(
b) to sit during a period when the House is adjourned, during the recess
after prorogation until the next following Session and during any
sitting of the House;
(
c) to adjourn from place to place as may be convenient; and
(
d) to retain personnel as required to assist the Committee;
and shall report to the House as soon as possible, or following any
adjournment, or at the next following Session, as the case may be; to
deposit the original of its reports with the Clerk of the Legislative
Assembly during a period of adjournment and upon resumption of the sittings
of the House, the Chair shall present all reports to the Legislative
Assembly.]
I just want
to say that this is an issue that has come before this House time and again —
that is, the charging of the Committee on Crown Corporations. It's something
that has been talked about for many years but hasn't been done since, I think,
early or mid 1970s. It's an opportunity for the Crown corporations, which
[ Page 810 ]
constitute an entity equal in size to the core part of government, to come to
the Legislature and present business plans, budgets and to have those up for
discussion and debate by Members of the Legislative Assembly. I think it's a
good move, something that we've looked forward to for a long time, and will help
to increase the accountability of Crown corporations.
Motion
approved.
Hon. G.
Collins: With leave, I call Motion 7.
Leave
granted.
MANDATE OF EDUCATION COMMITTEE
Hon. G.
Collins: I move
[That
the Select Standing Committee on Education be empowered to examine, inquire
into and make recommendations by consulting with educators, students,
parents, administrators and other British Columbians on the following
matters:
(
a) measures
to improve access, choice, flexibility
and quality in public education;
and
(
b) measures
to strengthen our network of colleges,
institutes and on-line learning throughout
the province.
Consider
any other matters referred to the Committee
by the Minister of Education and
the
Minister of Advanced Education.
3. Prepare a report no later than February 28,
on the results of those consultations.
addition to the powers previously conferred upon the select Standing
Committee on Education, the Committee shall be empowered:
(
a) to
appoint of their number, one or more subcommittees
and to refer such subcommittees
any of the matters referred
to the Committee;
(
b) to sit
during a period in which the House is
adjourned and during any sitting of
the
House;
(
c) to
adjourn from place to place as may be convenient;
(
d) to
retain such personnel as required to assist
the Committee;
and shall report to the House as soon as possible, or following any
adjournment or at the next following Session, as the case may be; to deposit
the original of its reports with the Clerk of the Legislative Assembly
during a period of adjournment and upon resumption of the sittings of the
House, the Chair shall present all reports to the Legislative Assembly.]
Motion
approved.
Hon. G.
Collins: With leave, I call Motion 8.
Leave
granted.
MANDATE OF FINANCE AND
GOVERNMENT SERVICES COMMITTEE
Hon. G.
Collins:
[That the
Select Standing Committee on Finance and Government Services be empowered to
examine, inquire into and make recommendations with respect to the pre-budget
consultation report prepared by the Minister of Finance in accordance with
section 2 of the Budget Transparency and Accountability Act and, in particular,
to:
1. Conduct
public consultations across British Columbia
on proposals and recommendations
regarding the provincial budget
and fiscal policy for the coming fiscal year
by any means the committee considers appropriate,
including but not limited to public
meetings, telephone and electronic means;
2. Prepare
a report no later than November 15, 2001
on the results of those consultations.
In addition
to the powers previously conferred upon the Select Standing Committee on Finance
and Government Services, the committee shall be empowered:
(
a) appoint of their number one or more subcommittees
and refer to such subcommittees any
of the matters referred to the committee;
(
b) to
sit during period in which the House is adjourned
and during any sitting of the House;
(
c) to
adjourn from place to place as many be convenient;
and
(
d) to
retain personnel as required to assist the committee;
and shall report to the House as soon as possible, or following any
adjournment or at the next following session, as the case may be, to deposit the
original of its reports with the Clerk of the Legislative Assembly during a
period of adjournment and upon resumption of the sittings of the House, the
Chair shall present all reports to the Legislative Assembly.]
This is a motion that was first moved through this Legislature last year. It
is a motion that, by statute and by the Budget Transparency and Accountability
Act, charges the Standing Committee on Finance to consult broadly with British
Columbians across the province in regard to the budget that's coming up next
year for introduction on February 19. It is something that I had the opportunity
to participate in last year, as well as other members of the House. This year
will be no different, other than that we've had to move the timetable up a
little bit as a result of the changes of the budget date, a fixed budget day
being February 19. This committee is supposed to report no later than November
15 as opposed to last year, which I believe was December 31.
Motion
approved.
Hon. G.
Collins: With leave, I call Motion 9.
Leave
granted.
REFERRAL OF
STATUTORY OFFICERS' REPORTS TO
FINANCE AND GOVERNMENT
SERVICES COMMITTEE
Hon. G. Collins:
I move Motion 9, standing in my name. This is a
somewhat different motion. I'll read it into the House:
[That
annual reports, performance plans, budgets and business plans of the following
statutory officers
[ Page 811 ]
be referred to the Select Standing Committee on Finance and Government
Services:
(
a) Auditor
General
(
b) Chief
Electoral Officer
(
c) Child,
Youth and Family Advocate
(
d) Conflict of Interest Commissioner
(
e) Information and Privacy Commissioner
(
f) Ombudsman
(
g) Police
Complaint Commissioner]
This motion
is important for a number of reasons. Certainly, over the last number of years
that I've been a member of this House, as well as others, it became apparent
that those officers of the Legislature find that they rarely have an opportunity
to communicate or to get feedback from members of the Legislature, to whom
they're accountable. This provided an opportunity for those officers of the
Legislature to have their performance plans and their budgets come before a
committee of the Legislature for discussion, debate, questioning back and forth
and to get some input. In the past officers of the Legislature have indicated
their desire to have more correspondence and communication with the members of
the Legislature, other than when their position comes up for review every six
years.
[1440]
This, I
think, will provide that opportunity as well as somewhat add to the
accountability of their office and will remove the requirement for them to
appear directly to Treasury Board for the pursuit of an appropriate budget. This
provides them the opportunity to present to members of the Legislature and have
them make a recommendation to Treasury Board.
I think
it's a first step to improve the accountability of those officers, and I think
it's a good innovation. It's something we can try, and perhaps in future years
we may be able to find other committees that these
officers will report to as opposed to Finance. But for a first step we felt it
would be good to try it with this committee, whose makeup is very similar to
that of the Public Accounts Committee.
Motion
approved.
Hon. G.
Collins: With leave, I call Motion 10.
Leave
granted.
MANDATE OF HEALTH COMMITTEE
Hon. G.
Collins: I move the following:
[That the
Select Standing Committee on Health be empowered to examine, inquire into and
make recommendations with respect to the changes that are necessary to improve
the provision of health services in British Columbia, and to ensure that
government expenditures on health care services are sustainable, and in
particular to:
Conduct broad
public consultations across British
Columbia on proposals and recommendations
regarding:
(
a) the
sustainability of the health care system
in its current form and historical rate
of spending;
(
b) immediate and
medium term solutions to better
plan and manage public health care services,
costs and funding pressures;
(
c) measures to
improve and renew the provision of
health care services in British Columbia in order
quality and timeliness
of health
care services, as well as improve health outcomes
and the overall health of
British Columbians;
and,
(
d) other issues
as may be determined by the Committee.
Prepare a
report by December 15, 2001, on the results
of those consultations. In addition to the
powers previously conferred upon the Select
Standing Committee on Health and Social
Services, the Committee shall be empowered:
(
a) appoint of their number, one or more subcommittees
and to refer such subcommittees
any of the matters referred to the
Committee;
(
b) to sit
during a period in which the House is adjourned
and during any sitting of the House;
(
c) adjourn from place to place as may be convenient;
(
d) retain such personnel as required to assist the
Committee;
and shall report to the House as soon as possible, or following any
adjournment or at the next following Session, as the case may be; to deposit the
original of its reports with the Clerk of the Legislative Assembly during a
period of adjournment and upon resumption of the sittings of the House, the
Chair shall present all reports to the Legislative Assembly.]
Motion
approved.
Hon. G.
Collins: With leave, I call Motion 11.
Leave
granted.
APPOINTMENT OF
LEGISLATIVE INITIATIVES COMMITTEE
Hon. G.
Collins: I move the following motion:
[That a
Select Standing Committee on Legislative Initiatives be appointed for the 37th
Parliament, pursuant to
Section 9 of the Recall and Initiative Act, R.S.B.C.
1966, c. 398, and the committee be comprised of members of the Select Standing
Committee on Parliamentary Reform, Ethical Conduct, Standing Orders and Private
Bills established this session.]
That's a
standard motion required by the Recall and Initiative Act to have a committee of
the House in place in the event that the public should successfully complete the
requirements to introduce an initiative. That initiative would be referred to
this committee by statute for review, and that may happen. We can see what the
public has in mind for that committee in the next number of months ahead.
Motion
approved.
Hon. G.
Collins: With leave, I call Motion 12.
[ Page 812 ]
Leave
granted.
REFERRAL OF
AUDITOR GENERAL REPORTS TO
PUBLIC ACCOUNTS COMMITTEE
Hon. G.
Collins: I move the following motion:
[That
reports of the Auditor General of British Columbia deposited with the Speaker of
the Legislative Assembly during the second session of the thirty-seventh
parliament be deemed referred to the Select Standing Committee on Public
Accounts, and in addition that the following reports of the Auditor General of
British Columbia be referred to the Select Standing Committee on Public
Accounts:
o Managing Interface Fire Risks (June 2001)
o Report on Government Financial Accountability for the 1999/2000 Fiscal Year
(March 2001)
o Monitoring Credit Unions and Trust Companies in British Columbia (March 2001)
o Management Consulting Engagements in Government (March 2001)
o Follow-up of Performance and Compliance Reports (December 2000)
o Governance and Risk of the Fast Ferry Project (October 1999)
In addition
to the powers previously conferred upon the Select Standing Committee on Public
Accounts, the Committee be empowered:
(
a) to apoint of
their number, one or more subcomittees
and to refer to such subcommittees
any of the matters referred to the
Committee;
(
b) to sit
during a period in which the House is adjourned,
during the recess after prorogation
until the next following Session and
during any sitting of the House;
(
c) adjourn from place to place as may be convenient;
and
(
d) retain personnel as required to assist the Committee;
and shall report to the House as soon as possible, or following any
adjournment, or at the next following Session, as the case may be; to deposit
the original of its reports with the Clerk of the Legislative Assembly during a
period of adjournment and upon resumption of the sittings of the House, the
Chair shall present all reports to the Legislative Assembly.]
Motion
approved.
Hon. G.
Collins: With leave, I call Motion 13.
Leave
granted.
AMENDMENT OF STANDING ORDERS
FOR THIRD SESSION
OF THIRTY-SEVENTH PARLIAMENT
Hon. G.
Plant: He's going to read every word of it.
Hon. G.
Collins: I have no intention of reading all of Motion 13. I know members of
the House would rather I didn't, other than to say that it is the fixed
parliamentary calendar. It lays out, as well, some of the sitting days for the
future. I know members have been eagerly awaiting passage of that motion, so
that's all I have to say about it. I call the vote.
[That the
Standing Orders of the Legislative Assembly of British
Columbia be amended as follows for the duration of the Third Session of the
Thirty-seventh Parliament, commencing February 12, 2002:
1. That
Standing Order 2 be deleted and the following substituted
therefor:
Sittings
Daily sittings.
(1) The time for
the ordinary meeting of the House
shall, unless otherwise ordered, be as fol lows:
Monday: Two
distinct sittings:
a.m. to 12 noon
p.m. to 6 p.m.
p.m. to 9 p.m. effective March 4,
Tuesday: Two
distinct sittings:
a.m. to 12 noon
p.m. to 6 p.m.
Wednesday:
p.m. to 7 p.m.
p.m. to 9 p.m. effective March 4,
Thursday: Two
distinct sittings:
a.m. to 12 noon
p.m. to 6 p.m.
(2) (
a) During the
Third Session of the Thirty-seventh
Parliament, unless otherwise ordered,
the House shall meet:
(
i) from February
12, 2002 to May 30, 2002
inclusive, and
(ii) from
October 7, 2002 to November 28, 2002
inclusive.
(
b) The House
shall stand adjourned dur ing
the weeks of March 25, April 22, May
20, October 14 and November 11,
That
Standing Order 3 be deleted and the following
substituted therefor:
Hour of interruption.
If at the hour
of 6 p.m. (or 9 p.m. after March 4, 2002) on any Monday; 6 p.m. on Tuesday; 7
p.m. (or 9 p.m. after March 4, 2002) on Wednesday; or 6 p.m. on Thursday, the
business of the day is not concluded and no other hour has been agreed on for
the next sitting, the Speaker shall leave the Chair:
On Monday until
10 a.m. Tuesday
On Tuesday until
2 p.m. Wednesday
Wednesday until
10 a.m. Thursday
On Thursday until
10 a.m. Monday
subject to the provisions of Standing Order 2 (2) (b).
That
Standing Order 25 be deleted and the following
substituted therefor:
Routine Business
Daily routine.
The daily
routine business of the House shall be as follows :
[ Page 813 ]
Prayers
(morning or afternoon sitting)
Introduction
of Bills
Statements
(Standing Order 25b) (afternoon sittings)
Oral
question period (15 minutes, afternoon sittings:
Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday)
__________
Presenting
Petitions
Reading and
Receiving Petitions
Presenting
Reports by Committees
__________
Motions on
Notice
Written
Questions on Notice
Proposed
Amendments on Notice
Orders of the Day.
The order
of business for consideration of the House day by day, after the above routine,
shall, unless otherwise ordered, be as follows:
Monday
10 a.m. to 12 noon
(Private Members' Time)
Public
Bills in the hands of Private Members
Private
Members' Motions
Private
Bills
Public
Bills and Orders and Government Motions on
Notice
Neither
voice votes nor divisions, on Orders of the Day, will be taken in the House or
in Committee of the Whole during Private Members' Time, but any request for a
voice vote or a division will be deferred until thirty minutes prior to the
ordinary time fixed for adjournment of the House on the Monday, unless otherwise
ordered.
Monday (afternoon), Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday
(Government Days)
Throne
Speech Debate
Budget
Debate including Committee of Supply
Public
Bills and Orders and Government Motions on
Notice
Private
Bills
Public
Bills in the hands of Private Members
Adjourned
debate on other motions
Private
Members' Statements (6 p.m. Wednesday)
4. That
Standing Order 25 A be repealed and the following
substituted therefor:
Private Members' Statements
Private Members' Statements.
25 A .
(1) Every
Wednesday at 6 p.m. four Private Members may make a statement, notice of which
has been tabled no later than 6 p.m. the preceding Monday.
(2) The order in
which such statements are to be called shall be determined by lot by the
Speaker, before appearing on the Orders of the Day.
(3) The time
allocated on Wednesday for statements and discussion thereon shall not exceed
one hour, and the time for each statement shall be limiited to 15 minutes as
follows:
Proponent:
maximum of 7 minutes
Any
other Members: maximum of 5 minutes
Proponent
in reply: maximum of 3 minutes
(4) Private
Members' statements shall not be subject to amendment, adjournment or vote.
(5) Statements and
discussions under this Standing Order:
(
a) shall be
confined to one matter;
(
b) shall not
revive discussion on a
matter which has been discussed
in the same Session;
(
c) shall not
anticipate a matter which
has been previously appointed
for consideration by
the House, in respect to which
a Notice of Motion has
been previously given and
not withdrawn;
(
d) shall
not raise a question of
privilege.
5. That new
Standing Order 25 B be adopted:
Statements
Statements.
25 B .
Three Private
Members shall be permitted a two minute statement each day immediately prior to
Oral Question Period subject to the following guidelines:
(1) A Member
desiring to make a statement shall so advise his or her Whip 24 hours prior to
the relevant day the statement is to be made.
(2) Party Whips
shall confer to settle the names of the three Members who will be recognised for
"Statements" for the following sitting day and shall advise the
Speaker by noon of the day in question as to who has been selected, together
with the topic of the statement.
(3) Statements
under this Standing Order shall be subject to the ordinary parliamentary rules
of decorum and debate.
6. Oral
question period Friday.
47 B .
This Standing
Order is repealed.
7. That new
Standing Order 81.1 be adopted:
81.1
(1) When a
Minister of the Crown, from his or her place in the House, states that there is
agreement among the representatives of all parties to
[ Page 814 ]
allot a specified number of days or hours to the proceedings at one or more
stages of any public bill, the Minister may propose a motion, without notice,
setting forth the terms of such agreed allocation; and the motion shall be
decided forthwith, without debate or amendment.
(2) A Minister of
the Crown who from his or her place in the House, has stated that an agreement
could not be reached under the provisions of section (1) of this Standing Order
in respect of proceedings at one or more stages of a public bill, may propose
without notice a motion for the purpose of allotting a specified number of days
or hours for the consideration and disposal of proceedings at one or more stages
of a public bill. The motion shall be decided forthwith, without debate or
amendment. Any proceedings interrupted pursuant to this
section of this Standing
Order shall be deemed adjourned.]
[1445]
MacPhail: I note that the order is a sessional order, and my colleague the
member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant and I would be happy, at the end of the
session or during the session, to work with all members of the Legislature to
fully apprise whether it's working as we move along and what changes, if any,
need to be made. I make that offer but do note, for the House, that it is a
sessional order.
Hon. G.
Collins: I thank the member opposite for her concurrence in moving this
motion forward. I think it's an innovation that for the most part was completed
prior to the election, and the previous government and that member, as well,
played a role in that. The motion is there; it is a sessional order. The attempt
is to give us an opportunity to try it out and see how well it works. If it
doesn't work, then it will die, and we'll be back where we are today. If it
does, we can move forward. If we find any opportunities to improve it along the
way, the House is more than able to do that, and certainly we'll do that with
consultation of all members of the House.
Motion
approved.
Hon. G.
Plant: I seek leave to move Motion 5 standing in the name of the Minister of
Finance in Votes and Proceedings .
Leave
granted.
MANDATE OF
ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS COMMITTEE
Hon. G.
Plant: Motion 5 states:
[That
the Select Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs be empowered to examine,
inquire into and make recommendations with respect to all matters and issues
concerning questions which the Government of British Columbia should submit to
voters to implement the Government's commitment to "give all British
Columbians a say on the principles that should guide B.C.'s approach to treaty
negotiations, through a one-time, province-wide referendum," while ensuring
that constitutionally-protected aboriginal rights and title are respected; and,
That the
Committee report their recommendations to the Legislative Assembly no later than
November 30, 2001.
In addition
to the powers previously conferred upon the Select Standing Committee on
Aboriginal Affairs, the Committee shall be empowered:
(
a) to appoint of
their number, one or more subcommittees
and to refer to such subcommittees
any of the matters referred to the Committee;
(
b) to sit during
a period in which the House is adjourned
and during any sitting of the House;
(
c) to adjourn
from place to place as may be convenient;
(
d) to retain such
personnel as required to assist the
Committee;
(
e) to permit
minority opinions in a report of the
Committee;
and shall report to the House as soon as possible, or following any
adjournment or at the next following Session, as the case may be; to deposit the
original of its reports with the Clerk of the Legislative Assembly during the
period of adjournment and upon resumption of the sittings of the House, the
Chair shall present all reports to the Legislative Assembly.]
The motion
includes some standard motion language, but two clauses of note are, first, the
requirement in the motion that the committee report their recommendations to the
Legislative Assembly no later than November 30, 2001, and, secondly, the
provision — which, as you know, Mr. Speaker, is unusual in this chamber —
that in addition to the usual powers, this committee shall be empowered to
permit minority opinions in its report.
The making
and, I hope, the passage of this motion and the work of the committee will give
effect to several new-era commitments. First is our commitment to indeed give
British Columbians a say on the principles that should guide B.C.'s approach to
treaty-making through a one-time provincewide referendum within our first year
of forming government. Second is our commitment to ask an all-party committee of
the Legislature to consult with British Columbians, including first nations, to
draft the referendum questions. Third is the broad commitment, which is
reflected throughout all of our new-era commitments for first nations: our
commitment to make and negotiate workable, fair, affordable treaties for the
benefit of all British Columbians, first nations and non-aboriginal people
alike.
This motion
today keeps faith with the people of British Columbia by ensuring yet one more
time in yet
[ Page 815 ]
one more way that we intend to keep the promises that we have made. One of
those promises is a commitment to treaty-making.
You know,
when the province of British Columbia sits down at the treaty table, it does so
it, and it sits at a table that has the first nation whose claim is being
negotiated. Each of those parties brings to the treaty table their own hopes,
their own dreams and the interests of those they are there to represent. And
each of those parties is entitled to bring to the treaty table their own vision
of what they seek to achieve at the treaty table.
[1450]
For eight
years or so British Columbia has been at that table negotiating treaties. To
date, under the B.C. Treaty Commission process, not one single treaty has been
concluded. I think that and other facts constitute evidence that the treaty
process has not worked as well as it could. One of the reasons why I think the
treaty process has not worked as well as it could is because those who have sat
down at the table on behalf of the people of British Columbia have not done so
with a clear mandate of what it is that the government representing those
people, the province of British Columbia, wishes to achieve at the treaty table;
what it is that the government, province and people of British Columbia wish to
achieve from treaties.
Treaties do
involve choices, because as the dreams, visions and objectives of the parties at
the table will differ, there will be a need to find new, creative and different
approaches to the problems that are raised at the table in order to achieve,
through negotiation, the compromise and consensus that's needed if we're going
to have workable, affordable and fair treaties.
I think
that for too long in British Columbia, if not the single reason certainly one
of the major reasons why the province has not represented itself as well or as
clearly as it should at the treaty table is because the people of British
Columbia have been disengaged from the treaty process. For too many people the
treaty process, which at the end of the day will affect all our lives
significantly, is something that happens somewhere else and is being done by
some other people. What we need to do is bring it home to the people and give
them a voice in a process that will only work if it's done for them and with
them. The referendum is a marvellous opportunity to ensure that the government,
this House and the Legislature can connect with the people of British Columbia
for the first time since this process began and ask of them: “What are your
hopes and dreams and visions for this process? What is it that you wish to
achieve from treaties in British Columbia?”
It's a
process that I think is a constructive, bridge-building, positive dialogue for
constructive, bridge-building, positive change. I recognize that it's a
challenging process. Standing here today as a member of government, I wish the
Chair of the committee and all of the members well as they embark upon what I'm
sure will be a challenging and at times difficult task.
It is an
important task. There are those who have said that this referendum process will
not help treaty making. There are those who have said that the referendum is
some tool to mask our opposition to treaty making. Nothing could be further from
the truth. Nonetheless, those who are members of the committee about to go out
and do this work will have a task that faces them, which is to listen to the
voices they hear but to do so in a way that ensures that the message is that
this government intends to respect and protect aboriginal rights, that it will
use the referendum as a tool for respecting and enhancing aboriginal rights,
that treaty making is not about eroding minority rights and that referendums are
not about eroding minority rights but rather are about protecting them. Those
are challenging messages.
Let me just
briefly deal with two or three opposition comments made. I don't mean the
members of the opposition, although I look forward to their remarks. Out there
in the larger public there have been people who have asked questions and raised
concerns about this referendum project. Some of them have said: “You cannot
conduct a referendum on this issue, because it is a referendum that will affect
minority rights.” Well, they have made that claim. This notice of motion is
drafted in a way that is intended to ensure that our commitment is kept. Our
commitment is that the referendum will honour and respect aboriginal rights, and
that commitment is expressed right in the words of the notice of motion itself.
People have asked that question. We have said: “What can we do to assure you
that the referendum will not be about undermining aboriginal rights?” We have
put that language right in the terms of reference.
[1455]
People have
said that referendums are divisive. Well, democracy is a marvellous thing, and
people can say anything they want in a society — not quite anything they want,
but people certainly have scope for free speech in our society in a way that's
virtually unmatched in any other democratic society in the world. I am sure that
people will say the most amazing things about treaty rights, negotiating
treaties, referendums and aboriginal rights.
What I say
to the people who are concerned about whether this referendum will be divisive
is to stand back for a moment, take a deep breath and join with us in the
journey to make the referendum a process that brings people together, which
unites British Columbians around a common goal of resolving the claims of
aboriginal people that have for too long remained unresolved. Join with us to
make the referendum something that is not divisive but, rather, that brings the
people of British Columbia together on this issue that is so urgently important
to all British Columbians.
There are
people who say we should not embark upon a project of a referendum because of
concerns that we will hear unpleasant voices, that rocks will be overturned and
that people will crawl out from under those rocks and say things that we do not
think should be said. Well, it is a democracy; people are entitled to say
things. And when you turn over rocks, the most surprising things will happen.
But let me say this: I believe that the people of British Columbia support
[ Page 816 ]
treaty making. I believe that the people of British Columbia want to bring
resolution to these long-outstanding questions and to achieve in our lifetime a
new era of reconciliation and respect between the first nations of British
Columbia and non-aboriginal British Columbians.
So what I
say to the people who are afraid of the contrary voices is: speak louder. Let
your voice be heard. Let your voice in support of treaty making that does
achieve certainty and finality and a measure of equality in our society be the
voice that is heard when those who have not made up their minds are trying to
make up their minds. Yes, there will be other voices. I would not wish that it
were any other way. I welcome all voices in this debate. And I say to the people
who want the treaty process to work: let your voice be the voice that prevails.
Mr.
Speaker, fear is a technique of the opposition to all change. This is
clearly something new. This is clearly a new experiment in a form of direct
democracy on a subject matter that is critically important to the future of
British Columbia. We should not allow our concern about what this process
might become to overwhelm our commitment to make this process what it can
become, which is a way — for the first time in a decade or, who knows, 127 or
128 years — of engaging the people of British Columbia in a dialogue about how
we can achieve reconciliation and respect with first nations, how we can make
treaties that will resolve longstanding grievances and build a better future for
the first nations of British Columbia and for all British Columbians — a
future that includes economic opportunity for all British Columbians, a future
that includes social justice for all British Columbians and a future that
includes workable, affordable, fair treaties for the first nations of British
Columbia.
So I say to
the members of the committee: good luck and Godspeed. I look forward to hearing
back from you on or before November 30.
MacPhail: I noted with interest that the Attorney General suggested that it
was fear that would impede this process and that no one should be afraid of this
process. I spent the weekend consulting around the province on the terms of
reference for this motion. It isn't fear that will impede this process; it's
suppression that will impede this process. I'm afraid to stand up today and
say that the terms of reference on the motion for conducting a referendum
suppress voices.
[1500]
The process
is loaded; the outcome has been determined. There is not a question about
whether the province should hold a referendum, but merely how a referendum
should be held, Mr. Speaker. It is the suppression of a legitimate debate about
whether or not a referendum should proceed that undermines the whole set of
words that were just articulated by the Attorney General. If there is nothing to
fear, if it is a process about treaty making, then why limit the terms of
reference about what questions can be asked in this process?
I have
spent the weekend, along with my colleague the member for Vancouver–Mount
Pleasant, surveying a wide range of British Columbians on this matter. Virtually
every single one of them had hoped that the government would not proceed down
the path that they have proceeded. I talked to business people, I talked to
church groups, I talked to first nations leaders and first nations people, I
talked to federal representatives, and I talked to just my constituents about
this referendum question on aboriginal rights. To a person, they did not
understand why the government was proceeding in this fashion, and they were
afraid about the turmoil that would result because of the very one-sided
approach, the loaded approach, that the government was taking to this matter.
You know,
the Attorney General can stand up and say that they have taken care of the
protection of the constitutionality of aboriginal rights. But in fact, it is not
this government that has any right to put that matter to a referendum. If it's a
constitutionally protected right, in this particular case the courts would
decide that. A government can't decide that. The courts have decided that issue
already. What they've said is that those constitutionally protected rights
should be negotiated. The Delgamuukw decision has decided that for us. The
Sparrow decision has decided that for us.
In fact,
the courts have very clearly said: "Negotiate. Make treaties through
negotiations." What this referendum question does…. It doesn't in any way
make it more open and more accountable and softer merely because they've
included that proviso. The government has no control over that proviso. What
they are doing is saying that the treaty-making process, the terms by which this
government will make treaties, will be subject to a referendum. That's what this
question is about.
There are
those who would say that this government has qualified it by entrenching the
constitutionally protected rights. That's ridiculous; it means nothing. It still
says that this referendum process of determining how the question will be asked
is still this government acting unilaterally — unilaterally — without
consultation from everyone who is affected, to determine by referendum the
treaty-making process. That's what this is about. Indeed, although the Attorney
General tries to stand up and say it's not about the majority determining
minority rights, it is about the majority determining minority rights.
The public
wants to have a say in the treaty-making process. The public should have a say
in the treaty-making process. Over the course of the last ten years there has
been consultation on the treaty-making process. There have been advisory
committees having a say and input on a regular basis. If this government wanted
to broaden that consultation, there have been offers about the way they could
broaden that consultation. The First Nations Summit itself offered, as recently
as ten days ago, a public process for input into the treaty-making process that
wasn't about them unilaterally asking through referendum, by a loaded process, a
question that already has a predetermined outcome.
[ Page 817 ]
People
around this province who don't want the turmoil and the chaos and the
uncertainty that this referendum process will bring about have said that there
is a way to have public consultation amongst everybody who's affected by this,
amongst everybody who has a right to make treaties, including first nations
people. Why is it that first nations and aboriginal people are completely
excluded from this process? Why is it that the question isn't being put forward
about whether or not to hold a referendum?
[1505]
Well, I can
hardly understand why, with the stubbornness that the Premier has pursued this
matter, when virtually no one has asked for a referendum on this.
colleague asked whether there was one business person who has come forward and
said, "Please have a referendum on the treaty-making process," and the
Attorney General failed to give her the answer of one single business person.
There are lots and lots of business people who have said over and over and over
again: "We need to get on with negotiating treaties. That will be the only
way we will bring certainty to our economy."
Rest
assured that our economic circumstances are not improving as we speak. They're
showing signs of trouble daily. Daily our economic circumstances in this
province are showing signs of trouble. This government is going to exacerbate
that trouble by throwing the province into a process of turmoil about whether or
not to bring certainty to the treaty-making process. Why not just get on with a
public process about how we improve the treaty-making process, not about whether
we should have a treaty-making process? That's what the referendum will be
about.
There are
people who have stood up, who are now advising the Premier…. There are people
who sit in the Premier's office each and every day, advising him on an hourly
basis, who have said, when they were part of a group called Voice…. I think it
was Citizens' Voice on Native Claims. Martyn Brown, who's now the chief of staff
to the Premier, when he headed up that organization, said: "Under no
circumstances should land be on the table in treaty making." Never once has
the Premier said: "Now that Martyn Brown is in my office, that is not my
view." Martyn Brown advises the Premier each and every day, and it was only
months ago that Martyn Brown was travelling the province saying: "Under no
circumstances should land be part of the treaty-making process."
Is that
what this is about? Is that what this process is about — to have a referendum
on whether land should be on the table? Is that what this referendum process is
about? I say yes, it is. I'd like any member of the Legislature to stand up and
tell me how that is going to bring economic certainty to British Columbia in
times of a softening economy and how that is possibly going to bring about good
treaty making and a quick resolution to it.
The Chair
of the committee, who was an opponent of the Nisga'a treaty, spoke publicly as
an opponent of the Nisga'a treaty, and I have not heard him renounce that
opposition to the Nisga'a treaty process. So I would suggest that the fix is in,
that the process is loaded and that the outcome has been determined. I would say
that under no circumstances would anybody in British Columbia assume that this
government has the right to unilaterally impose its view on the rest of British
Columbia.
I also know
that this government, when they were in opposition, treated select standing
committees with disdain when they thought that the process was not an open and
accountable one. The previous government had a committee on the MAI, and this
government, when it was in opposition, withdrew in protest from hearings around
the province and never, ever held themselves accountable. They didn't set up any
alternate process. They just withdrew in a petulant way from the select standing
committee.
[1510]
Well, I can
tell you something. The New Democrat opposition will set up an alternate
process. We will be setting up an alternate process that includes everybody in
this province, which will hold hearings around the province that give the public
the right to what it is that they desire. The public deserves and wants a say in
the treaty-making process, though. But they don't think a unilateral, narrow
referendum question that has already been predetermined and that's a loaded
process is the way to go.
They don't
think that's the way to go, so we will not be participating in the select
standing committee because of the fact that (1) it's a loaded process, and
(2) the outcome has already been predetermined. The Premier has said as recently as
days ago that he will proceed on the basis of a referendum outcome that will
permit only a question that will lead to, "Yes, there has to be a
referendum," and nothing else. He won't allow for any discussion about
whether a referendum is the right way to determine how to improve our
treaty-making process.
The member
for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant and I will be setting up public consultations as
an alternate to this select standing committee, and we will be giving all
British Columbians a say in the treaty-making process that doesn't have a
predetermined outcome, that doesn't have a loaded process in place. For that
reason, we will not be supporting this motion.
Mr.
Speaker: You've heard the motion, No. 5 on the order paper.
Hon. G.
Plant: I want to express my gratitude for the remarks made and to say with
respect to the Leader of the Opposition that if she wants to go out and conduct
her own process to consult with British Columbians, I hope she will share with
us their views. I hope that in the fullness of time, she'll be able to stand
here and support treaty making and support public consultation.
If she
hears from British Columbians on the way in which they think the position of the
province should be put forward at the treaty table, then I certainly hope
[ Page 818 ]
she'll share that with me. We did campaign on a promise to the people of
British Columbia that we would give them a say on treaty making, on the
principles that should guide treaty making through a one-time, provincewide
referendum.
It's a
promise we made to the people of British Columbia. We said: "If you elect
us, this is what we will do." Having been elected, we intend to keep that
promise not just because we were elected, but because it's a good promise. It's
a good commitment to make to say to the people of British Columbia: "Why
don't you join in with us in treaty making?"
You know,
the referendum cannot be about infringing aboriginal rights and title. It will
not be about infringing or undermining aboriginal rights and title. It is the
courts that determine the scope of aboriginal rights and title, not us sitting
here in this Legislature or even the citizens expressing their wishes through a
referendum.
We want to
make sure people understand that our commitment is to respect and protect
aboriginal rights and title, and that is why those words are in the Notice of
Motions. Having made just one or two comments on some of the remarks made by the
opposition leader, I hope all members of the House will join in support of
Motion 5.
[1515]
Motion 5
approved on the following division:
YEAS
— 74
Falcon
Coell
Hogg
L. Reid
Halsey-Brandt
Hawkins
Whittred
Cheema
Hansen
J. Reid
Bruce
Santori
van Dongen
Barisoff
Nettleton
Roddick
Wilson
Masi
Lee
Thorpe
Hagen
Murray
Plant
Campbell
Collins
Bond
de Jong
Nebbeling
Stephens
Abbott
Coleman
Weisbeck
Chong
Penner
Jarvis
Anderson
Orr
Harris
Nuraney
Brenzinger
Belsey
Bell
Long
Chutter
Mayencourt
Trumper
Johnston
Bennett
R. Stewart
Hayer
Christensen
Krueger
McMahon
Bray
Les
Locke
Nijjar
Bhullar
Wong
Bloy
Suffredine
MacKay
Cobb
K. Stewart
Visser
Lekstrom
Brice
Sultan
Hamilton
Sahota
Hawes
Kerr
Manhas
Hunter
NAYS — 2
MacPhail
Kwan
[1520]
TERM OF OFFICE
FOR ACTING CHILD, YOUTH AND
FAMILY ADVOCATE
Hon. G.
Plant: I call Motion 2 standing in my name on the order paper. For the
information of members who don't have it in hand, I will remind them and you
that Motion 2 is:
[Be it
resolved that the Legislative Assembly recommend to the Lieutenant Governor
pursuant to
section 14 (2) (
c) of the Child, Youth and Family Advocacy
Act (as amended by Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act, 2001) that the
end of the term of the appointment of the Acting Child, Youth and Family
Advocate made the 19th day of May, 2001, be 12 months after the date of the said
appointment.]
MacPhail: Just for the record, Mr. Speaker, we had a debate around this on a
miscellaneous statutes bill where the opposition made its views known in terms
of the advice to the Attorney General on how to proceed properly with making
sure that the office of the child and youth advocate remain independent and that
that role be filled as quickly as possible. I would just note for the record
that those comments can be found in Hansard .
Motion
approved.
Hon. G.
Collins: I call Committee of Supply. For the members' information, we will
be discussing the estimates of the office of the Premier.
The House
in Committee of Supply B; J. Weisbeck in the chair.
The
committee met at 3:24 p.m.
ESTIMATES: OFFICE OF THE PREMIER
(continued)
On vote
9: ministry operations, $20,373,000 (continued).
J. Kwan:
I'm going to start questions around the core review process. Could the Premier
please explain what he has in mind with respect to the core review?
[1525]
Hon. G.
Campbell: We expect the core review to deal with some significant issues
with regard to government. We want to be sure the government is doing the right
things. Therefore, the first question we ask in the core review is: what should
government be doing? If government should be doing a function, how is it doing
it? Are there better ways of doing it so taxpayers get more effective use of
their tax dollars in delivering services that they demand?
The core
review will include all services of government and the major Crown corporations.
It will also include a review of the 790 agencies, boards and com
[ Page 819 ]
missions that are currently in place. Again, rather than simply taking for
granted that the structures of government in the past have worked, we're going
to examine them and ask fundamental questions about them. Hopefully, this will
allow us to move forward in a way that will allow us to protect health care,
public education, public transportation, public safety — some of the things
that are of critical importance to the people of this province.
At the end
of the day, the core review process — and this is important, I think — is
not about saving dollars or not saving dollars. It's about asking ourselves
fundamental questions about how government works, what government should do and
how best to deliver those government services.
J. Kwan:
The cut of one-third guideline. Where did that come from?
Hon. G.
Campbell: I apologize; I didn't hear the question.
J. Kwan:
We understand that there is a projection of cutting
the budgets by about one-third. I'm asking the Premier who came up with that, and where did those
guidelines come from?
Hon. G.
Campbell: There are no specifications in the core services review process
whatsoever about the cutting of budgets.
J. Kwan:
What about the cutting of regulations by one-third?
Hon. G.
Campbell: The government did, in the election, undertake to reduce by
one-third all government regulation of business. We intend to do that by
eliminating thoughtless, duplicated, expensive regulations that don't deliver
the results that people are expecting.
J. Kwan:
This directive of cutting the regulations by one-third seems to go directly
counter to the assumption that the core review is an open process. So how does
the minister square those two separate assumptions? One is that the core review
will proceed on its own, and then a determination will be made as to what should
be cut or what should be done. On the other hand, there already is a directive
that says one-third of the regulations would be cut. Therefore, there's already
contradiction in the directives that have been given on the core review. How
does the Premier square those two contradictions?
Hon. G.
Campbell: First, there's no contradiction. The core services review is about
what government does. It asks some fundamental questions, as the member knows.
What are we doing? Why are we doing it? How are we doing it? Can we do it
better? How will we measure whether the services we want to provide are being
provided properly or not? Does it meet some fundamental tests? Is it in the
public interest? Is it affordable? Is it effective? Is the government the best
way to provide those services? Those are questions we're asking, because without
asking those questions, we don't know where we should be focusing our resources.
The issue
of eliminating one-third of the regulations for business is actually quite a bit
different. It's about how we accomplish the goals that we've set for ourselves
as government. There is no question that the extent of regulation that's imposed
across business and the private sector economy in this province is unprecedented
in the country. We actually have regulations that tell autobody repair shops
that they're supposed to be dusting their blinds at a particular time in a
particular way. I see no way that that actually contributes to better autobody
repairs.
What we're
saying, first, is that the core review is about what government's doing, how we
do it. It asks a question which I think we should always be asking ourselves:
can we do it better? Can we give taxpayers better value for their dollar? Can we
measure what we're undertaking to do so that taxpayers can hold us to account
for what we're doing?
That's what
the core services review is about. The deregulation undertakings that we've made
have to do with regulation imposed on business. Again, one is about what we're
doing; another is about how we might do it.
J. Kwan:
The core review process. Would the review be conducted by a coordinated
central body established by government, or would it be conducted by each of the
individual ministries?
[1530]
Hon. G.
Campbell: Each ministry and each Crown corporation is undertaking its own
core review. That then comes forward to the core services review committee. That
is reviewed so that we are looking not just from the perspective of individual
ministries but from the overall objectives of government. At the end of the day,
it is the government that undertakes these activities and is held to account for
them.
J. Kwan:
Will the Premier himself be making final determination of what services or
programs are kept or eliminated?
Hon. G.
Campbell: Again, ministries initiate a core review on my direction. This is
not a one-person government. The Premier is a member of cabinet. Ministries
prepare their information, and it goes to the core services review task force.
Those recommendations go to the cabinet, and cabinet makes decisions.
J. Kwan:
Will the public know, and how will the public know, what programs or initiatives
are eliminated?
Hon. G.
Campbell: Certainly the public will know the results of the discussions.
First of all, the letters that have gone out on the core review
are available to the public through the Internet, on the Web. Secondly, there
will be presentations from minis
[ Page 820 ]
ters to open cabinet meetings with regard to some of the things that they've
found and the policy discussions that we've had. Thirdly, we will have an
opportunity for review of specific legislative changes right here in this
Legislature, which is an open public body, and we will then make decisions.
Indeed,
compared to previous governments of any political persuasion, this is one of the
most open and accountable decision-making processes that's ever been established
in British Columbia.
J. Kwan:
Will the Premier or the ministers be going out to the community to consult with
the community on values and contributions of programs and initiatives? Will that
be a public process whereby individual ministers, with the list of programs that
they're responsible for, will be going out to community organizations and to the
public to seek their advice and consultation?
Hon. G.
Campbell: Ministers certainly are inviting feedback from communities. They
will not necessarily be going out to communities. They will be dealing with
their ministries, with their core services review.
As I've
said, there are a number of ways that individuals, agencies and those involved
in government services can include themselves in this. One is through the Web.
Another is directly through their program providers. All of those things are
going to be part of the core services review. Open cabinet meetings will give
ministers a chance to lay out some of the issues that they have in front of
them.
Again, I
invite all members of the public — and I invite the opposition, the member for
Vancouver–Mount Pleasant and the member for Vancouver-Hastings — to submit
their suggestions for issues that they think should be dealt with in the core
review.
The core
services review is about deciding some fundamental things. What should
government be doing? If government should be doing something, how should it be
done? Are we getting the most effective response for the tax dollars that are
invested? How should we measure what we are doing? How should we measure
whether we are being successful or not? Too many programs have been brought in
by governments in the past which have no accountability, no measures in them,
and in fact the demand for results simply isn't there.
To the
member opposite: we have been very clear that we think we have to restructure
government so that it's open, accountable and resource-driven. The core services
review is a first step in that restructuring.
J. Kwan:
In Vancouver–Mount Pleasant, as an example, many of my constituents do not
have access to a website or to the Internet. They don't have the access to
travel to attend cabinet meetings. Nonetheless, I'm sure they do have a lot of
thoughts and opinions with respect to the core review process. They, too, would
like to contribute to the process.
The reason
I ask whether or not the ministers will be travelling the province is that I
think going out to the communities and talking to people around the review is of
utmost importance to ensure maximum participation with the various barriers that
people face.
The other
aspect is the language barrier. Many people have different languages and may
have difficulty with the language. How do they participate in the process of
ensuring that their voice is also heard through this exercise of the government?
[1535]
So could
the Premier please give us some assurance of addressing those areas for
individuals not just in my constituency but throughout British Columbia, where
access is a barrier in terms of providing information? Certainly, I hope that
the ministers would be undertaking a consultative process to ensure that there
is maximum input from British Columbians.
Hon. G.
Campbell: We will certainly try and make sure that British Columbians both
are aware of the undertakings that we've made and are included in the
discussions. Indeed, there are many constituencies that will be concerned about
this. I invite the member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant to participate in a
constructive and positive way with regard to this. I am sure that she hears from
her constituents. I am glad to hear from her. She can do that as a fundamental
role as an MLA. That's what I'm encouraging every MLA in this House to do: make
sure that their constituency's voices and concerns are heard as we go through
this important process.
There are
issues with regard to language, etc. Again, I am glad to hear from people with
regard to those. The government, as the member opposite knows, works to try and
make sure that people are communicated with in a broad range of languages. We'll
continue to do that.
J. Kwan:
My question to the Premier is: how does he propose to do that? I understand he
says: "Well, MLAs will undertake to do that work." No doubt. However,
this is the core review initiated by the Premier, by his government, and I think
the Premier and his government have the responsibility of ensuring that that
consultation process is in place and not just simply saying: "MLAs will do
that work." Clearly, there is a process that he's setting in place for the
review. In that review he has to be mindful of issues around barriers, whether
they be language or otherwise. How does he ensure that in the process he's
putting in place, those barriers are taken down?
Hon. G.
Campbell: I know this may be a surprise to the member opposite, but I
actually believe that MLAs are excellent spokespeople for their constituencies.
I expect them all to be spokespeople, and unlike previous governments, I expect
them all to contribute. So I welcome the contribution of the member for
Vancouver–Mount Pleasant or the member for Vancouver-Hastings as I would from
the members from all other constituencies in the province.
J. Kwan:
Whether the Premier is just trying to avoid the question or trying to evade the
question….
[ Page 821 ]
The question is very specific around the government's plan, in the core
review process, for ensuring that barriers are taken down for members of the
public, for British Columbians, to participate in and provide input into this
review. I have mentioned some of the barriers that exist for people and that I
think it is vital for British Columbians to put forward their own voice directly
to government, to the core review process. So I'm asking the Premier: will he
commit today to ensure and direct that each of his ministers will go out to the
community and have public hearings and also have materials that are multilingual
so that the public can indeed participate to its fullest in this core review
process?
Hon. G.
Campbell: My commitment to the people of British Columbia and to the member
opposite is that we will do what we can to make sure that people have the
opportunity to include themselves in this process. We have already undertaken a
far more aggressive consultative process than anything that was ever imagined by
the previous government or governments prior to that government. So we will
continue to do that, but we will also continue to move forward with the core
services review.
I don't
want any illusions here. The damage that was done over the last decade is
significant. The damage that was done to services for people who are in need was
significant; the damages that were done to the services that that member's
constituency counts on were significant. We intend to act quickly. We intend to
act by including people, by talking to people, by informing people. We intend to
make sure the public understands what we're doing and why we're doing it, and we
accept the fact that the public will hold us to account for the actions and the
decisions that we make.
J. Kwan:
Those words all sound very nice, but the question is this: will the Premier
commit to public hearings and also ensure access to language for the information
of members of the public to ensure maximum participation in the core review
process?
Hon. G.
Campbell: We are ensuring maximum participation.
J. Kwan:
Do I take that to mean that the Premier is committing to public hearings and to
ensuring that there is multi-language access to the core review process?
[1540]
Hon. G.
Campbell: I have answered that question. We're ensuring maximum
participation as we move forward in the core review process.
J. Kwan:
I would beg to differ with the Premier. He has not answered the question. My
question is very simple: will there be…? Let me just break them down one by
one. Let me ask the first question. Will there be translation into different
languages of the core review documents and information flowing from the
government so that response could also be solicited from people who speak
different languages?
This is the
new era, I guess, because when asked a specific question on the issue of
accountability and on the question of openness, the Premier simply refuses to
answer. Perhaps he views the multicultural community throughout British Columbia
as not a significant component in terms of their participation in the core
review process. I would beg to differ with that perspective. They have a vast
wealth of knowledge and information with which I know that they would want to
participate in this process, but there's no assurance whatsoever from this
government in this new era that there is that maximum participation. I think
that's just a shame, because what I worry about is that this whole exercise is
just a public relations exercise — likewise for the people who are faced with
multiple barriers in terms of their participation, whether it be poverty,
whether it be literacy questions or whether it be access, even, by way of
transportation.
I know that
the government relies on the website, in terms of access for people to
participate. I know that a lot of people don't have access to websites. Not
everybody has a couple of thousand dollars' worth of computer equipment in their
home, and not everybody necessarily even knows how to work with a computer. I
know constituents of mine who have trouble even sustaining a telephone, let
alone advanced technology in that way. Yet there's no commitment whatsoever
under this new era of government — this supposedly open era of government —
to ensure that there is that kind of participation from all walks of life, not
just from Howe Street but also from Main Street as an example, in terms of their
participation.
I think
that's a shame. The Premier needs to get up to give that reassurance.
That's what he promised during the election. He promised he would ensure that
all British Columbians will have access to this government, and he has shown no
commitment today. Why won't he get up and commit today, to simply say:
"Yes, there will be multilingual access. Yes, there will be barriers taken
down. And yes, the minister will have public hearings and go out and travel
throughout the province, wherever people are. They will be there to talk to them
and solicit and consult with them"? Why doesn't he just simply get up, do
that and make that commitment, and therefore ensure that it is indeed an open,
transparent and accountable process?
Will there
be any appeal process from those members of the public who disagree or who may
be hurt by a proposed cut through the core review exercise?
Hon. G.
Campbell: As I mentioned to the member, the core review exercise is being
initiated by ministries. Ministers will bring those forward to the core review
task force. That task force will submit its recommendations to the cabinet.
Cabinet will make appropriate decisions. Where there are legislative changes
that are required, obviously, the Legislature will review those in some detail
and pass judgment on them.
There is no
one who suggests that the core review is not a fundamental program for
government. We have
[ Page 822 ]
said that we will follow the multicultural policies of the past. We have said
that MLAs from all constituencies are invited to be part of this. We have said
that it is available on the website. I believe that we will be including far
more British Columbians than have been included in these processes in the past.
We will be open and accountable for the decisions that we make.
MacPhail: I've tried to get a very quick briefing from my colleague, so
forgive me if the Premier has already answered some of these questions. It's
fine for him to just tell me that he has already answered it.
[1545]
One of the
things that I think we have to be careful of in the core review process is an
examination of how changes to programs affect different parts of society. My
colleague has mentioned one: the multicultural community. I think there's an
acceptance by British Columbians that not everybody uses all of the public
services in the same way. Seniors use public services in a different way than
young people use public services. There are public services that affect women
disproportionately, and there are public services that affect people going to
school, mainly young people, in a different way. Has the Premier's core services
review committee…? We've seen the questions that need to be asked, but I note
the absence of a particular lens being put over each and every service — like
a lens about how this affects women. How does this affect seniors? How does it
affect youth? Is that part of the core services review?
Hon. G.
Campbell: I think all members of government and all MLAs and the members
opposite, as well, are invited to be part of this so we see the different lenses
that different people put on from different walks of life and different parts of
the province. The reason the ministers are encouraging participation from
service providers is so that they hear that broad range of inputs. The reason we
make this open and available through the website is so that we see an even
larger number of reviews, ideas and suggestions for improvement from the people
of British Columbia.
I think
there is a multiplicity of lenses, to use the member's term, that are available.
That's why we encourage both the member for Vancouver-Hastings and the member
for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant to participate in this.
MacPhail: It's my understanding that the core services review is ongoing.
It's already started. I was wondering whether the Premier could actually say,
given the work that's been done to date, whether any of those specific lenses
have been applied.
Hon. G.
Campbell: The first lens we use in terms of the core services review is
exactly the lens the member opposite suggested: should government be doing this?
Why is government doing it? Indeed, in the discussions that have taken place,
there are many people that come with different opinions. That's the reason you
have a task force committee for review. That's the reason you send the
ministries out to deal with their client groups.
It seems to
me the critical thing here is to recognize that this is a way of us moving
forward and making sure the critical services to people in this province are
provided in a thoughtful and cost-effective way.
MacPhail: I know the government repealed the regulatory impact statement
legislation, the Regulatory Impact Statement Act. That was a lens that required
everything to be reviewed in the context of the impact it would have on the
economy. But it also had a practitioner's lens incorporated in it as well. What
replaces that in terms of the core services review?
Hon. G.
Campbell: There are a number of things that replace it. The first thing that
replaces it is the Members of the Legislative Assembly. You know, I understand
that this is a change, but I'm counting on the Members of the Legislative
Assembly to bring forward the voices from their communities, the great disparity
and diversity of voices in their communities, to help us as we move through this
critical question.
The
critical issue under core services review is: what are the most important things
for us to do? And as we decide what's most important, then what is the most
effective way for us to do them? There are a number of tests. They're available
for the public; they're available for the members opposite. I think it's very
important…. The members opposite should understand this: we have some major
challenges confronting us in the province. How we provide critical public
services is one of them, and I think that's what is fundamental about the core
services review.
MacPhail: I had started a line of questioning along with my colleague a few
days ago about just how the Premier will form his decisions based on the
multitude of committees that he had established, one of which is core services
review. Just today we established another legislative committee that's going to
be performing a budget consultation. It's going to be travelling the province. I
think it has to report by November 15, and it will be looking at getting public
input on the budget.
[1550]
It will be
separate and apart from a core services review. I expect that the Premier may be
surprised at the different points of view brought forward by the public — not
surprised because the public is fickle; they're not fickle at all. But the
public expects that governments can provide tax cuts, that they can provide
increases in funding for education and health, that they can provide not only
tuition fee freezes but also reductions in tuition. They expect governments to
do that. So I expect that in the budget consultation, the Premier will get a
series of pieces of advice from the public on how he should spend, because
that's certainly been the experience of every other public budget consultation
which has happened over the course of the last eight or nine years.
Of course,
we also know from a series of estimates that both my colleague and I sat on the
opposite side of the House on, there was question after question after
[ Page 823 ]
question from the now government, then-opposition, about how we could spend
more. On the other hand, you have your core services review, which certainly
seems to indicate — I may be misreading it — that there will be some cuts. I
know the Premier has said as recently as a few minutes ago that there won't be
cuts, but I predict there will be some services that the core services review
comes up with where they will recommend to the government that they not proceed.
Once again, this is along the same theme. I am really interested to know how the
Premier will make the decision in the face of competing and contradictory advice
from his various reviews.
Hon. G.
Campbell: First of all, I thank the member opposite. I think she's actually
helped describe exactly why you have committees that go out and talk with the
public.
I don't
think there's anyone in British Columbia who doesn't recognize that there are
huge demands put upon the public purse. There's also no one in British Columbia
who doesn't recognize that people in our province have worked a lot harder and
fallen behind. Our economy has fallen behind the rest of the country. Part of
the task we have as we go out — whether we're having the health committee go
out and work on the issues that people deal with in health, how we manage that
system and how we make it sustainable; whether it's the finance committee going
out to hear what people's ideas are on the budget…. I don't find any of those
things outside the realm of the core review.
How do we
make decisions under the core services review? I have answered this three or
four times now. I don't know how I can answer it differently, hon. Chair, but
let me say: the ministers are going out. They're part of this review. They're
dealing with their client groups. They come forward to the core review task
force. The task force reviews that, asks a number of questions and makes
recommendations to the cabinet. The cabinet makes decisions. This is not a
one-man government, as maybe some members here are used to from other times.
This is a time when we use not just the cabinet but members of the Legislature
as we make decisions. We'll make those decisions openly. We will have
presentations to open cabinet. As we make those decisions — and many of them
will be difficult; I don't think we should pretend they won't be difficult
decisions — we will then be held to account by the public for the decisions
that we make.
MacPhail: Let me offer something to the Premier. It wasn't a trick question.
When the Premier goes out and consults widely on a series of issues that have
competing interests, the Premier maybe could give comfort to the public and say:
"I understand that I'm asking competing questions here, but let me tell
you, public, where I'm going on certain matters."
For
instance, the Premier was willing to run a $1.5 billion deficit in order to give
a tax cut to corporations and the wealthiest, which wasn't discussed during the
election. The Premier was willing to run a $1.5 billion deficit. Perhaps the
Premier could give comfort to the competing questions by saying: "Listen,
public. On the matter of protecting and enhancing spending in health and
education, I'm willing to run a deficit." Has he thought about doing that?
Hon. G.
Campbell: We have been very clear with the public on what we're going to do.
What we're going to do is restore our economy, encourage private sector
investment and say to individual British Columbians: "When you work hard,
you can get ahead. You can provide better for your families." As we build
that private sector economy, we are going to regenerate the resources we need to
protect our critical public services.
[1555]
We also
said during the election that we were going to review our public services.
That's part of what the core services review is about: what are we doing? Why
are we doing it? How should we do it? How do you measure results? All of those
things, to be candid, hon. Chair, should have been done years ago. They haven't
been. They're being done by this government, because we told the people of
British Columbia we would do it.
MacPhail: Let me try the question again. The Premier repealed legislation
that would have required a reduced deficit every year, to be balanced in the
year 2004-05. In fact, the Premier brought in legislation that didn't require
any such accountability in terms of fiscal responsibility. In fact, a deficit
can be run and can be increased each and every year until it actually has to be
balanced in the year 2004-05.
Given that
the Premier has lessened fiscal accountability in terms of reducing the
deficit, can the Premier offer assurances that a deficit will be considered to
protect health and education as he does the core services review? That would
make the budget consultation process a little easier.
Hon. G.
Campbell: What this government has done is exactly what it said it would do.
We have committed to maintaining health care and education budgets. One of the
reasons that we did not agree with the previous government's
schedule is that we
had no confidence in their numbers. It turned out that we were right.
We are
committed, as we have said to the people of British Columbia, to maintaining
health and education budgets and to having a balanced budget by the third
complete budget. We intend to focus our resources and our energy on making sure
that health care and education are provided to British Columbians as the two
most critical public services that this province provides. We recognize that
creates a number of significant issues for us. We intend to work with British
Columbians on those as we move through the months ahead.
MacPhail: If we're actually going to have a discussion that's helpful to the
public, the Premier has to be straightforward. The '99-2000 books closed out,
with approval from all of those who get to approve, at a surplus of $40 million.
The books for the province for
[ Page 824 ]
the year 2000-01 closed out with a $1.5 billion surplus, for those who have
the right to make these decisions separate and apart from the previous
government. So that's two surpluses. That's absolutely two surpluses.
I'm not
sure what it was about the books that the Premier didn't trust. Was it that he
thought the surplus was going to be less? Certainly the revenue forecasts that
were made, which the government challenged when it was in opposition, have met
the test of review, his own review. If it's the rate at which future expenditure
occurs, that's exactly what we're talking about right now. There were decisions
made by previous governments to ensure that expenditure for health and education
would continue and that they wouldn't be overtaken by tax cuts.
I'd like to
know what it is that the Premier mistrusts about the books. Is it the largest
surplus that he inherited and then turned into the second-largest deficit by
giving away a tax cut? There were choices that were made, and the choices that
were made in the previous budget were to protect and enhance health and
education spending. That's what I'm trying to address here.
The
Minister of Finance stood up and said that all health and education spending
increases would be tied to growth in the economy. We see today, much to my
chagrin…. I hope desperately that the changing forecasts are reversed. We will
not, as opposition, stand up each and every day, like the now government did,
and bring about a doom-and-gloom scenario that in some ways becomes
self-fulfilling, with an economy that rests a lot on psychology. The member for
Vancouver–Mount Pleasant and I want the economy to work.
We see the
headlines in the papers today, and for the last several weeks, about how there's
a reversal in economic growth with our trading partners. What I know is that
there's a way that a government can choose to deal with an economic downturn,
whether that be the softwood lumber dispute or a softening of the economy with
our trading partners — which is exactly what happened during the mid-nineties,
'96, '97 and '98. There's a way that governments can deal with that. That cycle
is repeating itself now, and all I want to know is: what happens to health and
education spending and the pressures in health and education spending if the
economy softens beyond the predictions of this government?
[1600]
Hon. G.
Campbell: First, let me go back to the core review. The core review is not
about cuts of any sort. It is about asking ourselves what it is that the
government is doing, what it is that the government should do and how it is that
we should do it so we get the best benefits and the best results for the
taxpayer. That's what the core review is about.
The member
opposite will know that our government will rise and fall on our financial
management, just as her government rose and fell on its financial management. I
have no trepidation whatsoever in saying that we are on the right track. We are
protecting health care, and we are protecting education. We're going to restore
this economy so people have a sense of hope and prosperity in this province
again.
J. Kwan:
To date, under the core review process, what programs have been cut by the
government, and what programs, if any, have been increased by the government?
Hon. G.
Campbell: The core services review has just commenced. We have had two or
three ministries that have come and made an initial presentation. No programs
have been cut.
J. Kwan:
We saw the minibudget that was introduced earlier, and we know from that process
that a number of programs have been cut. The child care program, as an example,
has been reduced. We know that on the environmental front — on climate change,
on the major issue around air quality, on the question as it relates to air
quality — programs have been eliminated.
We know
that there are other initiatives and programs with the Ministry of Community,
Aboriginal and Women's Services, particularly in the area of community services
and volunteer services, that have been cut. There are a lot more. The Buy B.C.,
B.C. Sharing, program was initially eliminated. Then the government restored it
for one year, and that program is now also subject to the core review.
We know
there have been a number of programs that have been eliminated. Therefore, what
others are there? When some of the programs have been eliminated, it is not
apparent to the public.
Hon. G.
Campbell: The member opposite makes my point. I did not say that no programs
had been cut by government. There obviously have been. That is part of the
budget review process. It will continue to be part of the budget review process.
The core services review is not part of the budget review process.
J. Kwan:
So there's the budget review process, and there's a core review process. The
budget review process is aimed at cutting programs. The core review process, so
far, is termed not to cut programs, although I fear that it would be another
euphemism in terms of the process of eliminating and cutting programs.
What other
processes are there in terms of initiatives and programs that would be
considered by this government for elimination — the Progress Board? In terms
of that separate process, would that be yet another process in terms of
reviewing programs and to look at how programs that are delivered to British
Columbians would be eliminated?
Hon. G.
Campbell: There are a number of processes at work in any government, and I
am sure the member opposite as a former member of cabinet would recognize this.
The core review process is about asking a series of questions, all of which I
have identified and the member can make herself acquainted with through the
website. We would be glad to send her any infor
[ Page 825 ]
mation that she would require, but I'm sure she has access to the website.
The budget
management process is a different process, and I will resist the temptation to
respond the way I could. Let me simply say that the budget management process is
about properly managing the resources of the people of British Columbia so they
get the services they deserve and the results they deserve.
[1605]
We know the
previous government had virtually no budget management process. If they did, we
wouldn't have seen some of the disasters we saw under the previous government.
The Progress Board we talked about the other day. It's completely different. The
Progress Board is to establish an outside board that can set some standards for
British Columbia to meet, so we know what our competitors are doing. We can see
what's happening with regard to economic activity, social activity, social
benchmarks, environmental benchmarks. Those should be
set up outside of government so that that board can hold us to account. That's
what we've done. It is a totally independent board. It will set standards; it
will hold us to account for them.
We see that
as part of the tools to help meet the challenges the member for
Vancouver-Hastings pointed out to us — that there are many conflicting demands
on government, on government's resources. Our task as a government is to balance
those demands and make the best choices that we can — and we recognize that
making these decisions is about making choices — and to be held to account for
those choices. At the end of the day, what we want to ensure is that the people
of British Columbia are getting the services they need and they deserve.
MacPhail: We already see competing pressures daily on the government. You
know, perhaps just the pressure of the decision around leaky condos may have a
fiscal pressure on the government. It may not, but it may. So I'm just wondering
— and it really is practical detail that we're asking for here…. The Premier
is in the middle of the core services review. There were some commitments, which
various communities may have strongly held views about, that communities have
asked for, particularly.
I note with
interest one commitment that affects my community but also affects communities
that are now held by private members from the government, and that's the PNE. I
know that the PNE has been to the core services review. I'm wondering if the
Premier could just tell us how it works in terms of the review. Did the
community of Surrey participate in the core services review of the PNE? The
board members were fired just last week, so I assume the government is now
getting input solely from the bureaucrats, the officials, the public service
officials that they appointed. What's the input that would go forward on the
core services review to determine the future of the PNE?
Hon. G.
Campbell: It's ironic that the member opposite raises the PNE, because I
remember as the mayor of Vancouver that when she was running for office, she
came and committed that she was going to make it a park very quickly. We're now
11 years later, and it's still not a park.
What we've
done with the PNE is exactly what we said we'd do. The minister now has a group
of people on an interim board. The minister will hand to it the PNE and its
future. He will handle it, I'm sure, in talking to people from Surrey as well as
talking to people from Vancouver.
MacPhail: I don't know whether or not that was a cheap shot that the Premier
took. I'll assume it wasn't a cheap shot. I also remember my three-year-old son,
on that day, lobbying the then mayor of Vancouver to keep Playland there. He
took my son's advice under advisement as well.
The fact of
the matter is that there's been much public input into the PNE by the community
in which I live, by the PNE board that was fired — it had community reps on it
— by the city councillors of Vancouver and by the park board but also by the
community of Surrey. That's new development. All of that discussion has taken
place. The municipality of Surrey has done a lot of hard work on the future of
the PNE. I'm just wondering whether any.… And maybe MLAs from Surrey, if
they're here, could stand up and perhaps contribute on behalf of the Premier.
But what input did the city of Surrey have in the core services review of the
PNE?
Hon. G.
Campbell: I just answered that question. The board was changed. The minister
responsible will be dealing with the municipality of Surrey as well as the
municipality of Vancouver.
MacPhail: But the core services review has already taken place for the PNE.
All I'm wondering is…. The MLAs can stand up and say it themselves. The
Premier said the MLAs would have input. It was them who would guide the core
services review process. Did the MLAs from Surrey appear before the core
services review over the issue of the future of the PNE?
[1610]
Hon. G.
Campbell: Just so the member is clear with what I said, I said that any
Member of the Legislative Assembly is welcome to have input into this process.
The minister is now in the midst of the process. We have an interim board for
the PNE; that is correct. That interim board will be carrying out the review
process. It is not complete. Both municipalities will be consulted with, as
will, I'm sure, the Minister of Agriculture and others that are interested in
this issue.
MacPhail: I was actually trying to understand. I guess I can go ask the MLAs
directly myself whether they appeared before the core services review on the
PNE. I certainly have a great deal of interest on behalf of my community. I know
the agricultural community has a great deal of interest. I met with them last
week, and they're very nervous about the actions that were taken by firing the
board and very nervous about the
[ Page 826 ]
future of the PNE as well. All I'm trying to do is find out some avenue for
input through the core services review from the people who are worried about the
future of the PNE.
I think my
colleague has some questions on core services.
J. Kwan:
On the issue around the core services review, previous to today I asked the
Premier the time lines for the core services review. Is he anticipating that the
time line will still be maintained? What kind of time line is he anticipating?
Hon. G.
Campbell: The first phase of the core services review will be complete by
the end of October.
J. Kwan:
How many phases are there?
Hon. G.
Campbell: There will be four phases.
J. Kwan:
What's the time line for each of the respective phases?
Hon. G.
Campbell: Different phases obviously have different time requirements. We'll
be glad to get the details of that to the member opposite and all members of the
House.
J. Kwan:
When does the Premier expect the fourth phase to be completed?
Hon. G.
Campbell: I would expect that all phases of the core services review will be
complete by May 17, 2005.
J. Kwan:
So the core review would b